Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 13

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 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Criterion Collection links

The Criterion Collection website has been moved from www.criterionco.com to www.criterion.com, and now all of the links to the co.com address, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, redirect to their main page. Criterion president Peter Becker has made a plea on the company's blog for help and I'm wondering if anyone a little more savvy with bots than I could set something up, just changing all of the "criterionco"s to "criterion". Then you can email them and let them know everything's gravy and, I can't promise anything of course, but I'll wager they'll send you a t-shirt or something. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A further note to the film project. I just wanted to let you know that there is now a bot removing all of the essays from the CC that have been linked to the relevant wikiarticles. Is this being done with the filmprojects okay? MarnetteD | Talk 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is User:Beetstra in charge of the link removal? Many of the CC essays are previously published, reliable secondary sources and should be preserved or added as inline refs. I would like to get the project's consensus on a link removal moratorium. These links are informative and represent good material for budding articles. —Viriditas | Talk 22:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the answer to your question is yes Viriditas. The edits removing the essays were done by User:Betacommand which is listed on Beetstra's talk page as one of his bots. I tried to revert one of these edits and was immeadiately reverted and notified by User:Shadowbot. Would putting them as an inline reference cause the same bot to work? Now my understanding of how these bots sork is very limited so I could be wrong, I will leave it up to those of you who know how these things work to double check. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just invited the editor to this discussion. I'm optimistic that he/she can help resolve the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)First, though I am running a bot (COIBot), no bots were involved in the removal (user:Betacommand is not a bot, I am not running other bots). The link was blacklisted on shadowbot earlier (though I don't know by who or when).
The links are at the moment changed by a number of editors: one registered (not an established editor), the rest are as far as I know, IPs, they are changing the links, but no explanation whatsoever. One of the IPs (Special:Contributions/199.231.146.254)did ignore all messages this afternoon and got reported to WP:AIV and subsequently blocked.
Evaluating the links. The links are to essays. Viriditas contacted me about the links on videodrome. There are two links there. If we read WP:EL external links should be directly related to the subject, etc. etc. and preferably used as references. If I read the essays, they do not really tell about the movie videodrome, they are more about the feelings of the writer (an essay) about the connection between the director of the movie and the movie. So in that case I would argue, these links are certainly not on their place on that article. On a quick scan earlier this evening, I also encountered two occurances which were more advertising than informative 'It was selected for a DVD release by the Criterion Collection, which distributes what it calls "important classic and contemporary films" and "cinema at its finest".[1]' (diff).
At the moment I would say, most of them are not suitable as external links per WP:EL (and probably should be removed), the spammy parts certainly have to go. The rest of the links could be changed (but please explain these edits properly), the mass changes by IPs and an unestablished editor apparently has given a strong enough feeling that this was plain spam (see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer) that it got blacklisted by user:Shadowbot. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the wp:el page, it clearly states as item 4 under "what to link": "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Complete reviews are relevant as external links, because they are out of the scope of wikipedia. The criterion essays are usually at the high end of film reviews. You seem to imply that the essays aren't good as links, because they don't tell straight facts about the movie. However, if the essays simply did that, they would actually be worse as external links (but more relevant as references); an external link isn't supposed to fill in something that can easily be integrated into the article. If you disagree, please point to the relevant section of wp:el that would make these links 'bad' in any way.
Furthermore, the links weren't added by a single anon or a new user, they've been on the articles for a long time, and added by separate users. As stated in the very first post in this same thread, criterion collection changed domain names and someone had to fix the links, marking them as spam for shadowbot was a mistake in the first place. - Bobet 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These deletions are absurd. These essays are written by some of the most respected film scholars in the world, including David Bordwell and Donald Richie (and if you haven't heard of those guys you should not be passing judgement on their notability without at least raising the question first). Cop 633 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First let me apologize for not understanding the complete situation. I simply looked at Beetstra's talk page and saw the name of the user that was deleting the essays and assumed (quite incorrectly) that there was some connection. Now as to the main point - along with the fact of them "having" to be changed to work properly, as stated at the start of this thread and reiterated later, the links were not just being changed by an anonymous IP - though are thanks would go out to them for their help. I changed several of them in the course of working on another project today. I was as surprised as anyone to see them being removed without any discussion here at the film project. If there is some other part of wikipedia that we should be taking our concerns please let me know and I will offer what meager help that I can. MarnetteD | Talk 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please understand, I know there were established accounts changing the links, but the majority were done by an unestablished editor (about 100) and by some IPs (also several hundreds), both without explanation, I again point to WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. It may have been mistaken, but for that I would suggest raising the issue at shadowbots talkpage or at WT:SPAM or WT:EL.
WP:EL indeed states that reviews and interviews that cannot be included can be used as external links (though preferably as references, see intro of WP:EL), but on the example I gave (videodrome) these are not reviews of the movie, nor interviews, they are essays. Do the two documents linked tell more about the movie (information that is not includable?), No, not really. Does it tell more about the director? Yes, a bit, but then they would be appropriate on the directors page, not on the movie page. For example, the link on videodrome to the essay by Carrie Rickey (link). It is about 3.5 pages of text, and the first paragraph that actually tells something about the movie is on page 3, second half, 2 out of the three paragraphs on that half of the page. On the fourth page there is not much extra. Hence, I don't see the symmetry in the link ('13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject:...', other points in 'links normally to be avoided' may also apply)
That a link with (some) relevancy exists is not a reason to add the link to the document (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). OK, most of the pages I saw did not contain linkfarms, but having no or only one external link on a document is also a viable option. The links have to be relevant, and as an outsider (I have not seen the movie, did see other Cronenburg movies though), I don't see how the information that is provided in these essays is adding to the wikipedia document. I did not gain any more understanding of the subject. There must be documents that are way more relevant than these, and yet these are not linked. So although my initial reason to remove may not have been fully researched (I checked one, saw an essay, and another one which was an advertisement as on The Rock (film) and which really did not tell about the movie), I still believe that the essays are not really appropriate in the external links sections. The site does however contain information which I would find more appropriate, e.g. this [synopsis] .. though the whole of the site does start to make me feel they have a strong commercial influence, and that synopsis is also available from, I expect, the official homepage of the movie, or from imdb.
The combination of factors apparently made people judge that the links were not good ánd being spammed (and I would have come to the same conclusion, see my explanations above), resulting in blacklisting on shadowbot. I would suggest the links are being reevaluated in the documents where they are, and either removed or changed by an established editor. I have removed the link from shadowbot, so that it can be added again. Please let an established editor perform the changes with an appropriate edit summary to make sure the alarm does not get set of again. And maybe drop a message on user talk:betacommand. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the removals. - Bobet 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There may be one or two where the essay is not closely related to the film itself, but for the vast majority this is not the case. If you wanted to do this properly, you would have to read each of the essays and make an individual judgement on each one.Cop 633 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
