Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Notable roles

A plague has been spreading across the Indian cinema articles, and I gather it has its source outside. Editors have been putting a list of "Notable roles" in actor infoboxes. I've been removing them, on the grounds that it's personal opinion as to which roles are notable. I'd be OK with putting up a list of "Five most popular films, by box office totals", which is verifiable and not a matter of opinion, but other editors are resisting, on the grounds that they "know" which roles are notable. Truthiness, in a word.

I've been online for twenty years and I'm familiar with many BBS/Usenet/blog discussions of the "X best Y", all of which go on endlessly and are never resolved. I don't think "best", or "most notable", can ever be resolved by discussion; you have to have a metric to which everyone agrees.

I would appreciate it if we could have a binding policy on notable roles. Either drop them, or have a metric that isn't subjective. Zora 07:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of notable roles has gone on several times on the actor infobox talk page. It would probably be more appropriate to bring up the issue there, since it is more of a biography wp issue.--PhantomS 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
One possibility is to use the biographical content of the article itself to determine "notable roles", and use that part of the article and a quick index to film links. So if an article contains a small section about an actor playing a part in a particular film, then it would be reasonable to put a link to that film in the notable role info box. On the other hand, a film that isn't mentioned in the biographical text but that instead only appears in the actor's bullet point list of works would not be suitable. This gives you one relatively objective method of using information within the article itself to determine how to fill in a "role" box for the article. Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
.... and a very good suggestion , too. If a role is notable enough to be mentioned in the prose of the article, as 'stable prose' which has been subjected to standard consensus editing procedures, then it stands to reason that such a role is notable, otherwise the mention should have been removed from the article. This doesn't apply to lists, though, just because a role made it onto a filmographic list of roles is not a good criterion. I agree with Dugwiki, above. User:Pedant 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez!

The article Jesus of Nazareth (film) (poor Franco Zeffirelli's) needs as many tags as it can get. I don't know where to start. Excellent film by the way. Hoverfish Talk 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Revenue and budgets

Is there a good place to find box office and budget info? This info is hard to find, and it would be great if we could put it into wikipedia so it's easy to find for once. I know you can find new box office receipts, but I'm thinking of stuff like Shanghai Knights. - Peregrine Fisher 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IMDB has this type of information for many films. If IMDB has it, it will be located in 'Other Info->box office & business'. --PhantomS 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it considered a reliable source? Anyways, thanks a '''lot''' for that info. I've been looking for it, and it's right in front of me every time I go to imdb. - Peregrine Fisher 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how reliable it is, but it is what is typically used for the infoboxes. --PhantomS 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The best source for box office info is Box Office Mojo. They don't have info for older movies, especially anything before the late 1970s and more obscure films of 80s and 90s, but they're a reliable source. Volatile 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Numbers is another site to check out. I would suggest being cautious in blindly drawing numbers from either site, though -- I think there was some discrepancy with the budget of Superman Returns, because whether these sites said $250 million, the director himself said $207 million. Obviously, go for the primary source for that information if you can, though the sites make the job easier. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there exist any reliable sources for budget. Boxoffice figures are more publicly scrutinized and accountable. Reported "budgets," or "production costs" are generally highly fictitious, subject to rumor, exageration, speculation, and deliberate distortion. There aren't even reliable primary sources, as production companies are under no obligation to disclose their spending to the general public, and even from the point of view of an "insider," accountants have ways of shifting millions of dollars from one category to another for various purposes. Often, in the case of very expensive films, the people directly responsible for the production of a film are themselves only capable of rough estimates of cost that are tentative at best. I believe that no such figures should be listed unless they are qualified as "reported budget," or "reported production costs." Unless one of our editors actually has access to the details of an audit! zadignose 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this is the case, and it sounds quite reasonably true, we should discuss about removing this field from the infobox and letting it up to some section to mention budget, so it can be sourced or openly doubted. In the infobox it looks like an undisputed fact. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, removing budget from the infobox is a good idea, or else qualify it as "estimated" or "reported" budget. I agree that the infobox has the look of undisputed factual information. For an external reference, the website www.the-numbers.com which is dedicated to reporting on such things says this: "Note: Budget numbers for movies can be both difficult to find and unreliable. Studios often try to keep the information secret and will use accounting tricks to inflate or reduce announced budgets."[1] On a tangent, it's also curious to note how one source might list a film like Treasure Planet as the biggest financial disaster in film history (having lost a reported $125 million dollars by some people's accounting), but the same film might not make another source's list of the 20 biggest money losers because it actually had a pretty big box-office and the selected criteria ignore factors such as marketing costs, etc. Figuring how much a movie "cost" is as nebulous as figuring out how much of the box-office money found its way back to the "production company," especially considering the complex business relationships between multiple production, distribution, and marketing companies which may cooperate or coexist under the umbrella of one or more "parent companies." Foreign distibution really adds to the confusion, as does the phenomenon of international coproduction. Heck, it's ultimately mindboggling. zadignose 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags in info boxes

