Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Spelling rules versus the films title - again

It looks like the pedantic devotion to WikiP's spelling rules (I am thinking of the One Flew O(o)ver the Cuckoo's Nest case from several months ago) have effected a films page again. The Trey Parker/Matt Stone film BASEketball has been moved to Baseketball. The films credits, posters etc. use the upper case lettering for BASE. A search on the web does turn up a few instances where the "ase" are lower case but not many. I do know that when the film shows up on my cable TV the use the uppercase lettering in all of the information about its air times. As with the instance above (FUBAR) I think that this should probably be moved back. However if everyone else is okay with the move to lower case then I won't make a fuss about it. Just thought that I would get the filmprojects input. MarnetteD | Talk 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the move, and as it is always credited as BASEketball then this should be the title. I didn't want to move it and get in to all that, but considering the page has been BASEketball for years I would say that the uppercase spelling is the settled consensus. As it stands at the moment it would need to be an admin move, but I would support keeping the page as BASEketball, consensus for the move should have been gained first. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. BASEketball is the proper title and should be used for the article heading. I think it would be certainly okay for you to be bold and return it to its original status, make baseketball the redirect, then leave a note on the discussion page. You should also drop a quick note to the editor who made the new move and refer him to the discussion page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As it stands that would be a copy and paste move, and would lose the history, so an admin move is better. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire title is formatted using capital letters, just that the "BASE" is a larger text size than the "KETBALL". I do not see how you can infer from this that "Base" should be capitalised, whereas "ketball" should not. The name of the film is Baseketball. Simple. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, use of BASEketball [eg: http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie980730-3,0,6137214.story] vs Baseketball [eg: http://movies.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A04E7D71238F932A05754C0A96E958260] is inconsistent, and as per WP:MOSTM we should "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". Nouse4aname (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In most promotional material (and I'm thinking back to when the film was out and any interviews Parker/Stone have since done) it is styled as BASEketball. As it stands there was no consensus for the move, a little discussion beforehand would have been nice, rather than after the fact. And without getting in to the bag of snakes that is whether or not the imdb is reliable it is listed as BASEketball there. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for that, but I figured that the guideline was pretty self explanatory and supported the move. The way others have formatted the name does not necessarily dictate the way wikipedia should. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't but as the article was moved to BASEketball four years ago, and hasn't moved since I would assume that consensus was for that spelling. And I don't think that MOStm covers this, insomuch as film titles are rarely trademarked. I think that WP:COMMONNAME is more appropriate. And I think that the links from imdb and Allmovie are both on the article so it makes sense they match the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything is trademarked, so I would say it does apply, as does Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of copyright, trademarking is a specific legal term. Again, I will go back to consensus, and that move took place without it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the two are differentiated in respect to the policies/guidelines. For example, the example given at the WP:NC link above is Invader Zim, which is a TV show and is stylised as Invader ZIM (and on IMDB), but is referred to as Invader Zim in the wikipedia article. WP:COMMONNAME does not really refer to the capitalisation, but more to common vs official names (Eg, Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)) and states follow its guidelines "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". Nouse4aname (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering this required an admin move, I assumed that my reasoning was correct and endorsed by the admin involved...Nouse4aname (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although Nouse4aname is correct that the applicable term would be trademark, neither copyright nor trademark is applicable here. Titles can never be copyrighted - even if the title is novel or unique. Film titles can be protected under trademark law -- but only when they become a series. One-shot titles are not protected under trademark law. So that issue is irrelevant. The problem I find is that the naming guidelines on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) don't address the issue of the oddball title. The guidelines at WP:NC do indicate that a article which uses a title should follow standard English (as was stated with the Invader ZIM example). My own preference would be to use the film title commonly written in source materials. And doing a quick search of article reviews, I saw that an occasional review (e.g., NY Times) used the lower case "Baseketball," but the vast majority of reviews (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Variety, etc.) used the "BASEketball." However, either way, BASEketball or Baseketball, the issue isn't very critical since redirects allow readers to find the article using either spelling. And the article uses the common usage title throughout the text. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It only uses BASEketball throughout the text because I reverted it to that. It would make sense to have the title match the common usage throughout the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseketball should be used throughout, as per the standard of using correct English and the example at Invader Zim. I don't want to get into an edit war however, so haven't reverted it as yet. Furthermore, I still don't see why BASEketball should be used, just because other media outlets incorrectly use it, doesn't mean wikipedia should. As I pointed out above, the title is actually entirely capitalised, just with larger letters used for "BASE" than "KETBALL". Nouse4aname (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It it the name it is most commonly know as, imdb lists it as that, Allmovie lists it as that, the majority of newpaper reviews list it like that. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it correct. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See Adulthood (film) and Kidulthood, which are rendered according to standard English, not according to the stylised title. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes it correct here is consensus opinion. As Darrenhusted correctly states, "BASEketball is the most common usage in reliable sources. And there is a line at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name where it says Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Although that wording doesn't apply specifically to film titles, it is the essence of the argument. I think this should wait for a further consensus among WP:FILM editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether the article is located at BASEketball or Baseketball is besides the point, they are essentially the same search terms. Article naming ensures that the article is at the most commonly searched for term, (see Bill Clinton example above). The use of BASEketball or Baseketball within the article is determined by whether we use correct English or not - which we do. I think consensus is also needed from those familiar with WP:MOS, and the general use of language in the encyclopedia, not only from those interested in preserving the formatting of the title. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of discussions around INLAND EMPIRE (IE - all caps)! Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point about the title of the page, Nouse4aname. However, within in the text, correct English usage has absolutely no bearing on the spelling of names or titles. A name is as it written. If someone uses the name Criss, we don't need to call them Chris throughout the article as if it was misspelled. Just as in the first sentence I did not correct your user name to No Use For A Name - that is not how it is used nor spelled - and, equally so, BASEketball is the most commonly used form of that title in English texts. That is confirmed by looking in the published articles. Unfortunately, this is one of those many cases in WP that will need to be decided by consensus because it seems to fall outside the guidelines. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link, Lugnuts. I figured there were other valid examples here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is nothing to do with spelling, but regards non-standard capitalisation. There is no justification in the English language for using partial capitals for this name. WP:MOS and all sub-sections thereof refer to both titles and the main article text, and clearly state to use standard English capitalisation, regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner. With regards the example above, the capitalization was only changed to all caps within the past month, by an anon IP [1]. Prior to this the article had been steady with correct capitalisation used throughout. Assuming I will be reverted immediately, I am not going to revert this yet, but it will be done. There are plenty of policies and guidelines out there, its just you choose to ignore them in favour of preserving some random stylised capitalisation, which I may add for the third time is not even adopted by the film. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, while you're at it, best go ahead and change that great old Fats Domino tune from "Ain't That A Shame?" to "Isn't That A Shame?" -- or maybe "Is That Not A Shame?" Oh and there's an article on the "Lovin' Spoonful", that's not proper English, better change it to "Loving Spoonful". Hmmm... "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On" should be "A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On," and "Les Girls", well you can't combine French and English like that!

Look, some people made a film. They called it "BASEketball". Period. Over. Done. Go write an article or something and stop wasting everyone's time with this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not about spelling. This is about capitalisation, and WP:MOS is quite clear about how we should render it. You say “some people made a film and called it BASEketball”. Well they didn’t actually, did they. As I keep saying, the title is rendered BASEKETBALL. All capitals. Some letters are bigger than others, yes, but it is not some capitals, some lowercase. Other people may have incorrectly adopted some random capitalisation, but that doesn’t mean we should – as clearly stated in WP:MOSTM. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is about trying to apply the rules of English orthography to a title, which is a different animanl altogether from plain old text. And, yes, they did call it BASEketball, because in the limited typography we have available to us to use on article names, that's how you render BASEKETBALL. Please stop being so incredibly and annoyingly pedantic and go do some helpful editing. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for trying to bring a level of consistency and sophistication to the encyclopedia. I do not view it as annoying or pedantic, but a rather important topic to discuss. Do we follow the stylistic whim of every trademark, company name, film title like an obsessive fan, or do we ignore such unimportant stylistic preferences are render the encyclopedia in correct English? I think it is quite clear from the guidelines I have cited which it should be (and no, it is not the one that involves random capital letters). As for you comment that due to the limited typography we have, we have to use capitals to indicate where some letters are bigger than others... what an absolute load of nonsense. Do you really want to start a precedent where we render all words that are styled in a larger font in capitals, and lowercase for smaller fonts? What would we do when there are three font sizes? Surely the universe would collapse in such an event?! I also find it incredibly rude that you would move the page despite the fact that there is clear opposition to such a move. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to stir it up but the page was moved four years ago, and stayed like that for four years, there was no consensus to move it, so the move back is just a revert. If you want it moved you need to gain consensus for the move. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I thought this discussion had been concluded - finally. But I'll state a position one final time. The lone objecting voice here keeps citing WP:MOSTM, even though it clearly states at the top of the page Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. It further states that some exceptions (like eBay and iPod) can depart from standard written English because of consensus. In BASEketball, common sense and consensus have been exercised. The term is used because: 1) of use in numerous reliable sources, e.g. LA Times, Chicago Sun Times, Washington Post. Entertainment Weekly, Variety and even Califonia Supreme Court documents (page 10)] by the WGA.; 2) It has been used in WP for the four years by the consensus of dozens of editors working on the article; and 3) The consensus of editors in this discussion. Clearly, consensus has been reached. This is not the death knell of the English language. Please use some common sense and move on. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Marketing" to MOS:FILM

Hello, I am proposing adding a "Marketing" component to MOS:FILM. Please see discussion here. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have weighed in about the potential component. Further feedback would be greatly appreciated! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Documentary or propaganda: original research?

Can someone else please have a look at this article? The sole cited source (indeed, the only source I could find from a Google search) describes the film only as a documentary, not propaganda - not surprisingly, of course, as the source is a North Korean news agency. While the film may well constitute propaganda to a Western audience, I'm a little concerned that labelling it as such is original research.

Also, the source mentions no year for the film; does it seem obvious that this is a "2008 film" from the context of the article? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the general notability of this topic. I did not find any results in either Access World News or LexisNexis Academic. To answer your question, though, I think propaganda films need to be historically established. It's a genre that has been studied, and think with zero details about this film, it shouldn't be labeled as such. If it were kept, it should probably not specify a genre, (e.g., "a film"). —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "propaganda" and the category from the article. I also share your notabilty concerns, but would be reluctant to lose an article from an area where our coverage is relatively weak (i.e. North Korean cinema). PC78 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"This article is in the scope of the Canadian cinema task force"

I'm a bit confused. There are lots of articles in Category:Canadian cinema task force articles, but with a lot of them I just can't see the relation to Canadian cinema. What do Evolution (film), I, Robot (film) or Jersey Girl (2004 film) have to do with Canadian cinema, for example? --Conti|✉ 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

With Evolution the director, Ivan Reitman, is Canadian (Canadian-American, according to the article), so I guess that's why it's been tagged. Without checking the others, I guess they have a similar connection. Lugnuts (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the task force's scope, it includes films made by Canadian filmmakers (even abroad), films produced by Canadian companies, and films shot in Canada. So Evolution is made by a Canadian (Ivan Reitman); I Robot and Jersey Girl shot there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, shouldn't Hulk (film) be part of the Chinese task force? Can't say I'm a big fan of this myself. I would much prefer to see the task forces restricted to films produced within a particular country, and get rid of any tenuous links like those mentioned above. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard I usually use is where did he become a filmmaker? Ang Lee trained and started in the US, so I'd call him an American filmmaker. The point isn't to draw a line in the sand; it's to create a scope where different editors in the task force with different interests and expertises can organize topics related to the national cinema. For example, a big American studio picture that spends a week on location in Italy might not seem like a reasonable tag for the Italian task force, but we may have Italians in that task force who have access to local sources that discuss the production, etc. In the case of filmmakers, is a Luc Besson film suddenly not a part of the French cinema because he shot it in a different country, or had it financed through an American studio? These are all factors that can be used to assess the "true" nationality of a film - but I don't find any of them overwhelmingly compelling exclusively, and I don't feel that it's our obligation to do so. By allowing overlap, this leaves it up to the editors of the task force to decide how they want to support the article (if at all). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree here. :) Drawing boundaries—lines in the sand, if you will—can be a good thing, otherwise the whole process, as indeed you describe it above, can become hopelessly subjective. Still, it's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That explains why the films are in that category, but that still doesn't explain what, exactly, the Canadian task force can do to improve these articles. Or what "This article is in the scope of the Canadian cinema task force" actually means. My first interpretation was that it means "The Canadian cinema task force will take care of this article", but that seems not to be the case. "This article has something to do with Canadian cinema" seems to be more accurate. Just including the films at List of Canadian films seems like a more reasonable approach to me.

Additionally, Evolution (film) mentions filming locations in Arizona and Fullerton, but none in Canada. Does that mean that even if only a small part of a film is filmed in Canada, the category will be added? That seems very, very vague. --Conti|✉ 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As per above, Evolution has a Canadian director, not Canadian locations. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Still, my other points/questions remain. --Conti|✉ 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're only looking at it from one perspective. From a filmmaker-perspective, Jean Renoir shot in France, America, Italy, and India, but his films are all a part of French cinema, regardless of where they were shot or who financed it. From the locations-perspective, films that shoot in a country will use crew from those areas and are considered a part of the film culture - see for example the original Star Wars trilogy. From the producing perspective, those who control the film obviously also can lay claim to it, as some view the Harry Potter series to be American since it is financed by an US studio. In some cases, such as Potter 3, you have an American financier, British locations and crew, and a Mexican director, and it's difficult to make an evenhanded case as to how you choose or exclude - and most people don't even feel consistently about how to apply this uniformly across all films. My perspective is that none of these is wrong, and different editors, focused on different parts of the national cinema and with differing resources that can be brought to any of these aspects, should each be allowed to contribute to the task force, and none of these types in particular has any special privilege above the other to lay claim to the scope. Does this sometimes lead to head-scratching and confusion amongst editors not versed in the task force scopes? Sure. But I believe it is far better for the project than the exclusionary paths of the alternative. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

The Film project's topic workshop is now running. Its purpose is to facilitate the production of good and featured topics, and everyone is free to propose topics to work on and sign up to work on existing topics. Even if you feel that your potential topic is very difficult, or don't feel that the topic is viable, feel free to propose it. The whole purpose of the workshop is to give proper visibility to potential topics. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vera Drake

Am I correct in thinking this reads more like a film student's thesis than an encyclopedia article? Nothing in the Background, Production, and Themes sections is referenced and much of it sounds like POV rather than factual information. I'm willing to work on it if others agree with me. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The background and production looks fine, albeit somewhat unreferenced, which is the only major issue there - the information, however, is correct and has no other issues that I'm aware of. (At least in the current diff I'm looking at.) Themes is the only area that has POV/OR concerns, as far as I can tell. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say the information is correct, but how do you know that if there aren't any referenced sources for the statements? Are "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section supposed to be references? How do you interpret them? What does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Someone named Jim Leach is quoted, but the wikilink leads to a politician, not a film critic or historian. And the quote is followed by "(61)" - again, what is that supposed to mean?