They are essays (not interviews or reviews) about the directors of the movies and the thoughts of the writer about the link between the director and the movie. Now I know that my first and only example is indeed not a good subset of pages, but it is striking that the first example that I take contains two links that are not directly linked to the movie, but more to the director and the how the writer thinks about the link between the director and the movie. They are certainly not focussed on the subject of the wikipedia page. I indeed hope that these are not an example for the other links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, your comments suggest that you do not know much about film studies as an academic discipline. Please read the article on auteur theory - there you will see that "the thoughts of the writer about the link between the director and the movie" are an extremely common form of film analysis. Yes, the essay takes a while to get to the film, but the method of beginning with a discussion of the director's life and personality, and then moving on to show how it connects with their film, is entirely normal in auteur criticism. Not everybody likes this approach, but it has been one of the dominant forms of academic film criticism since the 1950s and I do not believe it is a valid reason for deleting the link. Cop 633 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I will first put a remark. user:Telamonides was yesterday changing the criterion links, and set of our spam-alert. Besides changing the links, the editor is now also spamming the links on wikipedia articles. I, and apparently other editors since it got blacklisted on shadowbot, still have our reservations about all these links (some, or most may be appropriate, but there are already some that are not thát appropriate), I asked the editor to stop adding the link. I'd like to hear more on this first. Regards, Dirk Beetstra T C 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I still have to answer on the previous remark. I indeed do not know a lot about film studies as an academic discipline, but I guess I am not alone in that. Though I do see your point, still we are trying to write an encyclopedia for a general public, and for me there was not much extra information in the essays (I guess that I am on the subject of films indeed 'general public'). For me the essays tell more about the director/producer/etc than about the movie. WP:EL states '...directly related to the article's subject..', and I think that is what most, if not almost all readers of the wikipedia article will think. I hope this helps in the way I see the links: I do believe they could make great references here and there, but I don't think they are suitable external links. Hav a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unlike some art forms films are a collective and collabrative endeavour. Learning more about the director/producer/actor/cinematographer/music director/etc can only deepen ones understanding and appreciation about the form in general - and a given film in particular. For example the director Akira Kurosawa is considered one of the most remarkable in the history of cinema. Yet his early films are different from the middle period of his career and his last few films are different from those. You need to know about his life to understand that. The films that he made with Toshiro Mifune can have a different feel and impact than those made without this actor. The films scored by Masaru Sato have a different feel than those scored by others. You can't get a sense of any of this by myopically focusing on each film individually and that is why these essays help to enhance the learning about this subject.
Wikipedia is also a collective process. Editors (except for the ever present vandals) bring their individual learning and try to create a place where the information presented is enhanced, not dumbed down! Narrowing ones focus is not what any online encyclopedia, and wikipedia in particular, should be about. If a smaller view is the preferred way of overseeing articles here then we should simply write one or two lines about each subject and move on. If even one user comes out of reading a wikipedia article about a film and the attached essay with their learning broadened then there value has been proven.
Lastly, Please do not presume to speak for the general public or readers of wikipedia. This is both short-sighted and slightly offensive. Your opinions are your own. Unless you are going to take the time to interview every person who comes to wikipedia to find out why they are here and what they have gotten out of being here then you cannot speak for them. I am not discounting your opinions or concerns - that is why we are having this conversation. But, hiding behind the idea that "everyone will agree with me" without any evidence to back this up is empty rhetoric that cheapens the discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, yes, that is true, I should not speak for others too easy. I did not mean to give the feeling that "everyone will agree with me", I am sorry. Let me try and express my thoughts here.
I looked at some links on some of the pages, and had a hard time in some cases to see the link, and in one case I did fail miserably (on The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie there is a link to this document. Where does that have any link to the movie?). Now you have given me this new point-of-view I do understand, but I believe that these links would greatly benefit from more explanation why they are on the documents. On whatever end of the spectrum of reader of these articles I am, it will not hurt to guide me to the use of the links on these pages (the links have at the moment a hard time defending themselves against WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL)? I therefor think that information in the text where the wikipedia page explains what feelings the director (etc.) tries to bring to the public, and why certain actors are 'used' for that task, is prime content, and I would be very interested to see that in the documents. And these essays make very good references for that. As links in the external links section, a large number (60-70%, maybe more) appeared to me (at the first sight) useless. Now with the explanation that you have given me here, we are back to maybe 10-15% useless (which includes some mistargeted, plain advertising and (for me) really incomprehensible links as the example I gave above).
I hope this gives an outside view to the articles under this project that can be useful, and I guess that I will have a look at an essay next time when I want to see a movie, thanks for the explanations. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The Discreet Charm article, is, I must admit, rather tenuous, although I'm pretty sure the characters in that film drink martinis all the way through. And it certainly gives an inkling into Buñuel's sense of humour... I admit it's a stretch, though, and it belongs on Buñuel's page if anywhere. You have made the valuable point that links need to be considered on a case by case basis. They shouldn't be added in bulk, and they shouldn't be deleted in bulk. We should all be more careful. Cop 633 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached on the use of the links? I certainly think they belong, as give wiki users other sources of information (plus a source that can be used by future editors to add to the article seeing that most of these essays touch on only only a specific work in question, but the filmmakers themselves). I ask because I have found yet another overzealous soul tagging every Criterion link they can find with "rm linkspam" edits. Said editor goes by "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Will_Beback" RoyBatty42 23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I should raise this issue again. I am currently reverting user:Myrmidon3, who is massively adding the links to criterion.com to external links sections. I left a message on the users talkpage, and the user did stop for now. Although I do think the link is of value, I still believe that this link should not be in the external links sections of documents (although some exceptions may exist), but mainly be used as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he's just been adding links to the film essays to the articles of their directors, which seems like overkill. I really feel that the links are useful for the specific films, but they're only tangential to the director's articles and are pretty useless as external links, especially since there's an article for every one of these films. - Bobet 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is certainly overkill, and for this unilateral adding I would define it as spam (as under the wikipedia definition). I am reverting the edits (though could use some help in cleaning these additions up. Maybe someone could help? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reported the user to AIV, and the user has subsequently been blocked. The link is atm on the monitorlist of user:COIBot, which will result in all additions of this link being logged (and the people who monitor COIBot's output will be alerted). I sincerely hope that the user is going to discuss his actions from now, so I can remove it from that link again from coibot's monitor list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also went ahead and changed all criterionco.com links into criterion.com links (to avoid false positives on COIBot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a comment to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#criterion.com. I'd like to see the Brakhage essay link reinstated (I guess the Robeson one probably doesn't belong given the wealth of other references available). Jun-Dai 08:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Differences from a novel