A lot of flags are now appearing in infoboxes alongside release dates. A flag for the country of origin isn't too bad an idea, but a lot of articles now have a flag to go with each release date. This is especially true for newer films. It seems really inappropriate to look at an article on a German film and see a huge American flag in the infobox to show its American release date. People not familiar with the film pages will see the flag and think this is for the country of origin. Can we not restrict these to country of origin only (if at all) and not have four or five in every infobox. The precise release date in every country is really a trivial item anyway, the only really important date is the year of first release. JW 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who would disagree with your last comment. Flags are only used to differentiate between different release dates (and no, we don't want to include all of them...). They should also be down using the {{Flagicon}} template. Cbrown1023 talk 12:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If we don't want every release date, then which ones do we include? Infoboxes should really only be for the basic information, and when the difference between release dates is a few days or weeks then yes, it is trivia. There are infoboxes for foreign films which only have the US release date and so only have the American flag. Is this appropriate? As I said, if I was unfamiliar with WP I would assume this was to show the country of origin. I think this is confusing and distracting. JW 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Foreign films would have the original release date and any other important ones, like a foreign films would have the release date of the country and of the US. Cbrown1023 talk 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So what counts as a 'foreign' film? The US isn't a large market for most films made outside of it (the exceptions being films from other English-speaking countries, but counting them as foreign here doesn't really work), so including it by default isn't useful. To me, the useful dates are the film's first release date, and, if different from the first one, the release date in its country of origin. The US release date would be useful if it had some significance, like for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (because that one was a success in the country), but even then, the release date in US is trivial and the rest would be better discussed in the article body. - Bobet 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
with flag
Release date(s) Flag of Germany 23 February 2003
Flag of France 31 September 2004
with country name
Release date(s) 23 February 2003 (Germany)
31 September 2004 (France)

As suggested at WP:FLAGCRUFT, I have been using flags rather than country names for the release dates because the film infobox is narrow and flags take up less space than some country names; without a flag the dates can run onto two lines and look ugly (see examples on the right). The problem exists with any country's name longer than 4 letters; of course, with shorter country names like USA and UK this isn't a problem, but I've been using the flags anyway to be consistent. Cop 633 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been also including flags themselves instead of the country's names because they save space, as listed above. It should not be confusing for readers to find what country the film originated in, when the main country is listed two spots below the release dates. Furthermore, the categories at the bottom reflect the country that released the film, and there also indicators usually in the lead paragraph stating what country the film is from. The flags may be visually appealing, but more importantly, they save space that would otherwise make for a much longer infobox. Nehrams2020 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ok, I take back my comment (section below). Hoverfish Talk 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The country of origin is not always listed in the infobox, but the the release dates (often US) usually are. Which is why some articles on French or German films only have an American flag in the infobox. The question is not whether readers can "find out" what country a film is from, but what impression the infobox gives them when they glance at it. There also obviously needs to be consensus on what release dates to include in the infobox. I think it would be better to only give the date of first release in the infobox, and other release dates can be given in the article itself. JW 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that flags should only be used when there is more than one release date, as, you're right, it can be temporaily misleading. The problem with your second point is that often we don't know the very first release date; it's much easier to find US release dates, than, say, Soviet ones, so you still end up with an American release date listed for a Soviet film. I think it's better to be more inclusive (I suggested some guidelines in my comment below), since release dates are difficult to write about in an interesting way, and hence are easier to just list in the infobox.
The reason you may not be seeing the country of origin is because I believe it is one of the newer additions to the infoboxes and if an infobox was added earlier, it is missing some of the newer features. You can always go through, copy the new infobox in, transfer the information, and include the new traits if applicable. --Nehrams2020 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

I have been adding release dates to many articles and I believe we need (1) The release date in the country that made the film. (2) The release dates in English-speaking countries (because this is the English Wikipedia). Release dates in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand are not trivial to the many readers who may wish to know when it was released in their country. (3) In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it would still be interesting to know when it was released there). We do not need the release dates in any other country. That's my system! Thoughts? Cop 633 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Way to go! That's the WP Films system actually. I've seen some completely irrelevant country release dates here and there. I guess someone copies them from imdb if they happen to be there. They can be simply deleted. Just make sure the country was not a co-producer. What we get most often as "2" is US release. Now, if we add all English-speaking countries it may get to be somewhat too long, even for the sake of NPOV. And yes, I agree that if a specific country release has some historical or cultural singnificance in respect to the film we can add it (and hopefully we can pass on all the flagicons - see above). Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I inserted my guidelines above into the style guidelines for film articles? I've noticed a number of excessive release dates in infoboxes and it would be good to have something to refer to when deleting them. Cop 633 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a problem to add it. As I went through adding infoboxes, I did add as many dates as available to be broad enough for people of various countries to be able to see their respective country release date. I wasn't selective and tried to add all of the available theater release dates. Of course there is a problem of IMDB not listing every country's release date. I don't think it's necessary to go thorough and delete all extra release dates, but this guideline could be used for adding them in the future. --Nehrams2020 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be nice to list them all, and they could of course be located elsewhere in the article, but the infoboxes start to look silly if there are lots of them, so we need some guidelines about what to exclude from them. Cop 633 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

Image:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Gladiator (2000 film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 talk 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance scale revisited

82.2.139.211 has been re-categorizing film articles, and has reverted edits to return his own changes, citing POV. Isn't he providing his own POV for the re-categorizations? I know the importance scale can be iffy, so I was wondering what the best way to determine these things were. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As importance is a matter of POV, where a dispute occurs about such a classification a "neutral ground" should be established (i.e removing the importance tag entirely). Then allow discussion to take place on the talk page before making a final decision. I noticed you are revert-warring the removal of the importance tag. Please dont do this again.