Your response left me uncertain as to whether or not I should spend time cleaning up the article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. As it stands, the article isn't in terrible shape, but every article could do with some improvement. There's definitely scope for expansion, and the uncited sections could do with having goods cites found for them. But it's not the worst article I've seen. If you're interested in the subject, and have a desire to improve it, then I'd say go right ahead. But leaving it as is won't bring Wikipedia to its knees, or leave readers with a dangerously false impression of the film. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me if "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section are supposed to be references and, if so, how do you interpret them? Also, what does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that whoever originally added those sections, dropped them in verbatim from their source - including the reference notations from the original source. I think that they were probably getting everything from this book: The Cinema of Mike Leigh: A Sense of the Real, by Garry Watson, Wallflower Press, 2004. (It's mentioned in the background paragraph, although it was incorrectly attributed as Leigh's book). The Fuller citation was probably from an interview of Mike Leigh by Graham Fuller, which would now be available in this new book: Mike Leigh On Mike Leigh by Graham Fuller, Faber, 2008. I went ahead and changed those cites on the Watson book and the Ebert quote, since I could find them. If you had access to those books, or other materials, and could clean up the language with references, it would definitely help the article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Milk (film)

Hello, there is an odd situation at Talk:Milk (film). A discussion about the "meaning" of the film title keeps getting restored, and I don't think that it is a discussion of good faith, considering that the film is named after the protagonist. Can a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

70.48.170.129 (talk · contribs) started with this, which struck me as a potentially bigoted comment, considering the protagonist is Harvey Milk. The comment was removed by another editor, and it was restored by 76.116.243.246 (talk · contribs), who seemed to humor the person unnecessarily. To assume good faith, I poked around to see if this title was really contentious beyond the fact that it is based on the protagonist, but there was nothing. Maybe there was an actual topic like the possibility of a double entendre, but this was not my impression with the way it started out. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I'll keep an eye on the article and user. The edit summaries and talk page comments are way overboard and easily blockable offenses. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Future film template

A request was raised at {{Future film}} about a parameter for differentiating between article and section. Just wanted to bring up the request here to attract more eyes and maybe some useful ideas. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

An unusual circumstance has arisen whereby The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a film abandoned by Terry Gilliam in 2000 and which satisfied general notability (largely due to the catalogue of mishaps that dogged its short production, and the documentary Lost in La Mancha), is now supposedly going to start up again. If this is the case, we will have two independently notable productions here; one completed, one not. An editor has substantially rewritten the above article to concentrate on the new production (whereas it used to look like this). I'm not sure I agree with that. As these are two separate productions ("The film will be reshot completely"), my own feeling is that we should have two separate articles, but I wanted to get some more input before touching it either way. Steve ^{T • C} 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno Steve, I compared the current revision to the diff you linked and didn't notice any "substantial rewrite" - the bulk of the text looks pretty much the same to my (tired) eyes. Not sure if a split is the way to go as the two things aren't entirely seperate, but either way I think it's a bit soon to be worrying about it. I'd keep an eye on it for now and see what happens. You never know, it might get jinxed again! :) PC78 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yes, I noticed after posting this that the rewrite is more the lead than anything else (equally tired eyes!) But it does signal an intention to tailor the article to the new production, with the old one as part of its development. While it could be argued that this should be split as soon as possible, to satisfy eventual history concerns, keeping an eye on it for now is probably all that's required. Though the point stands that if the film goes ahead these should be separate articles. Steve ^{T • C} 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the old shoot can't be mentioned within the production history section - after all, this is not completely unheard of - witness Apocalypse Now, Eyes Wide Shut, or Lawrence of Arabia - and those are only the first three instances that popped into my head just now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

Okay, so I know it has been established that IMDb is unreliable, however, is this the same for their award sections? On Veronica Mars, there are several awards which are very hard to find, and IMDb is used to source them. The page is getting prepped for FAC, so I was wondering if the site would be accepted as a reliable source for awards. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(And I realize this is better suited to WikiProject:Television, however I think the response here would be better.) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. What are the awards? There are most likely other sources out there. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So IMDb is not reliable for awards? Teen Choice Awards, Saturn awards and the television critics association award are being reffed by the site. Would these be okay? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not reference the awards directly? If they have their own websites, you could use them and not worry about IMDb being an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most awards organisations notable enough to warrant a mention in the article are likely to have their own awards archive. I brought up the reliability of the cites to IMDb during Veronica Mars' FAC simply due to finding errors in the site's listing of another television show's awards. I'm almost positive what's listed at IMDb is correct for Veronica Mars, but if we're to be consistent on the site's reliability, it shouldn't be used. Steve ^{T • C} 00:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. We've run into trouble for some awards, though we should be able to find better refs eventually. I'll come back if I have more difficulty. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, IMDB might be a useful starting point for possible awards, however, individual reliable sources should be found for them rather than just taking IMDB at its word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It's just that I cannot find direct references for the awards, and all the other sites that cover them are blogs. Teen Choice Awards are the hardest to find, but I will try to find alternate refs. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)Would someone please point me to the reliable source that supports the statement that "it has been established that IMDB is not a reliable source"? Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb has been determined through long-term consensus that it is not a reliable source, in the community and out of the community. Articles don't become Featured if they use IMDb as anything more than an external link. There is nothing written to say that a reliable source has to back another reliable source. IMDb has user-submitted information like Wikipedia, only with gated authorities. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Can you please point me to where that consensus was determined? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question, what is the norm for awards? Do we write them under the year they were presented, or under the year they were for, e.g. the Saturn Awards for 2004 were present in 2005. Thus, under which year should I write them? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed as I myself understand that IMDB is considered a tertiary source, that can be used if it otherwise supported, per discussions at [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7][8]. With IMDB as a tertiary source (WP:RS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.").I do not depend on IMDb, but it does have its uses, if supported. I do not use it if it cannot be otherwise supported. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What you say, Schmidt, is not so far from the current consensus. We don't accept it as a reliable source, but we are supportive of editors using it as a jumping-off-point for research. Essentially, however, if you don't ever use it unless it's supported, then you're basically requiring a non-IMDb source and not judging the site to be reliable enough, which is our current position. No one is saying that the IMDb is totally wrong, but it does have its fair share of errors and misinformation, and in addition, much like Wikipedia itself, its editorial content controls do not meet our reliability standards. But using the IMDb to get ideas as to what to start looking for, or where else to find information are both excellent uses of the site in service of Wikipedia research - I just wouldn't call it a reliable tertiary source. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. It's a tool. And depends on what one is trying to source. For instance, I occasionally use it when building a film's infobox... as for instance, multiple international release dates for older films. As for sourcing... I would far prefer to have 10 sources that say similar things, than only one. I have seen argumants about sources slice both ways at once. While reviewing an article, an editor might decide "we don't need so many sources saying the sa things" to justify removing them... and then when that article winds up at AfD other editors might opine "only has one source - isn't notable". Its a tough Catch 22. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on the Action films category

I've noticed that a lot of categories, especially Category:Action films, are being removed from articles if categories such as Category: Adventure films amd Category: Western films are present. Although I can see the reasoning, those do not seem to be children of the Action films category. In one case, Spy Smasher (serial), both Action and Adventure categories were removed in favour of Category:Thriller films (Adventure wasn't appropriate for this film but then Thriller isn't either). I haven't found any guidance elsewhere, so can someone suggest when and where the Action category, and related categories, are appropriate? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, problem solved. Action films only began in the 70s. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Trailer links to youtube

Are links to official trailers on youtube allowed? Mjpresson (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, no. While they are official, they also add nothing to the article. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed "Marketing" component for a relatively related discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda thought that, I've been seeing a few lately. Mjpresson (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with trailers being on YouTube is that it could be copyright infringement. An exception may be that the studio has an "official" page on YouTube through which it has a trailer and other featurettes. But for the most part, it is usually people who convert trailers from other formats to the one used by YouTube (so one does not have to download QT or anything). It's still copyright infringement despite the convenience, and Wikipedia does not take part in it. The links should be removed where they exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that even if wikipedia has external links to other sites which provide a muc needed video clip we are somehow responsible for copyright elsewhere too? Thats the most copyright paranoic comment I've ever heard. Its absurd. Its like claiming that for a biographical article where there is only an external link to a general biography of that individual on a different site that there are copyright problems. YouTube clip or trailer links are frequently of major benefit to understanding films, particularly when you haven't seen the films, particularly as they are not permitted on our site. How can it possibly affect the wikipedia site? Isn't this policing going a bit far to the point that it is affecting the actual enjoyment and understanding of the subject by taking away virtually all the forms of related media we have? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works explains it best... it's not my personal policing, it's the way Wikipedia is run. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I figured Erik you didn't make it up, it wasn't specifically directed at you, rather the principle that we can somehow be held prosecutable for content on other websites. In reality I think its more about reputation that we don't want to be associated with copyright violations and non-free content rather than any legitimate claim to be actually violating law on the wiki site. I find this rather extreme, to say the least, and somewhat subjective and in regards to films video clips and images of a film is essential content and media. So under this copyright criteria, do you think it appropriate to remove any external links that may perahps have images of an actor or film which are copyrighted and not owned by the film company. Sorry I'm finding this rather odd. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) It may not be "prosecutable", but we certainly don't want to deliberately link to copyright violating links, and therefore appear to be endorsing copyright violations. Its another reason for not linking to fansites as well. For your second question, there is a difference between a fair use image used validly by a news source versus someone uploading stolen videos and there is a difference between such a valid use versus a photobucket account with a glut of stolen copyright images.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am also aware of this. Where possible we should link to the best websites or "official" sources as much as possible rather than shady blogs or photobuckets. It will inevitably though be difficult to impose a mandatory ban on links to youtube for film articles, whoever uploaded them. Where possible I think "official" film trailers issued by the companies on their webistes is appropriate but this is not always possible, particularly for old films which are not quite public domain. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Blofeld, and the caveat that if a film has an official Myspace or Photobucket or Youtube page etc, where they do officially share their video clips, then that link does not violate copyright and would be acceptable. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I cannot see such sites being used for pirated clips, but official clips as authorized by the filmmaker, it should prove suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the more relevant question: why do we need to link to trailers? Surely an official site link is enough, unless the trailer itself is part of a critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about if there isn't an official site available and for articles where the trailers on youtube provide an essential part of the puzzle so to speak if it is discussed in the article or improves understanding of it further.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I see it too. If a filmmaker has an official Myspace or Photobucket or Youtube page etc, where they do officially share their video clips, clips which may not be hosted on an "official" company site then that video link does not violate copyright and would be acceptable. There can exist situations where one official clip is worth a thousand words, leading to better understanding of an article... and oftentimes filmmakers take advantage of the utility of such hosting sites to have them as an official page for clips. A blanket ban of proper links does not improve Wiki, and improper links are already covered under copy-vio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not a promotional site - I don't see how that changes things. It's not our job to link to the trailer just because it exists. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand that, and agree. A trailer need not be linked "simply because it exists". But if the trailer is required to source something that cannot otherwise be verified, then it serves Wiki. If it is not so required, then its use is not neccessary. I myself am currently having dificulty in sourcing the participation of certain actors in a film, and just discovered the trailer/preview on the film's official site that distinctly shows several of these actors performing for the film... actor's whose names have only recently become attached to the film and whose names have not yet made into the various film sources I have been researching. I am not trying to promote the film... but wish to include as accurate and up-to-date informations as possible per WP:V... in this case to use the trailer, at least temporarily, as verification of facts not yet acvailable elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow,thanks!Mjpresson (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you cannot source information to a trailer, not even one on YouTube or an official website. Trailers are infamously misleading. Just because you see an actor in a trailer does not mean that they will be in the film. The funny thing about trailers is that they are cut before the film is edited. Anyone can be edited out, and if you didn't know they were in a film before the trailer, then they might not be there after the trailer. Saying "Actor X can be seen in the trailer" doesn't provide any information to the reader, especially if Actor X doens't make the final cut. Secondly, and this is especially true for YouTube, videos CAN by altered, just the way still images can. I don't know how many different fan posters I see that look authentic, or even altered trailers by fans (though, what I was watching was clearly identified as being altered). It isn't that hard to do if you know what you are doing, and that is why we don't source to any video, unless it can clearly be identified as an official video (and even then, we don't put our own interpretations and perceptions in, but include what the video actually says - e.g. We don't list an actor in a cast list because we saw their pretty face in a video, we list them when we have publication that actually confirms they will be in the film.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Joe Hacker can alter a video and post it on youtube and elsewhere. But I was specifically not speaking toward such hoaxes. I was addressing the copyright issues of videos placed online by filmmakers themselves... just as you wrote above, "identified as an official video"... as official representations of informations by the copyright holder. I do not advocate that an online video be considered in any other manner. Further, the content of an official video can indeed convey information to a viewer. Using your example, If I were to assert in that actor X was considered for the role and then cut fom the film, a trailer showing his efforts would confirm that assertion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Our Gang films cleanup drastically needed