I don't know if this has been discussed before (if so, please direct me to the appropriate place), but what is the stand on having a "Differences from the novel" section on a film page? It's my idea that this is something reserved for the WikiProject Novels articles, as the original source is that of the book, and thus any differences made would be more important to that article than to the film; and that "Adaptations" for a film that was novelized afterward would be something you would find on a film article. What is the point of just simply listing all the differences from a novel, especially when you are dealing with a film that updates aspects of a novel so that it may be current with the times (i.e. Casino Royale). Even turning it into paragraph form is nothing more than simply adjusting the look of the same list. I could see if there was something encyclopedic about it, like explainations from the director/writers about why they changed something (as I've seen several FA film articles that do have differences sections, but actually apply encyclopedic content to it), but that seems to fit more in a "Writing" subsection under "Production" than in an entire section devoted to every little nitpick detail that was altered. We seem to be having a disagreement among editors on the Casino Royale article about this, and I'd like some more opinions about the proper way to handle it in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion I was planning to bring up on this talk page a few days ago, based on a similar altercation at The Godfather, at which a similar "Differences from the novel" section exists. First of all, this kind of section is based on the personal observations of the editors themselves in comparing two references -- the film and its source material -- and drawing connections between them. This strikes me as synthesis since editors are not supposed to be original contributors. If such a section is harmless, then "Goofs" or "Allusions" sections based on personal observations would be acceptable. Other sections could include "Differences from the historical event" for films like 300 or Braveheart -- they can be neutrally written to avoid suggesting a position or an argument. The secondary issue here, for such sections, is if they are relevant. It should not come as a great shock that films adapted from source material will be changed for creative or conventional reasons. If the differences are recorded via personal observation, then this would create a battleground for editors to contribute their synthesized perspective. Original contributors would present their original research, and there is zero mention of the real-world significance of such differences. Differences will always exist, and to present them without any cited relevance labels them as junk information -- essentially, trivia. Only when differences are noted by sources other than the editors themselves should they be considered. Some examples would include films based on controversial books that try to side-step that controversy, the purposeful redefinition of a character, the change of a film's resolution, et cetera. These major differences would be observed by attributable sources, and can thus be included by editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I rather thought that unless the reviewers directly mention discrepancies between the film (or source novel) and history, it was synthesis to include it.
Of course, that brings up another question: what if the reviewer incorrectly cites the book or the historical record (ie, all Scots are born with blue faces...or something a bit more subtle)? Is it OR to research and point out in the article that the assertion is incorrect? -Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting dilemma. If there's a difference that is only pointed out by one reviewer (who gets it wrong in the process), then it probably would be too insignificant for inclusion. I think if there is a notable difference between the source material and its adaptation, there would be more than one reviewer observing this, and hopefully the correct reviewers would outnumber the incorrect reviewer. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribeca Film