My suggested solution for the POV and general "grade-inflation" of such a tag (everybody want there arrticles to be classified "Top" after all) is to delete it from the template altogether. 82.2.139.211 17:28, February 7, 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your own criteria for re-categorizing film articles. You are charging people who revert you for POV and OWN, when it seems that you are having your own POV in choosing how film articles should be re-categorized. And please don't try to become a neutral party all of a sudden, when you were clearly going on your re-categorization mission before you encountered resistance. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't get all that excited about this "importance" thing. All the discussions we've had so far indicate that no one is taking it seriously and everyone thinks it's all POV, so why fight about it? Hoverfish Talk 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why have it, then? I've seen the arguments above, "Well, it's sort of helpful." It seems like other resources should be pursued to determine a film's notability. I believe one of the policies states an example that Hitler's article should not be presented in a negative light -- just the facts, and let the reader judge for him/herself. (I know, I Godwinned it.) Seeing as there is no valid criteria for judging such a wide array of films, why are we still keeping it? Has its removal ever been pursued in the past? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
please be WP:BOLD and try removing it from the film wikiproject template. i for one wont complain. 82.2.139.211 18:11, February 7, 2007
From WP:BOLD: "If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning, and providing solid references. If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial." I'd like to see how others feel about the removal of the importance scale first, as I'm sure people would want to share their opinions. This isn't some mere box office revenue update. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering I've fought a hard and long arguement with the anon, I'm going to raise my hand and say just to get rid of it. As it is, Film is agreed on one issue: not everyone will love or hate a film, so get rid of it. It's not like science, where importance is set in stone. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think we should get rid of it, but there are members here that do find it useful. Perhaps we could develop a department or a page that has a list of core films that we want to develop to at least GA/FA status. We could go through all of the films at Top class and see if they really do meet that status, by awards, actors/directors, and other standards to determine what we would consider core. This would be similar to the core group of article that WP:Bio uses here. We can look to see how other projects follow this or develop our own. This is just a suggestion, we need feedback from multiple members, perhaps develop a poll to see what we want done. --Nehrams2020 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way we can simply convey the importance information within project pages? It seems like a bit of the conflict has occurred because the importance scale is visible on the talk page, where it seems to be up for public debate. Obviously, not all film article editors are focusing on top-importance articles and working their way down to the low-importance articles. We all have our own drive in improving specific film articles. I doubt that there's any kind of criteria system that would objectively define the importance of film articles for all of Wikipedia, but maybe we can limit the scope for solely project goals. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with getting rid of the importance in the template and creating a project list for core films, but I have a feeling we will just be transfering the debates there. Best is if we require for every film entry an acceptable reason. Like this we could make groups of films according to the reasons presented. Hoverfish Talk 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead of relying the general importance scale (which seems difficult to apply to films), perhaps we should instead approach film articles on a case-by-case basis like we just did with Gladiator. We could create a repository of external links from various reliable sources of top lists of films (AFI, for instance). I'm trying to think of a way to keep us from trying to determine the importance (as it's POV) but instead to draw from exterior sources a pool of ideas of what has been considered notable enough to work with. Not sure where to go from there. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The importance field may not always be accurate, but it's a useful metric. If you're looking for important films, films with top importance is a good place to start looking. It is very subjective, so including the reasoning behind the choice would be good. - Peregrine Fisher 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

including the reasoning wont reduce the pov - any subjective "reasoning" can be countered with other reasoning. it needs to be an objective, outside criteria. in fact, the "Top" criteria was never designed to hold articles about individual "important films", but to be a replica of encyclopedia britannica's content. So if you clicked on Top-importance you'd have a "free" version of all of britannica's film-related articles, e.g. Film, Special effects, Horror film etc etc. nothing more, nothing less.
You can see this list here [2] unfortunately its in tree form so a little tricky to navigate. would be nice if they had a "see all articles in this category" option. But everything that Britannica has there, at that level of detail, is all that belongs in the Top category.
The current mess in the wikipedia Top category is a result of fans over-promoting their favourites, and the result is everybody else must follow suit to avoid being left behind, causing general grade-inflation. This is inevitable when there are no objective criteria for the importance categories. Restoring the Top category to reflect britannica-equivalence only would resolve the issue. (Next, to tackle the Importance=High category, which should also be easy to do once Top is fixed, but one step at a time). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.253.199 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that idea, though I don't see how that would prevent editors from bumping it up anyway or from messing with the other three levels of the importance scale. Why not take the importance scale out of the public perspective as to avoid any kind of possible POV altogether? Even if some people find the system helpful, it still strikes me as POV for Wikipedia to suggest how important a film is (even if it's below Top). Like I mentioned, readers should interpret the facts for themselves on Wikipedia. If the article is good enough, the importance of the film will be reflected through the content. If not, adding an unverifiable rating doesn't appropriately show the why. People have a different perspective on what would be important to them -- after all, this is Wikipedia, where Jake Gyllenhaal has a better article than Mother Teresa. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be because Jake Gyllenhaal is the most amazing actor in the entire universe (can you tell I wrote it? :), and Mother Theresa is an evil, fraudulent, narcissistic masochist. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The current state of affairs for "importance" ratings looks pretty bad, and I don't forsee it being easily fixed, especially when there seems to be vigorous resistance to any efforts to fix it. Eliminate the importance rating, and discuss importance within a project talk page. zadignose 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages don't fall under WP:NPOV. If a dispute with a particular film, or films, is encountered I'd suggest bringing it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Assessment to get some more people involved. If it's particularly contentious a survey could be done. I'd forgotten there's no importance scale here but perhaps we could lift one from another project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Importance scale. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is the use of a template. This is not normal "talk." Talk pages aren't usually the subject of a revert war. Here we have an official looking graphic telling us "this film's importance has been rated as Top," without saying "rated by whom," and in this case the whom is "whomever most recently hit the revert button." Trying to build consensus on the contents of a talk page, or seeking conflict resolution, polling, etc., is highly unusual. If this was normal "talk," we'd simply see text, with points and counter points being discussed and signed by those who hold the opinions expressed... and an actual dialogue would appear, which is far more useful. zadignose 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

B movie FAR

B movie has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Joel Coen's Blood Simple a B movie!!? I find this hard to believe! It's not even in the main article text. Hoverfish Talk 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting class stub, or...