A myriad of articles on individual Our Gang (Little Rascals) shorts are currently a mess of POV, copyvios, and bad formatting. I am requesting assistance from other editors because we're talking about well over a hundred bad articles. Anyone wanting to help can go to Our Gang filmography - every article on an Our Gang short made from 1929 to 1944 needs to be reviewed and likely cleaned up or rewritten. I've already reviewed and revised Small Talk, Railroadin', Came the Brawn, and Unexpected Riches, and am currently working on the articles for other Our Gangs made in 1929. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with these. I created a lot of inital stub articles a month or two back, with basic cast/crew info. Since then, several annoymous IPs have "helped" to expand the articles. I've not had chance to check the quality of their work. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles opinion needed

Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. WP:Films has been known as a a relatively big project that has produced a tremendous amount of quality input, and explicitly rejected the introduction of C-class. Could the coordinators from this project (as well as other members, particularly those who are involved in assessment) please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is at FAC here, in case you didn't see it, and is somewhat stalled, so more attention would be nice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards as recurring items in WP:ITN

I have started a thread here to check if Filmfare Awards can be made recurring items on ITN as Grammy Awards & Academy Awards. Please pen down your thoughts. --GPPande talk! 10:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Relax, this one is not about IMDb :-) Actually, I came here for some help. I realize things relating to Veronica Mars should be posted under WikiProject Films, it's just that you guys are so nice and helpful. Anyways, I have begun working on a season page (here:User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2), but I cannot figure out which awards are for which season of the series. Are all awards for 2006 handed out in 2007? Or is that only for some awards? I am confused, so some help would be nice. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Are Breakout (film) and Break Out (film) sufficiently ambiguous, or should they be disambiguated by year as well? PC78 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They're fine, but there should probably be a "This is the page...for this see that" at the top of the page, given that someone could easily mistaken one title for the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of short live-action films

This list is in dire need of a cleanup, if anyone here feels like tackling it. Despite the title, there seem to be an awful lot of cartoons in there. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of issues with the list, primarily about the criteria for inclusion, but I've removed most of the animated films already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Online DVD reviews

Is there a list of online review sites that are generally accepted as credible for use in discussing the critical and popular reception of a film? Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we have such a list, though I've contemplated setting up a "Resources" page for WikiProject Films. Can you clarify what you're looking for, though? Are you referring to online reviews of direct-to-DVD movies or just online reviews of movies when their DVDs come out? My experience has been that most online DVD reviews are self-published (DVD Town is an example), but some websites like http://dvd.ign.com/ are more than just self-published. An idea may be to look up DVD magazines and find their websites to see if they provide any reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• In this specific instance I'm looking to expand the response section of Dracula's Daughter to show how the film's reputation has grown over the decades since its release. Most of the reviews are pertaining to the DVD release. For example, these reviews compiled at IMDB. I'd like to get the article to GA or even FA standards (and I've requested a peer review for it if anyone's interested in offering some feedback). I'll take a look at the OFCS membership. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest using members of Online Film Critics Society. It is limited to professionals and accredited members of the OFCS are accepted by Rotten Tomatoes as meeting their critics guidelines. Their current membership can be seen here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome any input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting in Infobox Film

There was some discussion here regarding the "country" parameter in {{Infobox Film}}, specifically about the removal of generic links (such as United States) per WP:OVERLINK and the use of templates such as {{FilmUS}}. It was suggested that piped links to a country's "Cinema of..." article (i.e. [[Cinema of the United States|United States]]) might provide a better alternative, and Giro put forward the idea of having the infobox do this automatically, much like it currently does with the "langauge" parameter.

To that end I have written the necessary code to handle this, and have a working test version of the infobox in my userspace. Any raw country names entered into the infobox will automatically be rendered as a piped link, i.e. entering country = usa (or similar) will display as United States. I've set up the template to recognize most country names, certainly all those for which we have at least some film-related content; anything not recognized by the template will be ignored and displayed as is, meaning that existing articles won't be broken.

There are a few finer details to consider, namely:

• How to handle those countries that don't have a "Cinema of... article". At the moment I have the template redlinking these, but that might not be the best way to do it.
• Whether to use this feature to categorize articles as well, e.g. add American films to Category:American films; this would be easy to code, but category structures might be tricky for some countries.

But primarily we need to establish whether or not people think this is something worth adding to the infobox. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point but again one of those proposals which are not really essential. Remember though that often the Cinema is linked in a template or at the beginning of the text in the article e.g The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a 1966 [Cinema of Italy|Italian] western film etc. Technically if you were to make the change it should be "Industry" rather than Country as it would look odd a Cinema of being labelled as a "country" even if it hiddne using pop ups. Whatever the case it should be made consistent, as with adding the Americanfilm template to the articles we agreed on for consistency.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with double-linking in this context - the prevailing convention seems to be a link in the infobox and a link in the text, for most articles. Delinking the infobox is a problem if the body doesn't have a link, while delinking the intro text could create accessibility issues for certain cases.

As for the country links where they don't exist, I believe that every country has at least section of a larger list article, if not more. (See Template:Filmsbycountry) It would be fairly trivial to redirect the redlinks to those for the meantime. (And probably long overdue anyway.)

Finally, the country categorization should be fairly straightforward, because we would also include obsolete countries (e.g. Czechoslovakia, USSR). Since it operates off of a #switch parser, it's trivial to add new instances where we have omissions (as well as a tracking category for anything which falls into the switch default, in order to look for these omissions, as well as typing errors).

D'accord? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A couple of categorization issues I forsee (off the top of my head) are with Category:German films, where besides East and West Germany you also have seperate categories for the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, and also Category:Soviet-era Estonian films. The problem is not so much with obsolete countries, but with specific eras and regions within a country. With regards to redlinks and redirects, I have the following in the template:

"Cinema of..." redlinks and redirects

• Cinema of Algeria
• Cinema of Angola
• Cinema of the Bahamas
• Cinema of Belarus
• Cinema of Benin
• Cinema of Bhutan
• Cinema of Bolivia
• Cinema of Botswana
• Cinema of Cameroon
• Cinema of Chad
• Cinema of Chile
• Cinema of the Republic of the Congo
• Cinema of Costa Rica
• Cinema of Côte d'Ivoire
• Cinema of the Dominican Republic

• Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Cinema of Ecuador
• Cinema of Gabon
• Cinema of Ghana
• Cinema of Greenland
• Cinema of Guatemala
• Cinema of Guinea
• Cinema of Haiti
• Cinema of Jamaica
• Cinema of Jordan
• Cinema of Kazakhstan
• Cinema of Kyrgyzstan
• Cinema of Laos
• Cinema of Libya
• Cinema of Madagascar

• Cinema of Mali
• Cinema of Malta
• Cinema of Mauritania
• Cinema of Mauritius
• Cinema of Nicaragua
• Cinema of Panama
• Cinema of Sierra Leone
• Cinema of Swaziland
• Cinema of Syria
• Cinema of Tanzania
• Cinema of Trinidad and Tobago
• Cinema of Tunisia
• Cinema of Uzbekistan
• Cinema of Venezuela
• Cinema of Zimbabwe

• Cinema of Bahrain (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of Bosnia-Herzegovina (redirect to Cinema of the Czech Republic)
• Cinema of Czechoslovakia (redirect to Cinema of the Czech Republic)
• Cinema of East Germany (redirect to section in Cinema of Germany)
• Cinema of Kuwait (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of North Korea (redirect to section in Cinema of Korea)
• Cinema of Oman (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of Slovenia (redirect to List of Slovenian films)
• Cinema of South Korea (redirect to section in Cinema of Korea)
• Cinema of West Germany (redirect to section in Cinema of Germany)
• Cinema of Yemen (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)

PC78 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves correctly from my German task force tagging, many (if not most) of the pre-'45 films are actually listed as "Nazi Germany", Weimar Germany", or "Imperial Germany", time period depending. So these designations could be built into the sub-template, and it would also be minimal work to do cleanup on those which don't list themselves that way. That all being said, there's no reason why they can't also be categorized within German film - the designation is not exclusive to the current constitution of Germany, and at a certain point, it starts to split hairs on political grounds which may not be germane. (e.g. Should we split French films by Third Republic, Vichy France, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic?) While Nazi Germany certainly affected the films, did politics directly differentiate Weimar cinema from West German cinema in any meaningful aesthetic way?

Some of the Estonian films list both USSR and Estonian SSR, which seems a fair compromise - there's no reason why we can't sub-categorize all Soviet-era films by SSR, while also retaining their listing the Soviet films category. How does that sound? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds OK and should be easy to do. I guess my main concern was that something like "Estonian SSR" would be far less intuitive than either "Estonia" or "Soviet Union". I share some of your concerns over making divisions on political grounds; I'm not sure that you could draw a straight line between Weimar German and West German cinema any more than you could the cinema of Imperial and present day Russia, but the distinction between "Early German" and Weimar German seems far less tangible.

What about other areas of subcategorization? Waltz with Bashir, for example, is in Category:German animated films but not Category:German films. PC78 (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Waltz in Bashir needs to be in both categories. While one is a subcat of the other, base categories for country, language, and year need to exist for all films, regardless of other subcategorization. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll sift through the counry categories again and see what needs to be included. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back and done some more work on this, implementing some of the things discussed above. I've added the appropriate categories for each country, as well as a tracking category for those articles which don't use this feature. Other changes are:

• German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany have been added as seperate countries, i.e. adding Nazi Germany to the infobox will display Nazi Germany and add the article to Category:Films of the Third Reich.
• Quebec, Scotland and Wales have been added as subdivisions of their parent countries, i.e. adding Quebec to the infobox will display Canada (Quebec) and add the article to both Category:Canadian films and Category:Quebecois films.
• Adding Estionian SSR to the infobox will display Soviet Union (Estonian SSR) and add the article to Category:Soviet-era Estonian films, Category:Estonian films and Category:Soviet films.
• Hong Kong and Palestine are treated as seperate countries.
• I've not added any of the Indian film industries, as this appears to have more to do with language than nationality.
• Not sure if Category:Tibetan films should be included here; see the CfD discussion further down this page. Ditto for Category:Kurdish films.
• I've also added a number of parameters to the infobox ("country2", "country3", etc.) to allow for the handling of multiple countries.

Does all of that sound OK, or is there anything that needs tweaking or changing? PC78 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tibetan films

Since this appears to be a category for films about Tibet rather than films from Tibet, I have proposed renaming it to Category:Films about Tibet at CfD. Discussion is here should anyone wish to offer an opinion. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

There is a dispute going on over at Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I am asserting that because the Canadian poster is far more recognizable to both US and Canadian movie goers while the US poster is only recognizable to US movie goers, it should be changed to reflect this, while there is opposition to this, arguing that because it is a US film, it should be used. Discussion can be found here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This just recently opened, yet its gross revenue is listed in the infobox. Isn't it customary to wait for a film to complete its theatrical run before posting those numbers? I can't imagine someone changing this figure on a weekly basis while the film is in release. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking for high-traffic articles, it is indeed the case that editors update the field regularly. However, my own preference is to have an additional line in the article that says "As of November 7, Zack and Miri has made $x million" that should be updated concurrently with the infobox figure so readers will know whether it's out of date. Steve ^{T • C} 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV question

Is the article 2009 in film considered a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules would be greatly appriciated. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

no ideas? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The selection may be biased, but the existence of the topic does not constitute POV - there will be films in 2009 after all. If deficiencies exist, then they should be dealt with the same way as we do with common POV - not by eradicating the POV, but by placing it in context instead. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is more about systemic bias. The XXXX in film articles tend to be more Hollywood-oriented, unfortunately. Maybe you could revise the article on the Hebrew Wikipedia to encompass any Hebrew-language films that are scheduled to come out in 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't that the film lists are more Hollywood-oriented but rather that lists on the "XXXX in film" articles on the English Wikipedia don't have any inclusion criteria for those specific titles to be chosen. As far as I understand (unless someone would correct me) the fact that there is no criteria (such as the most grossing movies or the most award winning movies) but rather a random selection, is a violation of the NPOV rules. Is that correct? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They're much like the categories - the only real inclusion criteria is that the film was released in that year and was notable (whether or not an article exists). Exclusion is generally limited to non-notable films. That many of these articles are severely deficient in foreign and independent cinema is merely a systemic bias, not a calculated one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic

Do reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic really hold significance? Please see Old Joy.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we supposed to be looking at with Old Joy? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are nothing but aggregate websites. They just compile reviews from what is available. What is presented is not "Rotten Tomatoes' review", but a review listed on their website. Those reviews typically come from some of the more well known and respected critics, though there are plenty that don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are plenty that don't, why would we use this website as a source of references?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are plenty that don't what? You're not making your argument very clear. We use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they supply us with an overall look at the critical reaction to a film. Instead of us citing 10 sources and saying "this film was loved by critics" or "this film was hated by critics", we use the average rating calculated from RT and MC to report on what the overall approval was from all the critics they have collected (which is typically far greater than the number we could ever cover appropriately on Wikipedia). Also, we as editors tend to cherry pick the best reviews (whether they are the best negative ones or the best positive ones) and reporting on what the overall opinion of the movie was based on our "picks" would not be very neutral on our part. It's better to have an unbiased party calculate the approval rating based on how critics rate the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at MOS:FILM#Critical reception. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be used as part of the big picture. Like the MOS says, RT and MC are more appropriate for recent films since the websites have only been around so long. They may not show an accurate reception of older films. For example, Fight Club rates highly on RT now, but when it came out, reaction was polarized. I used other resources to reflect its eventual popularity as a cult film. For today's films, the websites are pretty accurate, in my opinion. You'll see Best Picture nominees rate pretty highly, and for what the media considers "box office bombs", there's low ratings on RT and MC. Both are used to attempt for balance. Of course, it is a good idea to use retrospective reporting by major publications after a film's release. For example, a newspaper reporting the impending release of a film on DVD can say, "It was widely panned by critics when it came out in theaters." —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Need some other eyes here please