Hey guys - my Tribeca Film Festival press pass has been a real boon for both Wikipedia and the WikiProject Film. Take a look at my User page to see the actors, directors, producers and other people I've photographed for the articles. I purchased an expensive, high-quality camera for the project, and I just returned from the Spiderman 3 premiere where I got some amazing shots. Hey - if this doesn't get me a WikiProject Film award, what does? Dave --David Shankbone 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that's impressive! This should definitely illustrate a quite few biographical articles! Do you have the Spider-Man 3 premiere photos up yet? I didn't see them on your user page, so I wasn't sure. You should invest in subpages to sort out all these photos! :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the press pass and the photos. I hope this is just the beginning of our ability to get free pictures. Thanks for your work. :) gren グレン 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys - here's the link to the Spiderman 3 premiere photos. I have more, but time was limited last night (up until 2:00 am uploading, then at work at 9:00 am today, now tonight a Drew Barrymore premeire): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Spiderman_3 --David Shankbone 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


    • So, really, who is giving this man his barnstar? I'm not even sure how the system works now that it's somewhat more formalized. gren グレン 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You know about WP:BARNSTAR, right? I gave him one for ending all the image wars that have ever taken place on the biographical articles he's addressed, meaning the switch between fuzzy free images and clear non-free images. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenplays category naming

Input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 22#Films by author would be appreciated! Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentences in subsections?