I suggest we split class stub into "mini-stub" or "sub-stub" for articles created with only one or two lines or even just a cast section after them and "basic-stub" or just "stub". The reason is that for such mini-stubs it's not worth to spend our time adding infoboxes and images, unless someone cares to develop them to a basic stub. Also if the minis appear in a talk-page category of their own, someone can go through their lot and check if some could do with an upward push. Hoverfish Talk 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another idea instead of splitting the class, is to remove requests for infobox and image and create a new maintenance template leading to category "mini-stubs that need expansion". Hoverfish Talk 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit on something that's immediately workable and useful here. It'll take some pressure off the infobox project and make that task less daunting and more rewarding. — WiseKwai 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Would we need a new template or class for our film templates? The class system is for our own use in our project, right? So we can add another class that would somehow prevent adding infobox/photo requests until it has actually reached a normal stub class or above? Although our infobox requests have reached over a thousand (most of those my fault), I have sought the assistance of WP:Horror, Persian and Indian cinema, and Infoboxes. The WP:Infoboxes has created a section for fulfilled infobox requests, so if we develop that page more, we could probably start getting some assistance from there. I don't ever see having less than 50 infobox requests or something, but we should at least be able to get this down to below a few hundred. I think we've had so many requests in the last few weeks from new editors starting a lot of new films, foreign films being added, and revisiting older films. Hopefully this should slow down soon, especially if we can create the ministub/substub system to help cut it down to focusing on our more developed articles. --Nehrams2020 09:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind the idea but I recommend reading over Template talk:Substub before doing anything. The substub idea was rejected because "there are no longer any substubs". This may not be true but the discussion has been had it and should be referred to before recreating it even on a single-project scale. My biggest concern is that articles change and because something is a substub now doesn't really mean it won't be good later--and people aren't very likely to change the talk template as they expand it. My suggestion would be that maybe you categorize according to importance. Low important articles get different standing than mid importance one. The only issue with that is maybe only 'low importance' films don't have infoboxes. gren グレン 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I thought it over and gave a second idea, was that what Nehrams suggests involves too much tampering with template esoterics. I also did read the substub case, so I won't go for that name. Basically it's only a maintenance issue, so there is no point with starting discussions on ministubs vs stubs. If I go through the 1000 articles and simply replace all infobox/image requests with a new {{stub in need of expansion}}, which would contain [[Category:Stubs in need of expansion]], the problem would be solved very fast. It goes without saying that I would keep patroling the new category for stubs that got developed and would be swapping back to "needs infobox/image", where appropriate. Even if it's 400 articles in the new cat, since it's just a check-and-move-on, bo article will get forgotten for too long in there. As for the importance, Gren, well, just take a look at all the above: it won't do any good in this case. So, shall we go ahead with creating the new maintenance template? I will start a draft and let you know soon. Hoverfish Talk 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Hoverfish has a very good idea here. The official main stub templates should remain the same on the main space pages but if wiki film has a template in the talk page with a new level of classification -sub-stub rather than stub for those tiny one or two liners for film project organization I feel this is very useful. It wouldn't affect the mainspace stub sorting system but would be a category for the film project e.g Category:Sub-stub class film articlesErnst Stavro Blofeld 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have here* a first draft. Please comment here below. Hoverfish Talk 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are no further objections I will create Category:Stubs needing expansion and plunge passionately in swapping the talk page templates. Hoverfish Talk 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this template apply only to films or to all similar small stubs in other subjects/fields? --Nehrams2020 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have no objection but I think it still might be a waste of time... stubs by definition need expansion so the name isn't very telling and I could very well see it ending up on TfD (although, not by my hand). I think you may be better off with a template for "WikiProject Films User-requested infobox" Therefore users can request articles they find to be more important. That's not a very good suggestion either, but, it's the first thing I could think of. I understand what you're trying to do but I think in the end more time would be wasted adding the tag than each user judiciously choosing which ones films this wish to add infoboxes to. My two cents--take it or leave and I hope it works out :) --gren グレン 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only for films. No, I don't suggest we delete the template as such (TfD?). I (we) have to go anyway through all those films, check for infobox and images, so if we find one has too little content all I do is swap the template. The extra loss of time is really insignificant. Ok, maybe the category should be "Very short stubs needing expansion" or something. Basically the desired positive result will be that members feel encouraged to keep on with the infobox campain. Hoverfish Talk 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:SkierRMH got a better pattent on eliminating the overload problem: infoboxes proprtional to the size of the stub. Well, I have to admit it works. Hoverfish Talk 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Genre

It seems that genre is not routinely mentioned in wiki film articles. the infobox would seem to be a good place to include it, I think. any thoughts on this? High Heels on Wet Pavement 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion of genre in the infobox isn't gathering enough consensus and I am also opposed because of the problems it will create. It was turned down before, but for its most recent mention see: Template talk:Infobox Film#Genre. You could help however by putting in every film you visit the proper genre categories. Please make sure you read Cinematic genre and take a look at Category:Films by genre. If you decide to join in the categorizing effort, please give any related comments in our new categorization department. Hoverfish Talk 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


ok. thanks for swift reply. High Heels on Wet Pavement 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Upside-down filmographies

If you spot a filmography, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this:

 This article or section contains a list of works that does not follow the Manual of Style for lists of works (often, but not always, due to being in reverse-chronological order) and may need cleanup.
It seems we have a lot of work to do here. Hoverfish Talk 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This subject is undergoing spirited discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography. — WiseKwai 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI infoboxes...