A user has been stonewalling progress in removing unsourced fancruft from Dr. Strangelove. Here is my preferred version, here is the version it has been reverted to. It would be great to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of references in popular culture. First, it should be recognized that such references are not necessarily original research. It may depend on how explicit or implicit the reference is; a reused quote is explicit, where seven protagonists being like Seven Samurai is implicit. Secondly, a gathering of such references is easily viewed as indiscriminate because a reference could be very much in passing and very likely to be unimportant. An example from the article is, "In the videogame Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Norman Soth says the line Mein Fuhrer, I can walk as he speaks on a phone call." Some items, like those from The Simpsons, could be more substantiated; I think a lot of high-quality Simpsons articles deal with popular culture fairly well. I think that such sections are easily identified as trivia, and per the MOS, items should be moved elsewhere or removed entirely. Each item could be reviewed... I think the best criteria is that if it is a passing quote (such as the Californication example), it should be removed. If it has some thematic impact (such as with The Simpsons or Futurama), it should be further explored and relocated or rewritten as prose. With that, please do get a kick out of this xkcd comic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the fallout at the Wood article due to this. Most especially "XKCD comic #446 references the 'In Popular Culture' section of the Wikipedia article for wood." However, to stay on topic, I agree with Erik's view that it should almost always depend upon the notability of the reference itself. A passing comment, a reused line, is almost never relevant. A theme or line, or maybe a specific shot that's been copied and reused by lots of other notable productions probably would be worth a mention. In addition, yes, this should always be fully cited. The argument that the primary sources provide the necessary information is a false one, as it's an editor's interpretation that there is a link between the works. Steve ^{T • C} 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid using the word "notability" and its variations in this context because the notability guideline is meant for the suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. I prefer importance or relevance in discussing the merits of such a reference. Also, I don't think it is original research to identify a link between the works if the link is clear. For example, the Disney characters used in the video game Kingdom Hearts are easily identifiable; same for films mentioned in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Same goes for add-on merchandise for films such as novels and comics. I think that it would be nice to have a secondary source back a reference, but I don't think this is mandatory, and even if one is used, it does not guarantee inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As usual, John has exercised his unique ability to put the most pejorative spin on something he disagrees with, a capacity especially in evidence wherever I am involved, so let me unspin things a little. I am not "stonewalling", I have requested specific discussion about the specific deletions that John wishes to do, whereas John seems to feel that a general agreement that the list should be trimmed is tantamount to a blank check for him to remove whateever he wants without discussion. That, of course, is not the case. So before we get too deep into this generalized discussion, perhaps John might like to head on back to the article talk page, and actually discuss the deletions with me and anyone else interested. It's quite possible that we might have a meeting of the minds on specific items, even if we don't actually agree on principles.

In other words, this conversation is premature at the moment. It might be applicable if no consensus can be reached about specific items, or if I actually "stonewall" a deletion or John "stonewalls" a item continuing on the list, but we ain't there yet.

John, the ball is in your court, and if you can manage to have the discussion in a civil way, without warping what's been said so that it favors your position, as you are prone to do, I would appreciate it. That means that something isn't "fancruft" until it is agreed by the participants that it's fancruft, and an editor isn't "stonewalling" until they actually refuse to discuss things.

Over to you. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Ed: Comment on the content, not the contributor. This entire response reads like a personal attack, and it is unacceptably pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of them have history, so both parties are "guilty" in a manner of speaking in how they are touching on each other's conduct. Please don't single Ed out. The discussion on the film article's talk page seems to be going as well as it could. If you really feel that an editor's conduct is an issue, please review WP:NPA#Initial options: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters." You don't want to do that, do ya? ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot and cast not needing referencing and imdb as a source

This is a something that has come up in recent converstation by an IP address and he does have some valid points. Here goes:

Why don't plot and cast need citations? If imdb isn't considered a reliable source why are there two links to it in articles. Isn't this hypocritical (that we have two links to it but are prohibited from using it as an official reference)? When I want to verify if someone was in a movie, I use IMDB, or Wikipedia. Or if I want to see what the movie was about, I use those two sources. Verification for cast and plot goes back to IMDB usually.

For example, theoretically one could have been the first one to make an entry about Biwi No.1, and then claim that Raj Kapoor was in this movie and then bitch and moan about anyone who tried to change the article to indicate otherwise because apparently the burden of proof is on the other person to show the creator of the entry that Raj Kapoor WAS NOT in this movie. And it's not easy to verify such information without resorting to IMDB. How do you propose we do something about this paradox? 64.154.26.251 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could elaborate further and explain this more fullyDr. Blofeld (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative, and the imdb is a start for sourcing cast and crew. There are other sources and any dispute can be resolved by removing information until there is a second source other than imdb. The burden of proof (in every situation in life not just WP) is on those who wish to add information, if you want to tell me someone is in a film then you need to prove they are, not me prove they weren't. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(following up...) External links are not necessarily ones that would actually be used for reliable sources in Wikipedia articles. For example, some well-known fan sites will be linked to but never actually used in an article. Since IMDb is user-submitted, the quality of the information cannot always be guaranteed. This can be the case for older films or future films, the latter which is a hodge-podge of submissions before there is an actual electronic copy of the credits as they are displayed in the film. (Which is why you'll sometimes see them ordered by prominence or by first appearance -- it's because of how the film shows the credits.) We treat IMDb as an external link because it is not completely useless; it is just not up to Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source as it has been rejected in FAC and GAC processes. For referencing the plot section and the cast sections, the film information is already outlined in the neighboring infobox. We could cite a film article by saying <ref>''Fight Club'' (20th Century Fox, 1999), directed by David Fincher, starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter.</ref> but that information is already pretty much there in the article. Films also have credits to identify the roles so cast sections can be written based on them. It would be a good idea to cross-reference names with IMDb and elsewhere, such as Film Index International. For the example about Biwi No. 1 and Raj Kapoor, is it not possible to find another source? I mean, if it is verifiable, it should have been reported elsewhere. Remember that film articles do not have to use online sources; if you can cite a reliable print publication, it would be sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I must correct you. IMDB is not' essentially "user-submitted". The basic database was compiled by researchers and is supplemented by user input, which is vetted. When I get the chance (I'm currently prepping for leaving town for a five-week gig, so I'm a bit preoccupied), I'll find a source that says that specifically. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008

(after EC) In general, a plot section need not be sourced to anything save the film itself because the film can be checked as a primary source to make sure a particular event happened. As long as editor interpretation is not involved, this shouldn't be a problem. For example, I could write "Bond takes Jaws' parachute and Jaws plummets to the ground" without fear of challenge. If I were to add "Jaws is shocked, disappointed, and not a little aroused by Bond's thievery" then that wouldn't be. If such an interpretation is necessary for a more complete understanding of the article, then this would have to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Similarly with cast lists, once a film has been released, this can in theory be checked by almost anyone by looking at the credits at the beginning/end of the film. As for the IMDb, while it's probably right 90% of the time, there have been enough discrepancies noted over time that we don't consider it reliable enough for citing. It's less good for forthcoming releases than it is for older films, as the information is user-submitted without the safety net of Wikipedia-style transparency. It's fine as an external link, if only because it has resources (forums, trailers, news, etc.) other than simple cast lists. Steve ^{T • C} 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's specious reasoning. When you say "in theory" plot elements can be verified, what does that mean? Here I am claiming that at the end of Jaws, we find out the shark is actually a dolphin. I've created the entry for "Jaws" and I put this in the page. And then when someone tries to correct me, I say, show me a reference that says it's not true. The argument from the other person like "Dude, come on, anyone who's seen the movie knows this" falls flat on its face because it's not verifiable directly. Now unless some of the higher level editors get involved and basically lock up the page, I'll keep claiming that I'm right about the dolphin theory. Instead, how about we accept that IMBD is a credible source. Even newspapers publish retractions and the Encyclopedia Britannica has been shown to be wrong on occasion (citation needed?). So why can't we accept IMDB, which has a group of people actually vetting the information, as a reliable source? 64.154.26.251 (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should be less concerned about plot and more concerned about good faith and attacks per this edit Darrenhusted (talk)

The plot of the film can be verified from the source, in this case, the film itself. It's just the same as verifying it from, say, a script book or something similar. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources, the film is a primary source like any other, and as long as it's available to be checked, then there's no problem with it. Trust me, I wish we could count on the IMDb; it's got so much information that might be useful when building articles. But it's been wrong often enough that I don't think we can count on it, most especially for films that haven't yet been released. Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

64.154.26.251, you have to accept that the imdb is not seen by WP as a reliable enough source. If you want to claim that Jaws was a dolphin feel free to do that, then watch as fifty editors fight to revert you and you end up blocked for 3RR. In addition to the fact that imdb isn't reliable there is also the fact that we work by consensus, and as it is a fact that Jaws is a shark the consensus on the page for Jaws will keep that fact in, whereas if you try to change it to something that is patently false then others will revert you and you will end up blocked for vandalism. WP is not a free for all, there are rules, this is not 'Nam. You can try to be cavalier with facts but you will be found out. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. IMBD claims a certain amount of vetting, though there is disagreement with both accuracy and speed of their vetting and the veracity of this self-proclaimed policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Schmidt, your own link says that [The IMDb] is not provided with the intention that users rely [my emphasis] upon the information for any purposes. That seems to settle the question - they don't even regard themselves as a reliable source, so why should we? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Savonarola... as much the same thing is said by many professional organizations about use of Wiki... chuckle. We already know, and every guideline states, that common sense must be used no matter what source is used. We are encouraged to IAR if it improves Wiki. We are encouraged to be Bold in editing... but still... one must accede to the consensus of the community. If I were to post a video of a blue car crashing into a yellow bus, and try using it to source an article about the blue car that crashed into the yelow bus, it could not be used, as we are not allowed to use the evidence of our own eyes. However, if a reporter alleges to have seen that crash, or reports informations that he was told about that crash, it could be used... as long as it were in The Times and not his personal website. We are told that we must accept that chain of information from actual accident, to witness, to reporter, to us... as being more reliable than our having seen it ourself. For me, to have that actual visual evidence of the event is much more reliable than accepting as gospel, some bit of information that has been touched by many different eyes and interpretations... no mater what the source's claim is to their "editorial process". We both read that same link I posted from the IMDB page, but you only focus on the disclaimer. I read 1) They do involve themselves in active data gathering, 2) The bulk of their informaton is from the industry and user accounts, 3) 70% of their staff is dedicated to vetting the information, 4) They use as many sources as they can get their hands on, 5) data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate, and 6) their main sources of information are the actual on-screen credits... And then they wisely caution that, although occasional mistakes are inevitable and promptly verified and fixed when spotted/reported, they wish it understood that their service is provided for the information of users only, and that it is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes. They are not saying their information is unreliable or faulty or wrong or always screwed up... they are simply making a proper legal disclaimer. Now please, I am not arguing that all of IMDB be accepted as 100% reliable. I am also not arguing that the Times or Post be accepted as 100% reliable either. Guideline already instructs us that sources must be considered in context with what is being asserted... and this caveat should be considered for everything from a third party report of what someone else is supposed to have said or done, to a simple basic first-person statement of "I saw the sun rise in the east". Common sense must prevail in all cases. A blanket "IMDB is no good for anything" tends to throw out as much potential good as it does potential harm. Common sense must prevail. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Timothy Asch films

In working on the article Bride Service (film), I learned that there were 13 other stub articles for films by ethnographic filmmaker Tim Asch. At the AfD for Bride Service (film), it was suggested that any pertinant information for Bride Service (film) be merged into the Timothy Asch parent article. This would have made sense for one article... but not for all 14. I then realized that Wiki would be better served if all 14 stubs were combined into the one article List of Timothy Asch films, so I did just that... moving all the stubs, their comments and informations, their sourcing and their images to List of Timothy Asch films. Nothing is lost. However, I now request that these additional 13 stubs be deleted and have redirects set to the list article, as all their informations (terse though they were) are now included in that one article. There is no need for the 13 remaining stubs. Absolutely nothing is lost and Wiki is improved. These 13 are Dodoth Morning, The Feast, Yanomamo: A Multidisciplinary Study, Ocamo Is My Town, Arrow Game, Weeding the Garden, A Father Washes His Children, A Man and His Wife Weave a Hammock, Magical Death, The Ax Fight, A Man Called "Bee": Studying the Yanomamo, A Balinese Trance Seance, and A Celebration of Origins. I have not yet gained the skills to do this myself, and was advised by User:PC78 to bring it to Film talk. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Since most of these stubs were written by User:Docued and have no significant input from other editors, the first avenue would have been to discuss the situation to him, and if he approved, have him blank those articles and then do an A7 speedy. Unfortunately, that user hasn't edited anything since March 2007, so I believe you'll have to go the usual route and ask for a discussion at Afd. I would suggest doing a group Afd with all the articles except The Ax Fight. The Ax Fight has a ton of [significant coverage] in Anthropology journals and could easily be a much larger article. (I even remember that film from my old Anthro 101 courses). — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when you do the Afd, be sure to drop a note to the WP:ANTHRO group since this really has a lot more to do with them than the film group. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just go ahead and redirect them. That's what you'll probably get told at AfD anyway. PC78 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Film list up for deletion

Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon. Lugnuts (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting dates in film infoboxes

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Start date template about needing to use {{Start date}} in {{Infobox Film}}. Since this has systemic implications, I thought it would be relevant to bring this before the community for any clarification that may be needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't received any explanation (from the last round of discussions) as to why hCalendar needs to be integrated with encyclopedic info, though. This seems to be a cumbersome extension requirement, with marginal benefits (especially as the vast majority of these films already have been released). I'd be happy to be shown otherwise, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to pose your inquiry to the editor, then. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,

1. Which "last round of discussions"
2. Please raise your concerns at Template talk:Infobox Film#Start date template, to keep everything in one place.

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters

This character list is currently up for AfD. I think it would be good to get further input as, if kept, I believe it will set a strong precedent for any single film to have a separate character list that repeats the plot of the film, which currently goes against existing project guidelines and methodology. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is a film by Danny Boyle, and from what I can tell from the press lately, it is a high contender for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I think it might be the first such contender as I have not seen talk about any other films, and it ranks quite highly on Rotten Tomatoes (a good sign). I had been developing the article before it really had any press, and since then, it's fallen by the wayside. I am a little too occupied with real life these days to do some serious article-building, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping out. Simply looking up "slumdog millionaire" on Google News Search now will get some worthwhile results, such as LA Times. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Posters for foreign films

Resolved

 – Original theatrical release poster, per MOS:FILM#Image, is the Korean poster and seems to have been accepted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In Oldboy I am trying to make the main poster the Korean poster, since the film is from Korea. Another user is trying to make it the American poster. I have looked at numerous foreign film articles, and the majority of them all have the original poster from the country of it's origin. Adding an American poster for the article about a Korean film is like adding a French poster to the article for an American one.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; it should be the Korean poster. MOS:FILM#Image says to use the original theatrical release poster, so perhaps point the other editor to this clarification? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Original posters from the country of origin should always be always be used where possible. I'm constantly having to revert people who add different lanaguage DVD covers to original theatrical posters Count Blofeld 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

TCM

Where do you get the information how TCM works —Preceding unsigned comment added by I456.376.982 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask... how do you want to use TCM? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood

This AfD could really use some comments. Its been relisted three times so far because of a lack of attention. Since it deals with future film, input from the film project would be especially useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB/infobox (again!)