A recent edit in a somewhat contentious article included a subsection (we'll say Production) introductory statement. This served the same purpose of the Lead for the article in that it summarized the article without providing citations for the statements. Arguments in favor of the intro sentence say that it is nicely written and doesn't need citation, as citation is given in the specific statments referred to in the subsection. Arguments against this arrangement cite the absence of this particular arrangement in any other FA Media article, and the need to provide adequate citation throughout the article after the lead. I am of the latter group, and think that this tends to bloat the article, and that the section header is introduction enough. Well-written sections do not need introductory paragraphs and essentially impart information.
'Course, I could be wrong. I have been before... Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lead of the article is where you summarize. A "lead" in a section like "Production" should contain those minute production details that either don't deserve their own subsection, or there just isn't enough information on it to be able to fill a subsection. You still need to cite. I think it would be fine if there was a brief mention of something in that lead, like developments in writing, and directing, before you go on to talk more specifically about those subjects in a subsection, but not an entire summary of the section itself, and you definitely should have sources in there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
See, that's kinda what I thought. Take a look here. The discussion regarding that suggested that a "house style" was needed, ie, that this might be a method by which to introduce a new style of sectional leads into the wiki-film style. Thoughts? Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
(Re-reading Big's post) wait, are you saying that header leads are acceptable over and above the article Lead? Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that the only area that doesn't require citations (minus a few instances where it may be necessary) is the articles lead paragraph. Any brief summarizing in subsequence sections, whether in the main headers, or the subheaders, still requires citations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Superhero vs. Actionhero

Too bad there is no tag for films with female action hero.

FCG?

Recently, one of the editors suggested a Film Citation Guideline article, similar in nature to the Scientific citation guidelines, in order to provide a bit of guidance for editors working on film articles. As films are different from each other in a way that science really isn't, I was thinking that perhaps letting folks here talk about it might be a Good Thing. Such an article could help streamline the editing process from preview and promotion through release to retrospective.Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain some of the citation questions that you've been encountering? My first impulse is that this is a good idea, but a more general 'arts and humanities' guideline would be more appropriate; film seems a bit specific. I'm sure similar questions crop up in articles on literature, drama and music, for example. Cop 633 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The situation is in regard to the first paragraph at Children of Men#Single-shot sequences, which summarizes the rest of the content in the subsection. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about it. Apparently, WP:SCG is used as a reference, particularly the summary style. As far as I know, this doesn't seem to apply to films, and I've recommended the simple step of duplicating any references that match the general description of the first paragraph. My stance was that lead sentences are acceptable, since the information immediately follows it, but it seems trickier with a stand-alone lead paragraph for a subsection. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The same discussion can be seen two sections above, actually. It addresses the same situation, and it would be interesting to see what is appropriate structuring. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this is apparently stemming from a couple of sentences written by me, perhaps I should say here that I don't personally mind whether summary paragraphs are cited or not, but if it's likely to impede an article's acceptance by some editors, then I'd say 'better cite than sorry' - there is certainly no harm in duplicating citations from further down. On the wider question of drawing up guidelines, this would certainly be very helpful, but as I said above, it shouldn't only be applied to film articles, it has implications across the humanities.Cop 633 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My question would be what exactly is the problem with the general citation guidelines? You have to remember that the scientific guidelines exist largely because scientific citation has long pre-dated Wikipedia's and thus was a pre-existing standard. Girolamo Savonarola 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed on "The Rocky Horror Picture show" page.

There apears to be a war going on on this page. Reverts for personal opinion and ignoring the Wikipedia request to re-write the article in a more encyclapedic manner are destroyong this article. I have attempted to re-write the article to make it more professional and add true referenced material(now that I know how to add a reference)but there is a question as to whether or not the external links are being posted by people to promote their sites. For now I have removed only two links to sites that are not pertanent to the film. They were just sites promoting either a specific group or fan run site. Could I get clarification as to what should or should not be included in this article? Thanks!--69.62.180.166 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The_Cat_Above_and_the_Mouse_Below

This article's current text should be saved for posterity (I think someone's having fun with us) but it does need 'translation'. I could make a stab but I haven't seen the cartoon in something like 30 years. If somebody's got a better memory, or a copy, have at it! BPMullins | Talk 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Film Article Admin

