Template talk:Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Protected Template:Film has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.


This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template
This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
No
This article has been rated as No-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Example

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Films WikiProject.

[edit] Link needed

When a class or importance are entered, the link to the class or importance scale is gone. It would be more user friendly to link the display (Stub, NA, B, etc) to the appropriate scale. Hoverfish 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Cbrown1023 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsable tables

I converted the 'editing guidelines' and 'more information about this article' to collapsible tables, which fixes the issue with the show/hide buttons having to be clicked twice. In addition, I fixed the display errors in the 'more information about this article' section. Could an administrator please update the film template with these changes? The changes are located at User:PhantomS/sandbox2, and a sample of the new film template vs. the old can be seen at User:PhantomS/sample. By the way, in order to fix the 'more information about this article' section, most of the code for that section needed to be relocated to {{Film More Information}}; therefore, that template probably also needs full protection. --PhantomS 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about the technical details. Does this concern the Upgrading instructions that appear when class=stub? If so, let's first get some WP Films consensus before changing over. If not, please, go ahead. Hoverfish Talk 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, these fixes do not change any of the instructions. For the most part, they are only operational and display fixes. First, the show/hide buttons were fixed, in order for them to work correctly for the collapsible boxes at the bottom of the template (Note: editing guidelines is always included at the bottom, while 'more information about this article' shows up only if the attention, old-peer-review, peer-review, or past-collaboration variables have been set). If you look at the former behavior of these boxes, the behavior of the show/hide button is that it first starts with hide, which when clicked displays show. It's only when clicking for a second time that the content of the box is actually shown, which seems counterintuitive. The other change is that 'more information' displays correctly, at least as far as the code had intended it to be shown. The problem with that box is that there were missing symbols for one part and extra for another, which resulted in 'collaboration of the week' and 'attention' being displayed in the collapsible box, while peer review and old-peer-review would display outside of it.
As for the editing guidelines text, it is still located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Template_Message, which, incidentally, has never been protected. --PhantomS 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, the show/hide buttons only work correctly in the old film template if there is a certain additional number of collapsible boxes on the page. Therefore, since my sample has two boxes on one page, they should work correctly. However, if you check the behavior of the buttons on a regular article's talk page, they will function as I described previously. --PhantomS 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, got it. Please, disregard my previous statement. The work you did is really state of the art. Hoverfish Talk 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Cbrown1023 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something's gone wrong

A recent change has messed up the formatting ! -- Beardo 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes a while. It was already reverted. It has to run through all the pages before it gets fixed. Hence, why it is locked. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It was wrong on the template page when I noted - corrected about 5 minutes after I tagged. -- Beardo 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone for not checking my edit thoroughly. I was trying to eliminate a case where an extra newline could creep in and cause extra spacing, but failed to test it. Apparently MediaWiki doesn't like the {| table start syntax to appear on anything but the beginning of an edit line (except for possibly includeonly or noinclude tags), regardless of whether there is anything that actually ends up evaluating to non-empty tags before that. Oddly enough, the case that I thought was producing extra spacing (Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace) isn't any more, so my perception of a problem might have been a job queue lag with another template that I had fixed (properly).
Again, my apologies for borking up the template. — TKD::Talk 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Film dispute over existence of importance scale

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I really would like to explore the option of removing the importance scale from the template. It is too POV, and I have encountered edit warring over how a film should be rated with no actual criteria in place to do so neutrally. As Wiki-newbie shows, I tried to initiate some dialogue about it, but the excuse, "It's kind of useful to some people," seemed sufficient to others. What will it take to initiate a movement to remove the importance scale? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small alteration to your banner

As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is {{WikiProjectBanners}}, which hides all banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, that option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code is here). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

To fully work right, a second change would have to be made to {{Upgrading needed}} - the example page above shows how a stub article would look.