For info, I've requested a bot to do this. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database as a Reliable Source

Over a year ago, an attempt was made to set a policy on the situations in which IMDb could be used as a reliable source (if any). The discussion is here WP:CIMDB. A heated debate on this has just started up again. Anyone wanting to contribute is invited to do so: here. GDallimore (Talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

More external link fun

If anyone isn't sick of the external link discussions as of late, see discussion about The Mummy including links like IMDb, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:2007 horror films

Is this level of subcategorization truly necessary? Category:2000s horror films doesn't seem to be that huge to the extent where it needs splitting further by year, but perhaps others feel differently? PC78 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is a little too specific. By decade seems sufficient. Perhaps contact the editor who created the category and find out his/her thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wierd; the category was created by Otolemur crassicaudatus, an apparently long-standing contributor who subsequently created Category:2008 horror films and Category:2009 horror films before promptly retiring his account. There are other recently created categories, too: is Category:Films critical of Marxism-Leninism really such a good idea? PC78 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In looking at his contributions, I came across Category:Television films by year. Maybe he was inspired by this? I definitely don't think that it's necessary to go beyond decade without discussion for consensus... it seems like this action would make a lot of unnecessarily small categories where decade categories seem navigable enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, too, the other genre categories he created seem inappropriate, too... seems like it has something to do with him ultimately retiring. Putting them up for CFD would be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 20, should anyone care to give comment. PC78 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't go further than be decade. Count Blofeld 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman (film series) GA

Hi! I'm currently reviewing Batman (film series) for GA status. Anything that you can do to help make the article even better is appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of imdb link in nav box

I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it frustrating when out of habit I click the bottom of the infobox and finding it not there. For exceptionally long articles it means scrolling down the entire page. Did nobody consider that not every editor always added two imdb links. so many articles we have like Pran Jaye Par Vachan Na Jaye which had the imdb link in the infobox, they are no longer connected to it. I'm not exactly over the moon with the change. Count Blofeld 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Few articles actually don't have IMDb listed in the EL section, which means for the vast majority, all you have to do is click the "EL" section of the TOC and you're right there. It's a matter of spending an extra few seconds of your life getting adjusted to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding the opposite of that to be true. A fair few articles have an infobox with the IMDb link in them, but don't have an EL section. And quite a chunk of articles are tagged with a genre stub and nothing else! I use IMDb for a quick check to populate the main three categories (year, country and language). Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then add them in. You're an editor, be bold. Trust me, I've done searches through the category:film page and it's few and far between. Stub articles are the ones most likely not to have it because they are exactly that, stubs. Right now, there is a request in for a bot to be created that will go through all of the film pages and take each of the links from the infobox and place them in the EL section of the article (if they don't already exist there).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the request for a bot going to be responded to soon? I'm just concerned that it may just be archived eventually. Do we have any in-house expertise to have a bot do this? I think it would address the concerns and save us the manual labor. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've chased the bot request for progress. Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate for anybody to do it manually, they would be here until Christmas 2009. It is a must for a bot to do it I think. At times we could sure use a FilmBot operated by our project to run repetitive tasks whether it be stub sorting, infobox/nav box adding, category changes or link changes. Count Blofeld 14:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Count Blofeld please consider confirming your take on it at Template talk:Infobox Film. It is my understanding that the links were removed due to a baseless report of consensus at the time when there wasn't one. and the only thing that has been holding me back to have it reported at ANI and reverted has been lack of general interest in the matter. But as long as there are enough voices not agreeing with the move, I'd proceed with having the removal reverted on the bases of claimed consensus that was nonexistent at the time.--Termer (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There was plenty of consensus, despite your continuing erroneous claims and bad-faith attacks against the editors who agreed. You were the main voice of opposition, and really reporting to AN/I would likely only get you censured for your continuing refusal to accept it because you disagree. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was myself suprised that the RfC was not yet closed before the IMDB links disappeared. I thought they were useful in the infobox, just as were the links to AMG and official websites. Does anyone know wheter this as-yet-uncreated bot will include an EL section for those articles which do not have them? I know of film articles that used it in the infobox, had nice ref sections, but no external link section. If this is not taken into consideration there will be some sad losses all across wiki film. And isn't a tad premature to start their removal before the bot can be set up to do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"plenty of consensus"? The RfC wasn't even closed at the time and there were a number of editors in the original discussion who disagreed with the idea. That was the reason the claimed consensus was rejected rightfully first time as it should have been during the second attempt if the admin only had bothered to look at the discussion. If it was only me who disagrees with the removal, and most importantly the way it was pulled off, I'd be happy to have no business with the whole thing any longer. --Termer (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest I really didn't have the chance to offer my thoughts on it as I was busy editing elsewhere. Its not a major cause for concern and I see the arguments against two imdb links yes which doesn seem a little redundant. But me personally if I had the choice I'd keep the imdb and amg links in the infobox. Count Blofeld 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts were there [9] all along among others who didn't agree with the idea and that has been one of the reason I've rejected the claimed consensus in the first place. Just because you didn't keep repeating yourself all the way till end didn't mean that your thoughts were less valid. Exactly like Schmidts [10], [11], TheBlazikenMaster [12], Cirt [13], [14] etc. --Termer (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer, it's only you who keeps going on about this, not any of the other editors you mention, so if you're truly "happy to have no business with the whole thing any longer" then please feel free to do so. It's gone way beyond the point where your comments are constructive, and your insistance that there was "no concensus" is utterly false. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

not this thread nor any of the Infobox&IMDb related threads @ Template_talk:Infobox_Film have been started up by me therefore how can you say that it's only you who keeps going on about this. And again, me pointing out that there was no consensus [15] was confirmed after reading the discussion by Edokter. Since then nothing has changed other than the discussion has gone in circles and in one loop the links were removed by another such a "consensus report". Sorry that you feel my comments being unconstructive, that's fine if you thinks so. At the same time I think that the whole case of removing the links from infobox have been unconstructive that has not helped to improve WP in any way.--Termer (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe his comment was directed at the fact that only you seem to be pushing this so hard, and following it all around like some sort of soothsayer. Also, you said "nothing changed", yet, didn't we have an RfC? Was it not a unanimous opinion to remove all the links from all the neutral parties that came to our discussion? I believe it was. Fine, you can think that it didn't help WP improve, but I also choose to believe that it didn't hurt WP when they were removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

we been through this many times but since you and a number of editors who suported the removal keep repeating yourselves the only thing I can do is "follow it around like soothsayer" and repeat myself as well: There was no consensus reached in the first place; the procedures of RfC were ignored from the beginning and it wasn't properly closed either so that a consensus could have been determined. Also, even though a number of "outside comments" did support removal of the links, nothing anywhere says that WP:consensus is determined by a WP:Vote in a WP:RfC. Therefore declaring a consensus was premature.--Termer (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed there was a vote, and you and one other person where the only ones casting opinions alongside the neutral parties (and the other person removed their comments to respect the process). Ironically, you initially left a warning on the RfC telling people who had already discussed the topic to let others talk about it "or it would invalidate the RfC". Then, you took it upon yourself to respond to the new comments (I assume after we told you that it's ok to respond to new arguments). Afterward, you still called it invalid. What we have here is you claiming that anything that doesn't match your opinion is just invalid. I see that Edokter never commented on the outcome of the RfC (which, not only did he actually want, was never "closed improperly". First, the RfC has not been archived by the bot yet. Theoretically, it is still "open". But, as was pointed out to you on the infobox page, an RfC does not need to be official closed for a consensus to be determined from it. Given that it is completely one-sided (no one disagreed with the removal), and almost an entire month had passed since it began, and it's been another month since the last new comment (not including your constant rebuttal to whatever new editor comes along), it's completely fair to say that the RfC was clearly in favor of removing the links. Since this wasn't a major change to the project, it did not need project wide consensus (even though all the debates did have project-wide announcements...the fact that not every project member showed up to discuss this topic means that they all clearly did not care).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is getting really old but the WP:RfC like other WP:Dispute resolution and most importantly the WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Evaluating_the_consensus procedures have nothing to do with my opinions. RfC is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input etc. not anything that could determine a WP:Consensus -a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. A common coal at this case should be what is the best for WP every day readers, either keeping the links for their convenience or removing them because...???

Now, the most important: any such discussion needs to closed pr WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Evaluating_the_consensus. Until this has not happened, nobody should go around and declare any consensuses anywhere.--Termer (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was evaluated, and it was evaluated to be in favor of their removal. There is no formal "evaluation process". Please carefully read what you link to, it always helps these situations go by much faster. To quote: "This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any independent editor (i.e., not the primary authors, the editors proposing the guideline/policy status, or the editors strongly defending the proposal during the community discussion)." -- Notice two key concepts, "primary authors" and "strongly defending" Guess which one you fit in....both. As do I, and as do many others. That was why I created the subsection under the RfC to see what the opinion of the consensus was following said RfC. I asked if people agreed that there was consensus, and whatdoyouknow, those neutral editors came back and agreed that there was. They are not considered "primary editors" because they came in and gave an opinion and then left. But, and here is a really important part that you seem to be failing to understand quite often: What you linked to is the policy and guideline page. Guess what is neither a policy, nor a guideline? The film infobox. It's merely a tool, and, like I said before, because of that there is no project wide consensus that needs to be established. Now, if you disagree so much with the outcome, and the RfC, there are still some more available options for you. If you choose not to take those routes, then stop complaining. You're the only one following this thing around and complaining every chance you get. You have yourself a good evening, as you hit the nail on the head and you said "this is getting old". It is, and I'm not going to be arguing with you on this page (what's the count up to on pages that I've stopped responding to your harrassments?) any longer. Happy editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating the consensus is very clear about it, an uninvolved editor needs to close a discussion as either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. Not like what happened that a consensus was declared by involved editors. The reason it was rejected first time was due to a link to the discussion was provided [16], unlike the second time around, nobody provided any reference to the actual discussion [17]. In case the removal would have been done by the book nobody would be able to question the result that lead to the removal of the links.--Termer (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New WP:FICT

A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Marketing" component for MOS:FILM

Last month, I started a discussion about adding a "Marketing" component to the style guidelines here. Discussion has slowed down since, I would like to "bump" it and see if other editors could share their thoughts about what should be included or not. In particular, I would like to see about merging "Tagline" into "Marketing"... so please chip in at the discussion on the style guidelines' talk page! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written a new draft that merges "Tagline" into "Marketing". Feedback would be greatly appreciated! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Chihuahua marquee image

An image of a theater marquee showing the title of Beverly Hills Chihuahua has been added to its article. Though it is a free image, I removed it as being purely decorative. Another editor disagrees, claiming that because it is free, such guidelines don't apply. I have started a discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills Chihuahua#Theater Image. Additional views would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Film Noir of the Week external link

Film Noir of the Week is written by film noir experts about film noir. The articles are written by published film noir writers. Some are college professors; and just about anyone that has done an audio commentary on noir DVDs have contributed to the website.

For example:

William Hare http://books.google.com/books?id=KAMpUVy8X94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+hare+film+noir http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1qRwXs4tUC&pg=PT1&dq=william+hare+film+noir

And has written articles on my web page for The Killers, Vertigo, and Hangover Square to name a few.

Eddie Muller http://books.google.com/books?id=iQwy1Ug_eQoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eddie+muller+film+noir Has written an article on NOTW on The Big Heat

Andrew Spicer is a college professor and wrote a three part series on British Noir.

Alain Silver co-wrote The Encyclopedia of Film Noir and is a regular contributor to DVD film noir commentaries.

Ed Sikov has written a number of books on film noir and film including , On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder and Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the 1950s. He wrote an article on Sunset Blvd on NOTW. He recently can be heard doing the audio commentary for the newly released Sunset Blvd. DVD.

There are many more published writers as well as some that use "handles" instead of their actual names but are usually involved in the film noir community (members of the Film Noir foundation, bloggers for Out of the Past film noir podcast for example).

The following were considered when posting an external link

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. I feel that NOTW qualifies

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). I feel NOTW qualifies. This isn't a blog written by one person (it's not written by myself, however I am an authority on the subject of noir. I lecture and publish print articles on the subject)

Now these external links have been up for years in some cases. Two editors in paticular have decided that these links do not meet with Wikipedia guidlines and dozens of external links have been removed. I began to restore them only to have them removed again. What's the consensous? Can they stay or go? Steve-O (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you'd actually provided some diffs to show what exactly are you talking about, who has removed where and what exactly? But as long as anything has been written by the guys you've listed above and the articles are related to the subject, these should obviously stay.--Termer (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised the links at WikiProject spam a week ago, after noting a mix of noiroftheweek.com and noiroftheweek.blogspot.com addresses across a hundred or so articles. Blogs fail WP:EL unless written by a recognised authority, and the site appeared to be a blog reprint of entirely pseudonymous reviews from a forum site; many of the links had also been added by the owner of the blog, without any WP:COI rationale in the edit summaries or talk pages.

A couple of days ago, another editor (User:Themfromspace) went ahead and removed this and other WP:EL-failing links from the related articles (such as this random example).

Steve-O started adding some of his links back yesterday - I reverted one of them as per WP:EL and WP:COI before taking it to his talk page.

Steve-O explained on my talk page that he can provide justification for his edits, but that this will take a while. He also mentions that at least one of the reviewers - "Bogeyman" - is a published noir writer who remains anonymous thanks to an "agreement", which makes it very difficult to say whether Bogeyman's reviews meet WP:SPS.