FYI, I've listed all LGBT films without infoboxes at WikiProject LGBT studies, so we should be helping to tackle it there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And we've eliminated 42% of our articles without infoboxes so far. YAY! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Film Ratings

I don't know if this has ever come up here before, I usually don't work on film articles. I would like to see film ratings for major English-speaking markets (US, Canada, UK, etc.) in the film articles, either in the info box or in a dedicated section of the article. I would prefer it to be in a dedicated section to explain why the film garnered such a rating (a film rated PG-13 in the US for realistic war violence is much different than a film with the same rating for adult themes, nudity and sexual inuendo). I know WP is an encyclopedia, not a parental guide, but the film rating is a big part of marketing strategy with directors and producers often aiming for a certain rating depending on their intended target audience. It is an important part of all films and in that sense is encyclopedic. Any thoughts?--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox movie certificates}}. Cbrown1023 talk 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
the style guidelines are just guidelines and are a minimum, which is why they don't include this. You may include whatever information you would like in an article, provided that it is sourced (most movies have the reasons listed underneath the rating). Cbrown1023 talk 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox project

I think we should all work from the beginning of the alphabet at Category:Articles that need a film infobox, that way we can see the progress as we go through the A's, then the B's. That's what I've been doing, and I can see the progress I'm making. I think the sense of accomplishment that would result would help motivate this endeavor. - Peregrine Fisher 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:LGBT has eliminated a third of its share by picking articles at random, so I guess different things work for different people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I chose a small section (the letter E) to start cos I also like to see the end of a task.. nearly finished. The big ones look endless to me as a newbie... :s High Heels on Wet Pavement 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of WP:LGBT, I work at random. =) — Emiellaiendiay 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I try to do some infoboxes sporadically... but, I just added every article from Category:Indian films that doesn't have an infobox of any sort. A lot of them have really incomplete ones... but, that's an issue for another time and another place. I'll end up doing some... but, to the people who chose letters... good luck :) --gren グレン 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Documentary article wanted

Does anyone know of a really good quality documentary article, similar to Trembling before G-d? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will is a featured article. - Bobet 13:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
k, thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where????

Where does wikiepdia get the pictures for the DVD cover or video cover on film related articles, they look like too professional too have been taken with a digital camera as you can always make the small text out, does any one know where there from?? Thanks.TellyaddictEditor review! 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get them from amg, or follow merchandizing links from imdb and copy them from amazon or other selling websites. They should be low resolution (width about 200px) and it should not be stated that you need an extra permission to use them (like in most imdb posters). When uploading them, make sure you mention in the Summary box where you copied them from (copypaste full URL), in which article they should be used only and in the Licencing drop-down box, make sure you select either Movie poster or DVD cover or Video tape cover. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

TV specials/programmes in a film list?

Hi there. What the consensus on whether made-for-TV programmes should appear in the national lists of films? A Canadian Christmas TV special named Christmas Two Step had been categorized as a film, and hence appears in List of Canadian films: 1970s (see 1975). I don't think it should be there. While all films play on TV these days, I believe there remains a distinction between a film and something that's expressly made for TV. What's the consensus? Thanks. Shawn in Montreal 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious about this, having run into BBC "films" and such, since the standard film infobox and template doesn't seem to apply to them. Perhaps we should have a separate template/infobox/etc? Do they fall under WP Television? María: (habla ~ cosas) 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The television wikiproject has {{Infobox Television Film}}. --PhantomS 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember once we had a film that was first aired on TV and WP television claimed it. In the last days I've met scores of TV films and even TV series and mini-series requesting film infobox. Do all these fall under our care or should we pass them to Television for services? There is {{Tv-movie-stub}}, then there is Category:Television films which is both under Category:Films by type and Category:Television programs. We have Category:Film serials but no TV serials. Shouldn't we draw a line between the projects somewhere? Hoverfish Talk 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about just passing the infobox requests over to WP:TV, or completely removing any television films from our project? I've only been adding the film template after I had seen it with other television films before. If we removed it from our project, that would drastically cut down on infobox/image and expansion requests. However, it is debatable that television films are still films, just presented on the television instead of the big screen and some usually end up on VHS/DVDs eventually. --Nehrams2020 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of leaving off TV programs (such as Christmas Two Step) entirely. For what it's worth, User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who played a central role in creating the Canada film list, wrote me on my Talk page to say he didn't want made-for-TV programs on the list...Shawn in Montreal 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, TV films are films and we can keep them. I see no big problem there. But what about series and miniseries (see Quo Vadis (1985 film))? Hoverfish Talk 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what about The Year Without a Santa Claus, which is also a Xmas special, like the one Shawn mentions? Hoverfish Talk 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Film

Is the Film portal in our jurisdiction (not sure if that is correct, but you get the general idea)? It looks like it needs to be updated for the month, which we're already almost halfway done with now. Should we set this up better to make sure that it is updated? Or is there some outside group that takes care of it? --Nehrams2020 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be maintained by both the Film wikiproject and the Filmmaking wikiproject. --PhantomS 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Toon years

Late last night, I decided to do a test page concerning years in the animation industry. It centred on one I've been thinking of doing for some time now, 1985.

Yes, Wikipedia has year pages dealing with film, but isn't it time someone did the same thing for cartoons?

This is only the start of a series that will aim to be a really good resource for fans of the genre. Please leave messages and opinioins here and on my talk. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this intended for feature length animations, or for short too? Hoverfish Talk 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both feature-length works and shorts, as well as TV shows, milestones, births/deaths and the sort. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast from IMDb

Is it discouraged to use the cast list from IMDb prior to a film's release? I've stuck to actual mentions of actors and actresses in articles, as I've found issues with the full reliability of IMDb. (A couple of examples come to mind: Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3 and Ed Norton as John Bauer for 24 Season 5.) Is there a specific way to address this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the cast list, among other things, are submitted by users for IMDB. I'm sure they face vandalism just like Wikipedia, so you may see some incorrect inclusions. I would suggest for future films that you attempt to go by what is confirmed by other sources or what sounds reasonable (Aunt May as Carnage?). If a mistake is made, somebody can always fix it in the future when more details are known. Perhaps it is best to wait until the cast list is confirmed or after the movie is released before adding it. Just include the actors without their roles. It probably differs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the popularity of the film and the sources available. --Nehrams2020 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. IMDb is simply not an accurate reference in any form. Use it as a starting point, but double check everything you find there. I would stick with a credited cast. The Photoplayer 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think the cast list at IMDb is acceptable to use post-release because it's basically from the film's credits (I think), so it's not bits and pieces. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'Motion picture'