Is there a list/category for adminstrators who deal specifically with film and/or TV related articles? Would be nice to know whenever I have one of those edit conflicts or a question not easily found on wiki policy pages. Feel free to answer on my talk page RoyBatty42 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should ask this, as I was going to ask the same thing. Let's just create a list to start. The project membership list is public; all we need to do is sort it by admins. Can anyone offer their bot for the task at hand? We could add a request at WP:BOTREQ, asking for a scan of Category:WikiProject Films participants that will flag members who are admins and output the results as a list. —Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I just did a simple file comparison of WikiProject Films participants and en administrators. It returned the first six admins. The seventh and eighth entries, Cbrown1023 and The JPS, were added by User:Nehrams2020. Cbrown1023 did not show up in the fc because his WikiProject memberships are categorized on a subpage. The JPS was possibly missed due to a confusion compared to the user name of User:JPS.
  1. User:23skidoo
  2. User:Gryffindor
  3. User:Mallanox
  4. User:Mushroom
  5. User:Oscarthecat
  6. User:Prolog
  7. User:Cbrown1023
  8. User:The JPS
Should I ask these admins if they are willing to be identified as such on the participant page? —Viriditas | Talk 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. Yes, should ask them first. Who knows, maybe they already belong to an ad hoc group and can add more names & where to find them. RoyBatty42 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight, the intro includes a statement that WP:Film admins should be listed there, but it appears nobody ever created a section for them. I'm sure it can go there if you want a list of the admins. --Nehrams2020 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is that such a list would be useful then I don't see a problem in one being created. Mallanox 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would not object to such a list, I have already helped many of our members with film problems. (Sometimes I've been too helpful, Hoverfish. :)) Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how useful such a list would be, but I guess there are no big concerns with it. User:Bobet could be added to the list above. Prolog 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The list should be available somewhere where all members are able to find it without too much searching. Instead of moving the list to the Spotlight department, should there just be a "film admins" section in the Participants section (above or below participants)? The sidebar on the main page could be changed then to "Participants and Admins". Seeing that the list isn't that long, it could even go on the main page. --Nehrams2020 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Question: should there be a disclaimer, politely informing users that they should not contact admins regarding content disputes? —Viriditas | Talk 01:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator it is one of my duties to also help in disputes. So therefore, yes please feel free to contact me should the need arise and I'll see what I can do. sincerely Gryffindor 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for me. By all means list my name and give me a shout if anything crops up I can help with. --Oscarthecat 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidance/help needed on musical theatre articles

Because of some of the similarities in the structure of MT and Film articles, can folks here find the time to comment on this situation regarding WP:LEAD, plot summaries, other production info, and article structure? This issue (production info being deleted, and the entire article converted to a Lead which is basically a plot summary) is occurring throughout the MT articles, and the Film Project expertise might be helpful. Not surprisingly, there isn't a single FA or GA among the musical theatre articles. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

World cinema articles -

I've been doing a little cleaning up on some of the international cinema templates, checking that all "Cinema of xyz" articles have the appropriate templates etc. I was already aware that Turkey appears on both the "EuropeanCinema" and "West Asian Cinema" templates, although on the "Worldcinema" template, it only appears in the Europe section. I don't want to get back into the politics of this, and am quite happy to leave well alone if everyone is happy. Plus the Cinema of Turkey article contains all 3 of these templates.

Similarly, Armenia appears on both the "EuropeanCinema" and "West Asian Cinema" templates, but it only appears in the West Asia section of the "Worldcinema" template. However, unlike the Cinema of Turkey article, Cinema of Armenia contains neither the "EuropeanCinema" nor the "West Asian Cinema" templates. I realise the article is pretty short, but if we're standardising, it should really have both, or we should choose where Armenia belongs and remove it from the opposite template. Gram123 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a political hornet's nest, so I won't prod it too hard, but the article on transcontinental nations is helpful here: some countries are simply halfway between Europe and Asia and can't easily be slotted into one or the other (either geographically or culturally). So my guess is that giving them as many templates as possible is probably the safest way of pleasing everybody, even if it looks a little messy. Cop 633 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About the cinema of Turkey, I asked the editor who included it in the European section and learned that most its cinema is based in (or is sponsored by) Istambul, so its geographic location seems correct. I asked that this gets mentioned in the article, but haven't checked since. It is best not to give too many templates, as we may get negative feedback from the group working to reduce unnecessary templates. We have to make sure we place countries strictly by geographic criteria, not by cultural or political ones. This way we have NPOV results. Please, take a look in archive #8 (New Cinema navigation box & Notes on "Cinema of (Country)" series). There have also been further discussions between users for various details. If needed I can try to locate them. Hoverfish Talk 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Great Image Purge of 2007