Linking to reviews by recognised authorities seems fine, if it can be shown who the writer was; it'd be good to know whether every review reprinted on the noiroftheweek blog was written by one of the cited authorities, or if it's a mix of recognised authorities and knowledgable fans. --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice McGeddon, to add to what you have stated, this blog link has a nasty history with another editor who insisted it be kept, as can be seen on this report to the Administrators noticeboard and this discussion on WikiProject External Links. It clearly fails WP:EL. All of the relevant information on the site can be integrated into Wikipedia using citations so the entire website doesn't need to be linked to in the "External links" section. The reviews themselves aren't particularly notable and as such do not need to be linked to in whole, unless the review itself has generated notable discussion of the article's subject. Themfromspace (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To note: the links don't have a "nasty history", although the editor who was championing them may have (but I see no particular evidence of that on those two discussions). Secondly, neither discussion you cite actually reached a consensus - it was rather a case of editors asserting their unsuitability as a fait accompli, so you're either going to have to make the case for removing those links here, or on the WP:EL talk page. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Themfromspace: Just to review: when you are Bold and delete something from an article, and someone Reverts your edit because they dispute what you've done, and the reverting editor asks you in the edit summary to Discusss your edit, you're supposed to discuss it, not revert the reversion. That's the essence of WP:BRD. What you're doing is called edit warring, and that's a no-no. Please stop, and while you're at it, please self-revert the edits you just made. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the discussions reached consensus because both had one editor arguing against consensus from the get-go. Furthermore, User:Noirish(Steve-O) disclosed his conflict interest on my talk page after prefacing that with a suggestion that I need to "get a life", which is borderline incivility. Themfromspace (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, please do not confuse any behavioral issues you may see in specific editors with the question of the appropriateness of the links themselves. As far as I can tell, you're taking for granted that they have been established as not passing the requirements of WP:EL, but I have yet to see the discussion where that is established. If you've got another link, I'd be interested in seeing it, if not, please stop editing as if this has been established. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reviews themselves aren't particularly notable and as such do not need to be linked to in whole, unless the review itself has generated notable discussion of the article's subject. That is what I wrote above, if you'd read WP:EL, you'd find that this statement clearly fits in with the requirements. The material is MUCH better off being sourced within the article, if appropriate, and if not the links have no place on wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So it's about removing noiroftheweek from external links of Film Noir articles? because some of the addresses that redirect to noiroftheweek.com includes "blog" in some cases. Well, obviously the removal has been done by someone who has no idea about the subject and how valid the sources are, therefore it's understandable, if you don't know what are you doing, things like that can happen. But now Noir of the Week should be put back to the articles from where it was removed, if it's not done so already.--Termer (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL treats "blogs" and "personal web pages" as the same thing; there's no special distinction. The noiroftheweek site is owned and run by Steve-O, so his own reviews there fail WP:SPS unless he can show that he meets the "established expert" criteria of that policy.

The online reprints of notable print reviews seem fine (although, as Themfromspace says, it'd be good to actually quote these noir experts in the article body rather than relegating them to an external link), but that doesn't mean that every other page on Steve's site automatically meets WP:EL. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE says use common sense and do what's the best for "spreading free knowledge". Does the "bolg" promote "Steve-O" -NO, does the noiroftheweek.com promote Film Noir and educate the reader? -Yes. So how again was the removal of those EL's justified and motivated?--Termer (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Steve-O runs the website, then it is a conflict of interest for him to want the website to be disseminated. Film noir is hardly a limited area of study; there are many, many available resources that can go beyond this website and thus avoid any conflicts of interest. Also, external links cannot be freely added to articles, lest articles become link farms. Like McGeddon says, it would be more useful to actually implement the website's articles directly into the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Again, does the noiroftheweek.com promote someone called "Steve-O" or does it promote Film Noir and educate the reader and therefore is it a valuable source for anybody interested in the subject and for WP ProjectFilm? That's all what matters here in case we've come to WP to spread free knowledge.--Termer (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, it is a conflict of interest. An external link does not need an editor's name on it for there to be a conflict of interest. Some editors can solicit their friends' websites; others can solicit reviews from their favorite film critics. These websites could have useful content, but we have to exercise caution and make sure that the agenda is solely to "spread free knowledge". If someone has a vested interest in disseminating their website, especially indiscriminately, then discussion needs to take place about the merits of the website. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and while there are many useful links out there, we try to use them to substantiate the article, not to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If other editors can review the website and objectively say that it is useful, then it could be used where it benefits the readership. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik: As far as I can tell, if there's a conflict of interest, it involves a single editor, while the links have been restored by a number of other editors, none of whom has a conflict. Once that happens, the links should be dealt with as if they were posted by a non-conflicted editor, and the conflict of interest question is moot.

On the other hand, all editors should acknowledge that once an edit is disputed, reverting it is edit warring, and if there's been a call for discussion, WP:BRD requires that the editor engage in discussion on the talk page or in a centralized place, such as here, and not communicate through edit summaries about the disputed edits. The article should remain in the status quo ante as regards the disputed edits until the discussion has either reached consensus, or a previous consensus has been shown to be applicable. In this case, neither of these things has occured: there is clearly no consensus here, and no previous discussion has been cited which reached an applicable consensus.

Further, this is not a situation where the project is harmed by leaving the links in place while the discussion goes on, so there's no immediate need for their removal while a consensus is reached.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be incorrect - policy and guidelines clearly establish that the burden of proof is always on those wishing inclusion of material. So if the EL is disputed, it should remain out of the article until the matter is settled. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case for the inclusion of new material, but not so much for stuff which has aleady been vetted and lived in the article for same amount of time before being deleted by an editor. In that case, the dispute is not over the inclusion, but over the deletion, so different standards should apply. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a time-based question, because we don't turn a blind eye on things because of "tradition" - inclusion is a continuous process, just as the article development also is; unsatisfactory material should be excluded, regardless. We don't disregard uncited material merely because it's been uncited for many months, either. If anything, the longer material which is manifestly inappropriate has been standing in the article, the faster it needs to be pulled out. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we are arguing pretty broadly now... Girolamo, do you have an impression about the appropriateness of this website as an external link? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm dubious about essays appearing as external links, period. As far as any of these ones in particular have notable perspectives or recognized authors, they may have applicability as references. But adding the link just because it exists? It's a rather poor rationale, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is the deal, because any review is always an essay the site applies pr WP:ELYES

• 4.Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.--Termer (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. And as long as the site in general is good enough for guys like William Hare, Eddie Muller, Alain Silver, Ed Sikov who do contribute to it, the site is good enough for me including it pr WP:EL as a site of reviews on relevant films.--Termer (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a specific opinion on this website, but I think editors need to be cautious about adding singular reviews to the "External links" section. A select number of reviews in the section may be undue weight, while an abundance of reviews in the section may be too much of a link farm. I think the focus should be on covering reception in the article body. I think that reviews that could be added as external links are those that explore a unique area of the film. For example, there is usually a lot of overlap with regular film critics about the different elements of a film, so I think it's unreasonable to highlight any particular review as an external link. (I've seen editors try to add nothing but Ebert reviews or Variety reviews across multiple articles.) Reviews that stand out may be something like a historian's perspective of a historical film or a scientist's perspective of the film that cannot be adequately summarized in the article body. Understand that this is more of a general argument than one specific to the website, though we can verify that website offers unique perspectives of the element of film noir in each of these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To me it looks like self promotion. WP:EL treats "blogs" and "personal web pages" as the same thing; there's no special distinction Count Blofeld 11:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Here is a closer link at the reviews provided by the website:

• Angel Face: review by a "Paul M" -- who is he?
• Where Danger Lives: review by Steve-O himself
• Alias Nick Beal: review by Steve-O
• Pushover: review by "darkdave" (seriously?!)
• The Big Clock: review by Tim... Tim who?
• The Burglar: review by Samspadefan
• Kiss of Death: review by Mappin & Webb Ltd. (sounds authoritative... maybe?)
• The Woman in the Window: review by Spencer Selby, who wrote this... seems okay
• Brute Force: review by Steve-O again...
• Human Desire: review by JeffMarkam

I could go further, but judging from what I've looked at so far, only one person seems to be an authority in the review (Spencer Selby), and that was after a Google search. Per WP:ELNO's #11, most of these reviews are not by recognized authorities. Termer is also wrong about the lack of promotion. Steve-O clearly has his name attached to a number of reviews, and this was just scratching the surface. I will be removing these reviews except for Spencer Selby's. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not good enough. By judging the aliases not the content, even if not competent in the subject, the fact that for example professionals like William Hare with his Border Incident (1949) consider the site good enough should do the talking. etc. and the fact that certain "Steve-O" doesn't promote himself but in fact promotes Film Noir, none of the arguments above by Erik are valid really. Removing the unique reviews from external links that give the reader good overviews on the films, it doesn't serve the interest of Wikipedia readers.--Termer (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think a review by someone named "darkdave" is acceptable? Don't get me wrong, a review by Spencer Selby or Bill Hare (found a few reviews by him) would be okay, but we don't know who the other people are. These people contributed reviews to this blog, but this is by no means an endorsement of the others' credibility with their reviews. From what I've noticed, most of the reviews by those who are not recognized authorities are for less famous noir films. The more famous noir films usually have reviews by Selby or Hare or someone else who has been published. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, Termer, that you are losing perspective here. The question is not "are these good?" That's not a question that EL, V, or OR has ever been equipped to handle. The question is "do these fall within our standards?", which does not mean the same thing. Questionable opinions coming from reliable sources are considered acceptable, while expert opinions sourced to random, semi-anonymous handles never are. Certain sources will never be permissible links to material, regardless of the content's quality, and that is simply the cost of having an accountable sourcing policy. There is always going to be "good" material which certain editors will be disappointed to find does not meet the site's standards. It's not a judgement of the quality, but rather the provenance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

-Never lost perspective here. Just following the WP:EL guidelines:

• WP:ELYES Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
  

and/or

• WP:ELMAYBE -Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
  

--Termer (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Lovers

It's not a future release any more. I saw it last night at a cinema... I don't know how to change the WP assessment info.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to help me track this back and look for reliable release information, in which country did you see the film, and was it part of a festival screening or at a normal cinema as part of a wide release? Steve ^{T • C} 08:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine the film was seen in a French cinema (Paris cinema times) where the movie was released last week — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I found that earlier and should have said. The class is now "Start". Steve ^{T • C} 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in France, in a normal cinema... Will it be released later elsewhere?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "Start" yesterday, but for some reason it's still displaying "Future" on the article page itself. Anyone got an idea why? Steve ^{T • C} 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I see "Start" -- try updating your cache with CtrlF5. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well flip me. I could have sworn I tried that yesterday, but it's displaying correctly now, so I'm obviously just some kind of stupid melonfarmer. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of documentaries

Does anybody know what has happened to the List of documentaries category by country? I have just noticed it has disappeared (turned to a red link).--intraining ^{Jack In} 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Right here. They moved it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that I appreciate it, I have fixed the link on that page now.!--intraining ^{Jack In} 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS:FILM agenda

Hello, I've outlined an agenda to improve style guidelines. It includes points for future discussion. If you have any ideas about where the style guidelines could be tweaked or what could be added to it, feel free to pitch in. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List of documentary films

I would really like someones opinion regarding this List of documentary films. I have some questions that have been kind of bothering me.

1. 1. Should the documentaries included in the Up Series (7up,7+7,21up,28up,35up,42up) be merged to just the Up Series.
2. 2.I added images of various films posters/covers as in this revision but I was asked to remove them as there was no clear reason why they should be used. If I add a picture and underneath it write "XXXX is the highest grossing documentary ever produced" or "XXXX won the 19XX Oscar for best documentary film" ect, Will that be enough in order to use the images.
3. 3. Should documentary's that begin "The" Blank Generation or "A" Boy Named Sue be listed as "Blank Generation, The" and "Boy Named Sue, A"
4. 4. Is it possible to get the BOT to clean up the references (if you know what I mean)?

Well that is it for now any impute would be greatly appreciated.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. From what I can tell, there does not seem to be anything to merge into Up series as I do not see any separate articles about each film in the series. What you could do is expand details of each film in this series article, and if you find that each film is notable on its own and could stand alone, you can spin it off.
2. Unfortunately, I don't think that it would be enough context to support a poster image. Showing the poster image with the milestone does not provide more substantial understanding to the reader than if you have just the film title with the milestone. In contrast, a poster image used in individual film article is treated more of an identifying image. Per WP:NFC, we try to minimize the usage of non-free images throughout the mainspace, and I don't think that showing posters in this list is adding much.
3. I don't think that you need to write "Blank Generation, The", but you can make sure that it falls under "B". Film articles that start with an article (a, an, the) use {{DEFAULTSORT}} so they are properly categorized.
4. I don't know if there is a bot to clean up the references. It may need to be done manually, but I could be wrong. It may be worth looking at {{cite web}} to use a template and be clear about the source.

Hope this helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that certainly helps, Thankyou for your reply.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

plural of "film noir" ... and whatever :o)

Could you please have a quick look here? We're having a discussion about whether the "List of film noir" needs to be moved for grammatical reasons. I'm arguing it does because it lists many films (= plural). While film noir can be used in singular as a genre, the meaning of the list title is different (plural, refering to single films). One user wants to keep it on the singular, ... and then there is some disagreement about the correct plural.

Maybe you could simply come by, tell us what you think and thereby solve this discussion? Hey, you'd be our hero!! :o) And the more, the merrier... Thanks!!!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, why wouldn't List of noir films do? "Film noir" always sounded like the overall genre label to me. "Noir film" seems like an item in that particular genre. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, as "List of film noir films" sems redundent, even if correct. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing IMDB

Since films is the project that would be most affected by this, it should be noted that there is are several on-going discussion regarding whether IMDB should be a citable source or not at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hours

Hello. I realize this page is not intended to be a forum used to discuss specific films, so if anyone who is familiar with The Hours (I probably have seen it a dozen times or so) is interested in discussing the ending of the DVD version of the film, please contact me at my talk page. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this list even vaguely notable?