Does anyone here actually use the term 'motion picture' when speaking about films? I'm just wondering because I've been encountering it a lot in articles (e.g. "so-and-so is a 1998 motion picture"). To me it sounds incredibly quaint, so I always change it to 'film', but maybe I'm the one who's being eccentric. Thoughts? Cop 633 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say film is the modern word for motion picture, and there's nothing wrong with changing it. I also think that motion picture is OK; there both fine. - Peregrine Fisher 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
On the same note, I've been changing movie to film if I'm making other corrections, which I think is due to the WP:Films naming conventions of the title from something like Caroline (1938 movie) to Caroline (1938 film). I really don't think it matters too much as long as we try to be uniform. Most people know what a movie/film/motion picture is or that they are about the same thing. --Nehrams2020 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Info in infoboxes

Are there any guidelines for how much information we are putting in the infoboxes? Obviously the project will be completed much more quickly if we put the minimum amount of info in (as I've seen quite a lot recently) but is there much point in adding an infobox with just a title and maybe one or two names? Belovedfreak 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, we don't have to put more info than what exists in the article. For another it would be good to add imdb (if article doesn't have it), to facilitate further development. The point in adding such an infobox with few entries, is that as the article develops, more info can be entered. This goes only for mini-stubs with a few lines and names. For more developed articles, we surely should put as much info as we find in the article. Of course we can spend more time expanding the article. The guideline says that the infobox isn't meant to replace article context. Hoverfish Talk 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes that makes sense I guess. Belovedfreak 12:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I did notice, however, some infoboxes with content much less than the article could offer. This is like we will have to go twice through the ordeal. Anyone concerned, please, do give as much information as the article permits. Of course where "starring", not more than 2-3 (max.4 if necessary) names. Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem I was thinking of. At least while films have the "needs infobox" tag, they will get some attention. Once that's gone, they might not get looked at for a while so I think it's worth putting as much as we can into it while adding the infobox. Belovedfreak 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


When I started early in the month, I put everything I could into each one, which is time-consuming. then I read here and reduced my content per box. I noticed on the way some articles have boxes which have been modified (the template has been reduced to fit the amount of info in the initial infobox added.) I think this is a potential problem -- if there are still blanks in the template they are more likely to be filled by subsequent editors. High Heels on Wet Pavement 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub upgrading for documentaries

I think we should differentiate the needs for documentary assessment. The Great Warming, for example, couldn't possibly be expected to fulfill the same demands to become a Start. Hoverfish Talk 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New Film citation template

Per a request at WP:REQT, I have created {{Cite DVD-notes}} to allow for citation of sources accompanying a DVD release. —Dgiest c 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just modify {{cite video}}? --PhantomS 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is for citing accompanying materials in a specific release, not the work itself. There is less overlap in fields, and to use a CS term, it would be a "bloated interface".—Dgiest c 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film-editor-stub category

User:Luigi Bob has recently been creating articles on some notable film editors and has brought it to my attention that a stub category doesn't exist for film editors. As film editors are a part of film and help to rid of red links in films please lend your support or opposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. There are hundreds not stub categoirzed as editors and there are many many missing from wikipedia and I beleive they are an important part of the film making process. Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, you guys need to step your game up!

I had to revert much of The Corporation's article back to June 2006. It was basically an argument between a bunch of radical political anonymous editors that filled up the pages of the article, without any relevance to the movie The Corporation. Can you experienced WikiProject editors please step your game up and watch this article? It's a hotbed for breaking Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm kind of dissapointed that it took someone half a year to revert them. Oh well. Please help! Add this to your watch list, and enforce wikipedia policies there.--Urthogie 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, a lot of the members here always been stepping up for the many variety of tasks that our project encompasses. We currently have over 19,000 articles within our scope and are constantly improving large amounts of articles, so it is not uncommon for us to not immediately fix an article. Thanks for alerting us, and always remember to be bold when editing articles, which it looks like you were with this article. We do appreciate your efforts and please consider joining the project and continuing to help improve other film articles that need verification and cleanup. --Nehrams2020 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I will, thanks!--Urthogie 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate fan-made commentaries

A bit of a battle recently on the Audio Commentaries page regarding various forms of alternate DVD commentaries needs to be resolved.

There seems to be much confusion over what exactly an alternate commentary is. The way the section was originally structured it only included fan-made commentaries - such as ones by MMM Commentaries, Renegade Commentaries, Podblast etc.

The meaning seems to have got lost now, withmany of the entries there aren't even alternate commentaries (merely official ones released in different ways ie. via the internet). Apart from Mike Nelson's entry for Rifftrax there is no mention there of true alternate commentaries.

References to groups like MMM have been removed for not being notable enough. I suppose I have come here to ask what does one have to do to be notable enough so an entry actually sticks on Wikipedia? The community of alternate commentary creators is a very small one as it is so we fight an up hill battle to be "notable" to begin with.