...and I'm not using great as in 'nifty'. Over at 300, we've been dealing with at least one editor who seems to be narrowly construing the fair use rationale in 300. The article - deemed early on as one of the top three articles visited in Wikipedia - didn't seem to face these issues until just last week, when an admin and editor came in and started removing images, calling them 'decorative' (clearly, they weren't). They to date have attempted to remove three of the 7 images in the article. The admin in question arbitrarily removed the image after conceding that an IfD could be done (no clear consensus in the IfD, btw). I mention this fun little soiré as it might be helpful to understand how to address this behavior. If an admin removes an image, as he considers it decorative and then arbitrarliy removes it without consensus from IfD, what recourse remains when anything but Lead images are removed? I submit that there is enough cowboy diplomacy in Wikipedia without having our admins behave like truculent children. Perhaps a WikiP:Film policy should address these problems. Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on this concern. The admin who first challenged the soundtrack cover was doing so on the basis that cover images should have direct "critical commentary", even film poster images that are placed in the Infobox Film templates. Here's the relevant Q&A that shows his opinion:
  • Question: A question for the admin who intended to delete the soundtrack image. Are you challenging the fair use rationale for film posters being placed in film articles, as well as soundtrack covers being placed in soundtrack articles? I'm defending this particular image because your wording on the talk page of 300 seemed to suggest "a lot of similar abuse elsewhere", and this seemed to suggest that "critical commentary" should be required for non-free images, even if they identify the subject of the article.
  • Answer: I'm afraid yes. This has actually been the written policy for a long while; it's just been ignored by large parts of the community and the abuse has been silently tolerated.
This was part of a discussion that I initiated at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Concern regarding film posters to explore the logic that the admin had presented. From what I learned, it didn't seem to be a clear-cut case of, "Oh, yes, there must be an analysis of the design and meaning of the film poster." #8 in the criteria for fair use, Significance, seemed acceptable because a film poster would help identify the subject of the article. Granted, it made sense that an article may not quite deserve a non-free image if there was not enough content for it to identify. (A lead paragraph and a plot summary and some trivia may not suffice.) Anyway, there's been an act of disruption at 300 (film), seen here, in blatantly removing images and using the same logic as brought up by the admin. This is a growing concern for me, because I had defended the soundtrack image at its IFD based on the potential widespread application of the admin's logic. As a community, I think we need to define more strongly, for the sake of film articles whose images have been accepted through the "silence of consensus", the guidelines for inserting images. Some tips would include having screenshots that identify the protagonist, the antagonist, or several characters at once, or some significant event in the film. With the crackdown on lists of episodes and the re-shaping of the wording for non-free content, editors may suddenly find a "mission" to go on deletionist sprees to reinforce their interpretations of this policy, not bothering to treat them on a case-by-case basis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over the appropriateness of the screenshots in the Plot section of 300 seen here at Talk:300 (film)#Screenshots. The user with a mission has also made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots for illustrating plot summaries, to which I've already responded. Further insight in regard to his interpretation of how screenshots should be applied would be greatly welcomed. If proposals like his go through, then this community would be extremely hard-pressed to appropriately illustrate film articles under these harsh standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

19xx in film

Some horrendous things I noticed in 19xx in film entries:

  • American and english actors are called "actor" or "actress", those from other countries "Spanish actor", "Italian actor" etc... Is this a UK/USA encyclopedia? How can one distinguish between US and UK guys anyway?
  • Stupid use of this Format
  • Some films are list with "directed by" and "starring ZYX". Why? Who decides which ones are most important to deserve this note, and others not? So I think it's better to get rid at all of all them and restore a simple list format. If one is interested, can check the separate entry.

Ciao and good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 May 2007.

Plea for feedback

"She Shoulda Said 'No'!" is up for featured article candidacy. As a film article, people may be interested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Will chuck in my humble two cents SGGH speak! 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

I've just nominated this for FA, as I've worked hard on it and wish it to be on the main page on June 11. Please comment and make this FAC, successful or not, as quick as possible. Alientraveller 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4 and future films with franchise potential