Disney Movie Rewards?! What do other users think? I would take it straight to AFD, but I feel I might be missing the (reward) point... Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would classify it as Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles, especially with that long list of eligible products. It mostly depends on whether there is any independent coverage for it. (Which I haven't seen). At best, I would whittle it down and merge it into the Disney DVD section of the Disney Corp. article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think merging would be a good idea... I've checked Access World News and LexisNexis Academic, the latter which had a few brief mentions. This was the most substantial one, from the trade paper The Hollywood Reporter:

Buena Vista Worldwide Home Entertainment is linking its Disney Movie Rewards program to the new Walt Disney Pictures release "Meet the Robinsons," the division's first-ever theatrical tie-in.

Members of the loyalty program, which rewards buyers of Disney DVDs, can now earn additional "points" by mailing in their ticket stubs from the movie. The more than 700,000 consumers who have joined the program since its October launch collect points, generally by buying DVDs, and then can redeem them for merchandise and digital products. Typical prizes include DVDs, games, books and collectibles.

"We always strive for ways to innovate the home entertainment industry and add value for the loyal fan base who love our DVDs," said Gabrielle Chamberlin, senior vp marketing, North America, for Buena Vista. She said Disney Movie Rewards "drives interest in our (DVD) releases and rewards members with things ... that only Disney can bring."

It does not really go beyond the promotional language, so placing it at Disney DVD seems best, unless someone thinks that there is a good analysis of this program somewhere to warrant a stand-alone article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article sounds like shameless advertising for Disney. Brief mention of the program could be made in the Disney DVD section of the Disney Corp. article, but I certainly wouldn't list as many details as appear here. I think the article as it stands should be deleted. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've listed it at AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct link for ease: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Movie Rewards. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. I now know how I found that article in the first place - it formed a category of all things to group some films together! I've listed it at CFD here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New film reels for project use

• 
  1.
• 
  2.
• 
  3.
• 4.
  4.
• 
  5. (Crop)

Is there a reason to change from the icon? These images above seem okay to use in larger sizes, but if they were compressed to the size of the icon, the complexity of the images would make it difficult to see what's going on (other than #2, which is like the current icon, anyway). That's why the current icon seems acceptable to me; it's simple to view and understand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the existing "cartoon-type" icons. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem keeping the "clip art" we're currently using (a more grown-up term than "cartoon"? <g>) but if we were to change, I'd !vote for #2 on the small icons, #3 for larger images. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To my recollection, we replaced whatever long-time image existed before with a pretty cartoony reel since there was an issue with that image's validity. We followed that up with a discussion for sleeker options to replace the cartoony reel, and the sleeker reel now used with the templates was the result. I feel pretty satisfied with the choice, so I am not sure about change for the sake of change. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the original reel images very well. You must have a better memory than me! :) I think after the copyright situation, we were forced to replace the image with a pretty cartoony reel, one that was translucent so some background color came through. Some time later, we had a pretty large discussion of, I think, four possibilities, and the one we use now was pretty well-received. I think that it is less cartoony than the reel we used before. Like Her Pegship said, it is more like clip art. I just think that it fits with other instances of clip art on Wikipedia. If there is interest from others to go for one of these images, I'll go with it, but right now I don't have a desire to change. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but if any photograph of a reel is going to be used to represent film, I would advise it being a 35mm reel, since that is the format for which the majority of professional films are made. The Photoplayer 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The images would need some editing and clean up in case those are meant to be used as icons. For example #2 would need to get the sloppy looking box on the BG masked out so that only the circular shape would be visible etc. Please list any templates you'd like to have the iconography changed from cartoony to photorealistic and I would be able to provide some design suggestions for consideration.--Termer (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything, I prefer the present image. Simple, clean, and effective. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sephiroth here - part of the reason why we use a clip art graphic is because it is much more effective at conveying the idea than the reality sometimes does. There's nothing wrong with not using a real picture - in fact, if you look at most WikiProject icons, they don't. I happen to like our current icon, although I'm not disinclined to support newer, better options should they come along, but I don't think that either the rationale or the choices presented here are worth abandoning our current graphic for. (Nor am I aware of any objections to our icon prior to now.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

B Movie actors at CFD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for I Not Stupid Too

Remember me? The guy who wrote two GAs about Singaporean movies (I Not Stupid and Homerun)? I have written a third GA-to-be: I Not Stupid Too. The article is currently on peer review; members of this WikiProject are invited to review the article. Any and all feedback is appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hancock

Hello, I am working on the article for the film Hancock. I was wondering if anyone owned the DVD or Blu-ray disc? If so, would you want to help me out by jotting down anything useful from the featurettes so they could be implemented into the article? I think I could get my hands on the DVD eventually, but the Blu-ray disc also had two additional featurettes. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Film list @ AFD

Thought some people might be interested in this. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

List of film trilogies.

I seem to have run up against an editor who wishes to include trilogies that do not yet exist or which may never exist. As I do not want to run up against 3RR I would appreciate some fresh eyes on this. User:Happy Evil Dude wishes to count the new Batman films (2005), Ghostbusters and xXx as trilogies despite there being no third film. He wants to frame the last two Bond films and a future film as a trilogy (despite Daniel Craig stating yesterday that there is no Bond film in his current future plans). He wants to include the Chronicles of Riddick and two unmade sequels as a trilogy, along with Transformers (which has yet to get to two films). Also of contention is the French Connection which despite having the roman II in its sequel he wishes to label as a trilogy. I know some hate lists like this (as they will never be complete) but I feel that to stop these things from filling with OR that a clear criteria must be adhered to, and films which may have a second or third film made cannot be included. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your stance; the assumption of potential trilogies is a little too crystal-ballish. If necessary, it may be worth directing the editor here to discuss this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I do think if there are reliable sources for upcoming film like Ace Ventura 3 that is fine to add.--intraining ^{Jack In} 14:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question rolled past 3RR and I have warned him and he appears to be holding off on re-adding. For the moment the matter appears settled. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barton Fink

Hello, Scartol has significantly improved the Wikipedia article for Barton Fink and aims to get it promoted to Featured Article status. He has requested a peer review, and I invite all interested editors to share their thoughts on shaping the article for the better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On first read, this is an extremely well-written and copiously researched article. What really REALLY impressed me was the authoritative and comprehensive reference section, and not only that everything was in an exact MLA style. Congrats. Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

Not sure if Scartol knows that a heads-up was given here. You may want to express your sentiments at the PR. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

B class?

Date Movie is given a B class rating. The article doesn't contain a single reference, the plot is way too long, and there's a lot of unnecessary details. Mjpresson (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films gives it a Start-class assessment, which I think is accurate. I guess you're talking about WikiProject Comedy's assessment? It probably should be Start-class, too, as I agree with what you said about the article. Be bold and reassess it! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking for input

I am currently editing the List of documentary films over here to hopefully become a FL one day. I would like to know if anyone can help me out in writing the Opening paragraph(s). The opening paragraph is very important in lists so if more people that can provide their skills I think it will turn out better.--intraining ^{Jack In} 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is really an enormous list of films to tackle. Were you hoping to create a list of American Documentary Films? As it stands now, the List of documentary films is mostly American films and extremely incomplete. It appears to be missing about half of the 933 films from Category:American documentary films. (Although I haven't checked to see if all of them actually belong there.) It is also missing almost all of the films from these other national categories. With a couple of thousand films, will this list perhaps become too unwieldy for an FL? — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do plan of going thorough the category's to add all films, the American documentary category is the largest so I have mainly focused on that one so far. I was asking for help to write the opening section.--intraining ^{Jack In} 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CommentAll I am planning to do while it is in user space is complete the tables to avoid it looking incomplete (messy) while it is live.--intraining ^{Jack In} 10:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Have you seen some of the other featured lists like this article and this one? I'm hoping to improve this article I created a while back to a featured list (awards section, etc). On a releated note, I've been working through the category Category:Documentary films by moving them into the country-specific sub-cat. Lugnuts 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would completely avoid an A-Z list. It is best organised by year and fits in with all our lists by country and all the other genres. If you are developing it I would strongly advise to organise by year and split by decade. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blofeld... it would make the task pretty tedious to try the whole thing. If you can compartmentalize the list, then you can set up several milestones. Also, think of it this way, you could get more than one FL star! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it should be split for sure. Also, perhaps find a reliable source that lists documentary films released per year, if possible? Gary King (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is really annoying, milestones do not mean anything when it comes to a List of Documentaries by Alphabetical Order. I have heaps of money my dad(who is a movie star in Australia and known in USA) bought me a house when I was 18(I am 26 now), I want to do this out of good faith. I need to do this to show I am a good person and not a idiot who just buys stuff all the time, After all this IS charity work. I do not want a star or several stars or anything, I NEED TO SHOW I AM SMART!! I am doing this for the project, All I am asking for is HELP to write the opening paragraph.--intraining ^{Jack In} 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We are just trying to offer some friendly advice, that's all. I have not really worked on a list before, but you could look at other featured lists for inspiration. Good luck in your endeavor! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know you guys are trying to help, I really do appreciate it.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WAF

An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Scoring sessions

User:Dgoldwas, who created SoundtrackNet and ScoringSessons.com, is adding information about scoring sessions and links to his website to numerous articles. Is this information usually considered a legitimate part of film articles? I don't recall seeing it except in those articles where he's adding it, and I'm wondering if this borders on self-promotion. Any thoughts? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The user readily identifies himself as linked to the site, but it only presents a potential conflict of interest. The information seems legitimate, and SoundtrackNet at least has been cited by bona fide news sources, which goes to its reliability as a source itself. A pick of random additions reveals little to worry about (though I'm not wild about the duplication in the "External links" sections). Steve ^{T • C} 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this external link a little too often. While the links have useful content, it may be worth encouraging the editor to focus on incorporating the content of a link as a reference. It just strikes me as too "easy" to solicit a website across multiple articles in their "External links" sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. However, does this mean information about scoring sessions should be considered a valid part of film articles? How important is it to know that a film score was recorded at XYZ studios? To me it sounds more like a subtle ad for XYZ than it does a pertinent fact about the film. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. It seems relevant to me. If we say for example that Film X was shot on the Universal backlot, why not mention that the score was recorded at, say, the Los Angeles Music Center? Steve ^{T • C} 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that LiteraryMaven has an issue with providing factual data about the film scores and where they were recorded, at least if it's not deemed "relevant" or "notable" based on their own set of standards. But just because it might not be considered "notable" to note the facts of the scoring session information or a particular film according to LiteraryMaven, that's hardly indicative of the notability of the information for other people. Dgoldwas (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some statistics: Soundtrack.Net is linked at 307 pages (not all articles) and ScoringSessions.com is linked at 76 pages (mostly articles here). I do not think it is bad to have information about how a film was scored and where it was scored. It seems more of a concern that the ELs include reviews by the editor himself, and I am not sure if he has established authority to make his reviews count either as a reference or as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. There is need to evaluate (perhaps based on WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews) whether such reviews can be considered as valid additions. At the same time I feel that for film articles, especially those whose scores haven't received any particular coverage and recognition, the addition of such link is unnecessary and borders on being promotional. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at a few more than the handful I assessed originally, I would now be more comfortable if we took these out of the "External links" sections. If the occasional one does have something that falls under the EL guideline, then that's great, but they probably shouldn't be added as a matter of course. Steve ^{T • C} 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your helpful feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In my own defense, the news items are not "reviews". Also, I'm quite happy to provide the scoring session information without a reference link, but then people would be complaining about the lack of a reference link. Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Dgoldwas (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern is related not to referencing sources properly but to your adding your website to External Links. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates

The discussion above refers to a strain on the Wikipedia servers. Maybe some of it is due to the existence of templates like Template:David Frankel with only three credits and Template:Sam Mendes Films with only four. Shouldn't a director (or any individual, for that matter) have a sizable body of work before warranting a template? Thanks for your input. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should. There is also Template:Marcus Nispel, with only three films to his name (the third not even released yet). At what point should we say, "this really isn't enough?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

TheMovieBuff (talk · contribs) created a lot of the smaller templates recently. I assume this is because a lot of the larger templates were already created and the editor saw a gap to fill. Whether or not the templates are appropriate remains to be seen. I doubt that the presence of such templates strain Wikipedia servers, especially when each one is used in such a limited number of film articles. It's a tough call to determine when a template for a director would be appropriate... I had hoped that it would be treated on a case-by-case basis. I don't know the best criteria for creating a template, but it seems that there are directors, and there are career directors. The templates do provide some sense of navigation among the projects they've done. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my agreement was over their unnecessaryness, not a strain they might put on the servers (I doubt they put any). I think if you only have 3 films, then we should probably rethink if readers need a separate template at the bottom of those three films pointing them at each of the others. If we were going by shear merit, 3 films (especially 3 that weren't blockbusters or award hogs) doesn't really scream out "noteworthy director" (not to be confused with "note worthy person").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would advise all parties to please don't worry about performance - this should not be a factor in these sorts of decisions, generally speaking, unless we're talking about hundreds of thousands of templates or something on that order. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting debate. I don't know where I'd draw the line for numbers of films as a minimum before a template could/should be created. Take Alejandro González Iñárritu as an example. Very notable director, but he's only done 3 films - take a look at the foot of the 21 Grams article. However these 3 films are linked in a triology (of sorts), and it aids navigation between the 3. I'd certainly question anything less than 3! Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Controversial films at CFD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader‎

An editor keeps restoring The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader‎ even though filming was not able to begin in October 2008 and may begin filming in early 2009. Can others take a look? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this (especially the notability section) I can not see anything wrong with what Inclusionist has been doing, That is just my opinion though.--intraining ^{Jack In} 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFF says not to create an article if filming has not begun. The article previously redirected to a section. (The detail about filming planned to start in October 2008 never actually took place.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe the article should be moved into his/her user space until filming has begun, that is what it says here.--intraining ^{Jack In} 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, though I am not sure if the editor will be open to that suggestion. He/she already drafted a challenge to WP:NF and is currently petitioning to demote it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K., it is getting a bit technical for me to give you a proper answer, for the sake of you receiving a educated answer I will not offer anymore advise. Good Luck though.--intraining ^{Jack In} 20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, anyway! :)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader‎ now redirects to a section of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is the article about the book. I agree with Eric that a film article shouldn't be created until filming has begun. Imagine if articles about films like Evita or the remake of The Women had been created the moment it was announced they were going to be made - it would have taken 10+ years' worth of updates before they finally were accurate! :) LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting a more contentious situation, but it seems that I was wrong. Alientraveller was able to update the section, so hopefully this assuages the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Width of {{Infobox Film}}