In my opinion the audio commentaries page needs to have a new section - one which talks about alternate methods for film-makers and studios distributing their commentaries (Battlestar Galactica, Kevin Smith etc) and the existing one structured back to its original purpose of fan-made alternate commentaries.MMM Commentaries 9:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete infoboxes

The push to fill in infoboxes (while great) has left many users doing partial infoboxes. While, for some movies it's almost impossible to find budget, etc. A lot don't have producer etc. filled in. So, is our next project going to be "completing infoboxes?" or how do we help to avoid this. gren グレン 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's next, but I've found it helpful to fill in as much information as I could find to start out with. I like to leave an article in better shape than it was when I found it. Sometimes this has meant doing significantly more than just adding an infobox, because I'm also finding and uploading images, adding brief plot summaries and even cast lists. As a result, I am not moving as quickly as other editors when it comes to adding infoboxes. This is just me and how I do things. I have no quarrel with the other methods being used by other participants in the project. It's all hard work, no matter how you go about it. Leaving some infobox fields blank does no harm because they won't show up if they are not filled in. Placing an infobox on a page is a significant step. By having it there, with some fields ready to be filled in in the future, it encourages other folks to join in and contribute. — WiseKwai 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also spending some time doing small improvements in the articles, mainly categorizing, adding directors, some images etc. We can always track the edits of some of the contributors who went a bit fast into it and add some missing data, or correct as per our guidelines a bit. I did this for a while, but I'd rather finish my letters first. Hoverfish Talk 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I also have been going at a slower rate for completing the infoboxes to go through including as much information I can in the infobox and then fixing up the intro, adding appropriate tags, and helping to add the necessary cats. It would probably be best if we continue to include as much information as possible as we have already added hundreds of infoboxes, and we are almost finished with the ones we have tagged. I have been removing infobox and image requests from articles that are only one or two lines long, citing that they should be expanded upon first before requests should be added. If you come across any of these ministubs, feel free to remove the request until it is later expanded or if you want to add the infobox go ahead. This summer (when I have a lot of free time) I'm going to go through all of our assessed film articles and tag them for image, plot, and infobox requests, so we might attempt to setup a drive for several members to assist in this. After all of them are tagged, we'll get a better gauge on what articles need to be improved and in what way(s). But for right now, we should be able to finish off the infoboxes for now which should be finished in the next week or two based on the current rate of completion. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just mentioned this because I saw some users adding infoboxes with only titles, directors, and dates. It will be hard to find these later and, I don't want to tell anyone who's helping to "help more" or how to help. But, you're right. This can and will be dealt with after everything has infoboxes. :) --gren グレン 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


When is a film infobox complete?

When it has (in infobox template order):

  • Title
  • Image (VHS or DVD cover, Film poster, not screenshot)
  • Director
  • Starring actor
  • Release year
  • Country
  • Language

Since, I figure we may as well address this issue now since it will be here in the future. What are the criterion needed to be "complete"--that is, not in need of serious attention that can easily be fixed. Most movies have all of that and more readily available on IMDb and are incomplete as a result of only being copied off of the page rather than further looking. Does this seem like fair criteria for a future cleanup effort? (since this discussion is already started) gren グレン 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically an infobox sums up data that is given in the article, so if the article doesn't (yet) state producer, cinematographer etc, we don't have to go after them (unless we want to). I would say that the minimal "compete" infobox, should contain what you listed above, plus imdb link (or if official site is given, plus also official site), minus image. For images we have another request tag, and it can wait for another round of maintenance finding them. By the way, if no poster or media cover are available, a screenshot with a short caption text will do. If later a poster is found, the screenshot can be placed further down somewhere. Hoverfish Talk 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox undoers

Well... not really. However, after going through Category:Indian films and making sure each of them has an infobox or has a {{needs film infobox}} I've decided it is a noble effort to go through each nationality and add the template. It's better to do infoboxes, but, this is still necessary. Below will be a "master list" of who has done what. Just add the category and do a time stamp for when you finished it so we know how up to date it is. If it's only me doing it then, that works too :) --gren グレン 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Master List, Please add timestamp one finished checking category (feel free to claim categories for yourself; don't leave a time stamp until finished)

All other categories have been checked as of 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC) but removed from page due to length issues'

Good idea this list. I was wondering how suddenly all the Indian film started pouring into the request infobox cat. I will join the checking here as soon as I clear letter S after T. Promise :) Hoverfish Talk 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...And since you (and whoever else) are at it, please make sure the {{Film|class=}} template is on the talk page of film articles. It's our most favorite tag! Hoverfish Talk 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This has worked out pretty well. We are down to mostly big categories. Sadly "needs infobox" category was over a thousand... but, hopefully when this little endeavor is done then the needs infobox category will represent reality. gren グレン 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

I just added an infobox to AC/DC: Let There Be Rock, but I don't know what country to use. It's a concert film with an Australian band filmed in Paris. According to an imdb user's comments, they were followed by a french film crew. - Peregrine Fisher 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where two countries are involved, state both. Imdb sais it's USA / France, but if the band is Australian, I don't see where USA comes in, so I entered Australia / France. Hoverfish Talk 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter (February 22, 2007)

Image:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
The Maltese Falcon (1941 film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

PhantomS 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes/world cinema/notability