Projects that have already implemented this option include: WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:India, WP:AVIATION, and WP:CCM.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is needed. Go for it I say... Shane (talk/contrib) 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this should be. I've never felt the banners constituted any clutter problem in film article talk pages. Anyway if this HAS to be, I am at least against the very top hide/show. It would be good if this was always on show and the boxes under it are visible and can be expanded. I also think the default should be on "show", in all of them, so if anybody doesn't like them, or feels somehow cluttered by them, he/she can collapse them. Hoverfish Talk 23:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another practical consideration, is that the class assessment will not be directly visible and our work will slow down, plus many mistakes or class overratings will go easier unnoticed. Think that in films we have over 21000 articles to keep in check. Hoverfish Talk 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the stub to start class issue, usually when an article falls under multiple WikiProjects is when it is a B class or higher, so the template will usually not appear once it's beyond a start class. Very few articles that I've seen have actually had multiple projects claiming a stub article. The continuous show feature would be good as described by Hoverfish, as it is imperative that we continue to point out the project and have the instructions shown for the upgrading template. --Nehrams2020 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would go with small (I'm a non member but I've edited the template in the past iirc). Also, I would think that this project is fairly well contained, it will have overlap with other projects but not hugely so? Or am I mistaken? --kingboyk 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have never felt the banners constituted any clutter problem in film article talk pages. It is a talk page so it really doesn't matter. As long as it coordinated effectively which is the goal and looks more or less decent it isn't a problem. However I do feel it important that some level of standardization is met across projects ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple replies / comments: First, you can still show the project rating in the one liner, if you want. Take a look at Talk:Timothy R. McVeigh (not the bomber) as an example.
When it comes to clutter, there are many examples of how it looks. Buffy the Vampire Slayer springs to mind, but almost any FA article has multiple banners. As a film example, take a look at Talk:P.S. Your Cat Is Dead.
My sense from other discussions has been that the clutter issue comes in to play when there are several banners. If there are several banners, then the aim is to minimize them so they can all be seen, but not take over the page. Therefore, having the default be "show" would defeat the purpose.
I'm not sure what the overlap is between WikiProjects. But since yours is one of the top 10 when it comes to number of articles with your banner, I suspect there's a lot of overlap. I've been through some 4,000 WP:LGBT articles, and yours — and WP:WPBIO — are the ones I ran in to most. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We have overlap mainly with country projects, WP:LGBT, and some WP:Novels, Plays and Musicals (but here there is a -good or not- tendency to split the film usually). Like in the "Your Cat Is Dead" example above, in most cases the Talk page contains no or very few comments. It is only in more developed articles that there are discussions. As I see in "small", this option is intended for developed articles of considerable traffic. Yet most of our films are stubs and the upgrading info showing clearly at the top has been a very good and helpful development, so I would also say that it is imperative for our project's needs that this box remains out of the collapsed boxes. I also support the example given in "Timothy R. McVeigh", for the collapsed version. The {{WikiProjectBanners}} is not a good option for film articles. The {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} may be an option, provided A. the very top hide-show is by default on show (or omitted), B. the upgrading box is out of the collapsible boxes and C. the class can be seen in parenthesis. (Note: The importance field is debated and generally seen as POV, so it's not so important to show it in the collapsed box.) Hoverfish Talk 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Hoverfish! I see no problem with B and C above. For B, WPBio has a similar situation with their "Biography of Living People" box, though that's almost a legal requirement. My concern is with "A", since having the template default to "show" defeats the purpose of the shell. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you got me right. The example you gave us at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example Film (Nested, with class) has it by default on show, that's what I meant. One can see: "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:" followed by one-line boxes ("WikiProject Films (Rated stub-Class)", "Wikiproject Novels (Rated class-B)", etc). Does this defeat your purpose or did you think I meant all the WP's should be on "show"? I have notified some of our most active members to comment here, but apart from Nehrams and Blofeld I don't see any comments yet. Most are very busy lately and two are on wiki-break. Give us a couple of days and proceed, as far as I am concerned. Will you propose a vote as for which version will be implemented? Hoverfish Talk 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I see what you mean! Yes, the default is to have it showing the one-line summaries for each project. What you have in that summary is up to y'all - all the projects that have implemented it have shown their project name, of course, linked to the project. Most have their assessment rating. Australia has sub-projects, so that shows in their summary. But it's entirely up to y'all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nested with class and importance is my preference. — WiseKwai 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two changes requested

Per the discussion directly above this one, please make the following two changes:

  1. On this template, a change to the beginning of the table. The diff can be seen here.
  2. On the sub-template {{Upgrading_needed}}, a similar change to the beginning of the table. The diff can be seen here.

Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - Harryboyles 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cascading protection

Is there any particular reason cascading protection has been enabled for this template? Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/l/Template_talk%7EFilm_6332.html"