For the benefit of those who are interested and may have missed it, a proposal has been made to increase the width of the infobox. Discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Film#Width!. PC78 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards

It's that time of the year again... there are a lot of awards and nominations popping up, and it is pretty impressive to see anonymous IPs come out of the woodworks to make these (admittedly easy and unchallenged) additions. I was wondering, though, what other editors thought of how to best present such detail. When I look at the articles for films who have been gathering plenty of accolades, there is excessive white space in the related sections. Some examples: Slumdog Millionaire#Awards & nominations, Milk (film)#Awards and nominations, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film)#Awards and nominations. It is worth noting that while Milk has the most listed, it uses a collapsible section. Do we need a way to standardize the presentation or at least come up with some best practices? For example, we can encourage conversion to prose, either now to perhaps redirect the trend or after the awards season when the articles are a little quieter. We could also pursue a table design that could accommodate awards and nominations better and fill the extra white space. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... I seem to recall raising this issue a while back at MOS:FILM. The layout of such sections tends to vary quite a lot, so I think some degree of standardisation would be a good thing. At the very least, it would be good to try and establish a preferance for either table or list format. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent use for a table format. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oops, did you really? Hopefully we can make some leeway here. Did you have any ideas for how to approach these sections? We could probably use whatever we came up with and add an "Awards and nominations" section to our guidelines. Let's look at tables used to present previous awards... we should definitely discourage the ones that use awfully solid red and green for whether a film won an award or not. To start us off, maybe we could suggest that if there are not numerous awards, it is best to write in prose. Writing in prose would also be good for any unusual circumstances for the award, such as The Dark Knight being ineligible for the score then eligible again. However, if the awards and nominations are pretty straightforward, we could take the table approach... just need to find out what design(s) would be most favorable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we actaully came up with anything last time. :) Personally I use tables, but I'm fairly open minded on this should anyone want to champion the use of lists. I agree with what you say, that prose should be used where there are only a few awards & noms, tables where there are quite a lot, or both if circumstances require it (such as the example you gave for The Dark Knight). In terms of presentation, then I think something simple and functional would be best; I'm not keen on the use of colour at Mulholland Drive (film)#Awards, for example. PC78 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate those red and green boxes and wish they'd never been created. Let me tinker a bit with an idea and I'll post a link later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what I am talking about, then! ;) A couple of useful links: Wikipedia:When to use tables and Help:Table. It may be worth noting that tables are discouraged due to difficulty editing them, so I think we should seek a threshold for when it would be best to go from list/prose to table. Also, if we are going to experiment with table designs, we should probably talk it out on a conceptual level. For example, should wins and nominations fall under the same award category, or should awards fall under win and nomination categories? Also, do we want to line-break all items, no matter what? Or can wins be strung together? Same with nominations? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to mention the Mulholland Drive article (esp. as it's a Featured Article) and how well the table works! Lugnuts (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, PC78 is not a fan of it, apparently. :) I personally don't love or hate it. This is a thought to have as we figure out how to best present awards, though... we can't be overly restrictive with whatever criteria we put forward. We could be clear about avoiding solid green and red for aesthetic reasons, but we should avoid declaring specific colors to use. (Suggestions of tones more light or neutral may work best.) If anyone has a test table to show for discussion, it would be great to use one. We should pick a film article that has a messy collection of awards and use it as a test bed, maybe even ultimately using it as an example in the guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a test, you can use List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors, which I had to split off from the main article on the way to FA. By working on that, maybe we can get it up to FL as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I put together the awards from Shakespeare in Love to look at here. Note I found I preferred the awards and nominations separately and didn't use the red/green templates. Note too that this adds some congruence with the filmography tables used in actor articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like splitting up the nominations from the wins - it makes it harder to see how many categories the film played in. As for the LMS example, I agree that the green yes/red no is perhaps a poor choice of content; "nominated" and "won" is clearer, more accurate, and less pejorative. See some of our Academy Award FLs for good examples of how this is formatted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have a bit of a problem visualizing the independent lists of submissions for awards to a section in an article for a specific film, and it wasn't the use of green/red won/lost templates that I was objecting to as much as it the whole concept of color coding wins and losses. Having said that, allow me to withdraw my suggestion of something different than the same-old, same-old, or suggesting some congruence with a project than deals with the people who make films. This would be why I have not tried to become more active in this project. My experience has been that the opinions of those not a coordinator get dismissed fairly quickly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't think that coordinators' opinions matter more than other editors'. We're just fellow editors who sign up for a little more commitment behind the scenes. What matters here are ideas and constructive criticism back and forth. With this said, I like the look of your Shakespeare in Love table. I agree with Girolamo, though, that separating the wins and nominations feels a little disjointed. Maybe we can see what is the most appealing aesthetic to show the difference between a win and a mere nomination. Also, Nehrams2020, that is quite a long list to work with! :) I was hoping, though, for a film with about a dozen awards because it would be easier to experiment with the coding. Shakespeare in Love is closer to the mark, though I think we could use an even smaller example. Whatever we come up with should be scalable, being able to display a half dozen awards or three dozen awards. Also, are we wanting consistency between list of awards in an article section and stand-alone lists of awards? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Little Miss Sunshine example is essentially the same as how I set up awards tables (I'm also guilty of using red and green in such a manner, but I accept that this perhaps isn't the best idea). Wildhartlivie's example (the bottom one) is again pretty similar, though I don't see any real reason to deviate from the default syle of a wikitable. I also agree with comments above that wins and nominations shouldn't be segregated. PC78 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The table was something that I threw together quickly as I split it off from the main article. Obviously the yes/no green/red format should be changed and I only suggested the article since it needs a lot of work. However with the number of sources it has, and if its tailored per our new style concerning awards, it would be a great example for the project, especially as a FL. However, that could also come down the line if we want to focus on practicing on a smaller article instead. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible table format

Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) put this together for awards from Shakespeare in Love. It combines the wins and nominations under a group of awards, and each group of awards is separated by a bold line. What do other editors think? A few points to ponder... how should we handle references for awards? For something like the Academy Awards' Best Picture winner, it is likely to go unchallenged, though, for smaller awards, readers may seek references. I think that we should go ahead and back everything with references anyway, but how should it be presented? Next to the general award name? As a separate "Ref." column? Also, for "Category", does anyone have a preference whether to have the full title like "Academy Award for..." or not? Lastly, regardless of how we figure out these points, I think one flexibility that should be given is for the colors, though we can say to keep it neutral or light. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! A very nice improvement, I must say. To answer your questions - I don't see why the ref can't be next to the general award name - usually the data is all collected together in one place or in a one hierarchy. Titles probably don't need to be full, due to the way the table is formatted and unnecessary redundancy, but opinion-wise, I'm not really passionate about it either way. Maybe we keep the nominations white, while giving the wins a pale yellow-gold color? Dunno. To throw a potential spanner into the mix - would there be any benefit to making the table sortable? I know that probably will create other design problems, but it is a thought that strayed into my mind. Maybe not, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get back to Erik that I'd figured out the line between awards, but I'm glad he found it and I accomplished it. In that sort of format, I agree with Girolamo Savonrola, that a reference for each group of awards (Academy, Golden Globe, etc.) could be given at the main category, instead of having 6 Academy Award references, only one would be necessary. In almost all cases, I think awards could be referenced from one place. I'm ambivalent about using Academy Award for Best Director vs. Best Director, although in either case, each has its own WP article and should be linked that way. Some of the lesser awards are a little less organized in regard to Wiki articles, but in most cases, a main title can be found. I'm not very up on sortable tables (mostly because I don't like them), though I don't think they are that difficult. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting the reference at the name of the main category (Academy Awards, Golden Globes, etc.) works for me, as I imagine that whatever reference we use will usually report the wins and nominations in one fell swoop. I don't know if I would advocate color to differentiate the wins and nominations. I'd be fine with it as a personal preference if it fits the color scheme aesthetically, but if we tried pale yellow with the Shakespeare in Love example, it does not seem like it would clash. Reuse of the general award category phrasing "Academy Award for..." strikes me as redundant, especially since Wildhartlivie was able to section off each general award category more subtly with bold separation. For sorting, this makes me realize, are we assuming that the awards are sorted alphabetically? I would prefer to have only the "Award" column be sortable; the other columns don't seem like the sortable sort. (Did I really just say that?) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could imagine some might want to separate the wins from the noms. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if that can be done... it would "break" the rowspan for the general award category. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all awards should be referenced. I think the references should be on the win/nomination or on the individual awards themselves. Some sites do list all on one page while others do not. For consistency, I think individual refs is best. Also, hate ref columns so would prefer not to see them used. Also hope that it will be emphasized that tables should only be used for lengthy lists of awards, with prose still strongly preferred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera might not like my newest example, then. :\ I just revised Gran Torino (film)#Awards and nominations diff (mostly because I wanted a small example)... thoughts on it? AnmaFinotera, I think that there is usually a nominations publication and later a wins publication (though the latter may not mention the nominees that didn't win). Is it problematic to use the nominations publication, even though it was before the actual award-giving? (I'll convert Gran Torino to prose; just wanted a small but workable example for discussion.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...see for something that short, I'd say should be prose. I think for the best accuracy in referencing, it should use the wins publication where the film won or where the publication includes the non-winning nominees, or the nominations publication (or, of course, news articles discussing noms/wins. :)) I'm trying to remember which article I worked on where I had that problem with the awards not being on the same page though the film won multiples, but now I can't remember. *doh*-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I get lost trying to find the various comments from above (blame vision disability), so I'll just make a couple general comments. If the tabling is done correctly (and presumably by whatever guidelines are written), then wins and nominations should be separated within each award category. The references would simply have to be dependent on whatever is available, if it available as a combined source, great, if nominees and winners are separate, then the references would have to be adapted. I would think it would be simple enough to state that ideally, wins and nominations should be referenced from a single source when possible. I did think that at some point, most had agreed that color coding win/nominations (the actors hate being called losers, so why should we?) was disliked. Maybe I misread it. Color would further complicate the coding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, may not respond to Wild's thoughts)

I converted Gran Torino to prose. AnmaFinotera, I'm trying to understand what you are saying... can you instead say what would not be appropriate for inclusion? :) I think that we should do a small write-up about writing "Awards and nominations" for the WP:FILM guidelines, but not just yet. First, let's make sure we plug all the holes in using a table format like this, such as sorting, so we can use the formats for the films that are currently racking up the awards. Here's another hole, a pretty gaping one IMO... how do we differentiate the nominations that are in progress as opposed to the ones that were nominated without result? Some use of italics and a temporal footnote since that is only an issue for a short span of time? (after e.c.) Going to take a breather so we don't conflict so much! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I get your question? You mean in the table? Unsourcable awards (of course; including only IMDB stuff), a reference column (use specific refs on the win/nominated column), and use prose for shorter lists. For dealing with nominations in progress, maybe use something like "current nominee" or "nominated (pending)"? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of distinguishing between nominations for finished and unfinished awards - nominees will always be nominees, including the winner. Winning is an additional accolade. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anything need to be done, then? Nominations happen not long before the ceremonies. Is it acceptable that an article's "Awards and nominations" section does not clarify if a ceremony has already taken place since in the long run, we'll know it all? For some smaller awards, it may not be as easily clear if the ceremony took place and results were given out. What about some way to format the general award category "Academy Awards (TBD)" or something of the like. It could cut back on changes, especially for numerous nominations in a given general award category. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be distinguished, unless perhaps with a small note at the main category, if one wanted, to say TBD. Everything would be listed as a nomination until it becomes a win, yes? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I see things have moved on a bit today, so I'll try and throw in my 2¢ for the various points that have been raised. :)

• I'm personally inclined to think that future nominations should be distinguished, since the nomination is not the final "outcome" or "result".
• Sticking with future awards, is the date of the ceremony something we should include in the table (this would make it clear that a ceremony has yet to occur)? It should be preferable at least to refer to specific ceremonies, i.e. 71st Academy Awards instead of Academy Awards. On a related note, my preference would be to order the list chronologically rather than alphabetically, though a seperate "Year" column is probably unnecessary.
• Regarding Erik's Gran Torino example: personally I don't see a problem with using a table here, I think the awards are varied enough to justify it. Though we should encourage prose for a small number of awards, it might be as well if we don't draw a line in the sand and leave it to editorial judgement as to when this applies.
• Not sure I see any great need to use sortable tables, besides for the grouping of wins and nominations. There's also a technical issue to consider: sortable tables are incompatible with the use of rowspan. With that in mind, I'd prefer to keep the tables unsortable for aesthetic reasons.
• Agree with Wildhartlivie that wins and nominations should be seperated within each award ceremony.
• Regarding the placement of the refs, I don't mind much whether this goes in the "Award" column or the "Outcome" colum, but if the latter then I think it would be best to use rowspan to eliminate the unnecessary duplication of references. No reason why all awards shouldn't be referenced, but I think we're all in agreement there.
• Agree with others that using the full name of individual awards is redundant; if there's an article for the award, then the link can be piped.
• About this bold line between each group of awards: is it just me that can't see it on Wildhartlivie's page?
• Regarding the use of colour, I think any example we use in the MOS should use the default stylings of class=wikitable. Beyond that I don't think it's something we need to comment on one way or another, though we might actively discourage the use of red and green in the "Outcome" column.
• Erm, that's it. I think. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few thoughts to share there! :) First of all, linking specific ceremonies is a good idea, though it depends on if the article is available. Having seen a few award articles, some of them don't receive a lot of love. As for differentiating present and permanent nominations, it may not be worth the effort. I was thinking that it has not really been an issue in the past considering how briefly we would worry about such clarifications. For Gran Torino, I converted it to prose, and I was able to group the three Best Actor-related accolades together. So writing in prose can depend on the variation. We can write up something for the guidelines after this table discussion. For the bold line, try to edit "2px" in the table to a larger value and preview it. Do you have a high-resolution monitor? If anyone else has any more thoughts to share, feel free to do so. I will probably revamp some "Awards and nominations" sections this weekend barring any further issues. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)