It seems to me that lots and lots of Indian films have appeared on the infobox needed list. As you know the Indian film industry generates a huge number of films each year ((877 feature films and 1177 short films made in India were released in the year 2003 alone according to wiki) . Does someone on wiki check the notability of those world cinema films appearing on the english side? I ask out of sheer selfishness, as I can see this turning into a totally unmanageable task at this rate, with some notable films being neglected whilst others are serviced, and 'Im not in a position to judge notability in this field. :D High Heels on Wet Pavement 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Cinema has a project of its own, so if there are so many films, it should somehow organize some filtering / maintenance and upgrading action. I started adding infoboxes, but when I saw what was coming in I changed my mind. Some Tollywood films I saw earlier this week were excellently made with infoboxes, categories and all. The most important is that they have a well kept stock of biographies. A problem with Bollywood films is that they give names differently as per imdb and it gets tricky to decide what name to use. I suggest we deal only with some articles that seem nicely developed, with enough blue links in the cast and crew, or some older films that seem to have some "western" acclaim. I hope I'm not being discrimative. Hoverfish Talk 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we establish some sort of requirement that only articles that are somewhat developed should be able to request infobox/images? We were pretty close to finishing our requests and its doubled in a day. People are going to start drifting off after completing all of these sections if they see that they need to add infoboxes to articles that are two lines long. Do you guys think we should establish some sort of requirement of length/completeness before adding the requests? Examples of pages that probably should not have requests could be articles like Grace Quigley & Daud, but articles like Aao Pyaar Karen & Julie (1975 film) seem to have a small start. And if we did choose some sort or requirement/limitation, would we include that in the template itself or just let members of the projects know? --Nehrams2020 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I dont mind plodding through notable films and films where someone has made some effort, but if it isn't worth a decent stub to whoever started it, will it ever be developed? and is it therefore worth putting time into an infobox.... there are millions of films in the world (unconfirmed), and I'm not THAT Zen about working throught the backlog, are you?! High Heels on Wet Pavement 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added without discrimination--even to the really bad pages. You may want to try prodding some of the pages with no links, no references, no organization, etc. In general we really don't have a good way to judge their notability, however. 128.175.50.53 04:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1000 indian films a year isn't that bad, it would just be 3 per day. It's just going to take a while to get caught up. Things look bad now because film articles that have been around for a while are just now getting tagged. If you look at the list of pages that need infoboes, it's relatively easy to tell which are foreign and which are domestic by their titles. If one wants, one could work only on the domestic films. Also, we could add small, imcomplete infoboxes to film articles that are only a couple of line. I could probably add 300 infoboxes a day, if I just included the films name. Should I do that to a bunch of the really small ones? - Peregrine Fisher 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am really against that. It's much harder to find a film with no infobox than a film with a malnourished one. I think you should try to add everything on the list above... or, at least everything available from IMDb / AMG. But, it is your choice in the end :) gren グレン 05:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also think if we put infoboxes we "should" provide the minimal mentioned above. The discussion on notability as a factor of inclusion doesn't seem to be taking us anywhere yet. Any lines we try to draw are bound to be debated because of the one film or the other. But we can let some films to be taken care of by the editors who initiated them, or by the sub-projects they belong to. I have no problem the way it's going: we clean up all other films, India cinema takes over the request category. For me, when there are only these left, along with some titles in languages I don't even remotely understand, my infobox Zen has fully expired. Hoverfish Talk 08:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags in Academy Awards articles

I'm cross-posting this from wikiproject: Academy Awards - I'd appreciate some input.

The articles that list Oscar nominees and winners in the acting categories currently include little flags next to every actor indicating his/her country of origin. I propose that this is unnecessary, visually confusing, and subtly POV-pushing because a lot of these people are multi-national with citizenship in various places, and sometimes you'll see TWO flags (like Daniel Day-Lewis), or the flag of a country of birth but not the country of primary life-long citizenship (like Jessica Tandy) and vice-versa. Furthermore, some articles (like Best Actress) use the Union Jack for English actors, but others (like Best Actor) use different flags for England, Scotland, and Wales depending on what nationality an editor has decided to assign to an actor. All of this, however, doesn't even approach the question of why the flags are there to begin with; they don't impart any useful or trenchant information, and in fact they are simply irrelevant to the articles at hand. It seems like these flags should just be gotten rid of! Thoughts?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, this is both ugly and simplistic. I particularly dislike the use of English flags rather than British ones. I say nuke them.Cop 633 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Further reasoning can be found at WP:FLAGCRUFT, which was cited here recently. Burn 'em all. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I must strongly disagree - I find the flags to be useful and attractive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.93.205 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The Profit

  • The Profit is one of only 2 films that is currently banned in the United States. I will try to do some work on this article to bring it up to par and expand with existing citations - but there aren't that many recent secondary sources for information, most current info other than on the film's Web site is from 2002, when the injunction on distribution came down due to court actions by the Church of Scientology. Smee 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Local Hero

Hello to the members of the wikiproject film. Just wanted to let you know that some well meaning editor moved the film Local Hero from its original page to Local Hero (film). Unfortunately they did this by cutting and pasting rather than moving the page, thus losing all of the history. They also left the original page as a sort of disambiguation page, though it isn't named as such. I am not well versed enough in computer terms to fix this so I thought that I would leave a note here so those of you that know how to fix this situation can do so. Thanks to anyone who can help and enjoy the Oscars tomorrow. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the band seems to be non-notable and even if it was not, there would only be two entries on a disambiguation page, so {{for}} should be used instead, I simply reverted Local Hero back to an article about the film. Prolog 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Kneale

Hi, I listed this article at GAC recently, which is about a person who write scripts for both television and film. Since this Project is highliy qualified in assessing film related articles, can someone objectively review this article and pass / fail? I wouldn't normally ask, but sometimes there seems like too much of a backlog at GA, and the primary author of the article is currently tweaking it at peer review so it can be ready for FAC. Here's a link to the GAC subsection [3]. Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to give. LuciferMorgan 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT films

The members of WikiProject LGBT studies have completed our subproject of adding infoboxes to all LGBT-related films that didn't have them. The last 3 films in our sublist were completed this morning. If you know of any LGBT-related films missing infoboxes, please let us know at our Project talk page and we'll add them to our To Do list. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Image problem

I inserted a DVD cover into Joan of Arc (1999 film) but there is a problem that maybe someone could fix. Thank you. Petre K. 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Don't include Image:JoanofArcFilm1999.jpg in the infobox, but cut off the Image: so you have JoanofArcFilm1999.jpg only. The infobox if formatted to already do it for you. Thanks for adding the image. --Nehrams2020 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, while we're not too strict generally about making sure a source is given for film posters (because, it is usually clear what they are and that they're fair use... it's always a good idea to link to where you got it / explain how you got it just so there will be no grounds for deletion. gren グレン 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)