Spider-Man 4, despite having information housed at Spider-Man film series#Future, has been recreated. It is currently undergoing AfD here due to the lack of actual production at this point. Arguments for both sides can be seen there. Also, please review the article's page history to see the kind of edits it has undergone since its recreation. There is also a similar issue with Shrek 4 (and Shrek 5, which I got speedily deleted, if you check the log). There is also an announced Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer, a spin-off of the franchise that may need to be addressed as well. What are the project members' thoughts on handling future films with franchise potential? Recent stalled examples include Halo and The Hobbit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a very mixed opinion here, but I might add that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) also has franchise potential. There is also some confirmed information about the cast – the trio have been confirmed to return. The article currently redirects to Harry Potter (films) but is often a source of debate. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to look at Harry Potter with a different eye. Harry Potter is not a "fanchise", those films are actual "sequels". Generally, we misuse the term "sequels", "trilogy", and "franchise". Sequels are usually directly connected to the previous film, a continuation of something that was started, unlike a franchise film that just keeps the characters and basic elements but no story really carries over. Harry Potter is part of a set number of books. We know there will be 7 movies, because there are 7 books, and we've already had over half of them filmed, so the concrete nature of their release is far more secure than most films. Spider-Man, although it's had some subplots that have had some minor continuations through the three films, is a franchise series. And even if you look at the films as a "trilogy", there is plenty of evidence that suggests that Sony, at the least, looks at the first three films as something separate from any future with the series. If for some reason WB decides to make more Harry Potter films (outside the 7), then we have to look at that as sketchy. Films outside of the Potter series don't hold the stability of films based solely on the books written. Unfortunately, films like Spider-Man and Shrek aren't pulling from any specific source like Potter. Spider-Man is based on the comics, but you can't just go pull a comic off the shelf and say that it's the entire film. Those films hold originality in the stories, and any future development of them is not concret, not like Potter. Shrek is even worse at that than Spider-Man, because that isn't based on any literary source, it's pure originality. I believe, that unless there is concrete proof that they are going to make more, like with the Potter films (because they are based on a fix number of books already released), then film articles should wait until a specific producation date is set. Anything can happen between now and when a film begins filming; it isn't unusual for directors, actors, and scribes to be replaced in the blink of an eye.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Shrek is (loosely) based on a book (Shrek!), but I get your point. Thanks for the clarification between those words. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
To add to that, no one's contracts (director's and cast members') have been renewed at this point. With the box office success of the third film so far, renegotiations may present obstacles to actual production of the film, since it's likely that everyone will want more money. In addition, budget escalations have canceled films in the past, such as Halo. Considering how much it cost to make Spider-Man 3 ($258 million production budget), this could also be another obstacle to actual production. Like Bignole said, anything can happen, even with what seems to be sure follow-ups. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out that the article Media franchise then misuses the term and claims HP is a franchise. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have to disagree with the use of Potter and LOTR in that list. Star Trek and Bond are clear franchises, because other than ST II and III, there aren't really any "sequels" to previous films, just new installments to the series. Bond is like the epitome of a franchise. And, if you were wondering, I based my definitions on what Sherry Lansing said on that morning film review show. I can't remember the name of it, but it has two guys on it, and they often have guest stars that talk about their films or whatnot. She was only when she was still CEO of Paramount Pictures, and she "clarified" what a "franchise" is and what a "sequel" is considered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 14 May 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
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can help

Per an earlier archived discussion about length of plot synopsis I want to bring to the attention of the project the page for the film The Lair of the White Worm which seems to have a synopsis that is longer than the film itself. Unfortunately, I don't have the film on tape or DVD and haven't seen it in years so I wouldn't know where to begin. If any member of the film project does have access to this flick they may want to help this page out by performing a little thoughtful editing. Thanks to any who can help. MarnetteD | Talk 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have filed peer reviews for 3 articles on Singaporean films.

I have filed peer reviews for 3 articles on Singaporean films - I Not Stupid, I Not Stupid Too and Singapore Dreaming.

Please help fight systemic bias by commenting at the peer reviews! I am aiming to get I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming to GA status, while for I Not Stupid Too, I would like to find out whether such a goal would be feasible.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly capitalized film articles

I've recently made the list of incorrectly capitalized album articles that need to be moved as per naming conventions which are practically the same for film titles. If anybody at this project would be interested in working on similar list for films I could easily create one for you. It would only be about 220 entries long at the moment or a bit longer depending on how many false positives you would be willing to accept. See also the discussion at WikiProject Albums. Regards, Jogers (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could do a similar list for films, that would prove very useful - • The Giant Puffin • 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The list is created at User:SkierRMH/List. I filtered out titles that didn't contain the following regular expression: 
( (are|her|him|his|is|it|my|our|their)\b|[A-Za-z] (A|An|And|At|For|From|Into|Of|On|Or|The|To|With) [^(])
Words like "On" and "The" are likely to produce false positives. Please list them at User talk:SkierRMH/List#List of exceptions so that they will not be included when the list is updated. This list is most probably not complete so please share your ideas on how the above regex could be improved. Jogers (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

Is there a cut-off date when spoiler tags are not applied to a released film? I've been looking and haven't found anything. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are used for any kind of narrative, whether it be film, book, or show. I don't believe they're dated; no matter how long it's been available, someone who's not familiar with the material may not care to be spoiled, so it's common courtesy to add the tag. For example, there are spoiler tags on As You Like It's article. María (habla conmigo) 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised? María (habla conmigo) 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain? This guideline has been in place since Wikipedia was first created, and has been contentious for some time. The best way to handle pseudo content filtering is to allow the user to control it on their end, through the preferences. I doubt Wikipedia is setup that way, but in the future it will become a reality. For example, a new user may have "hide spoilers" set as default, so that whenever a spoiler is tagged as such in the main text, it will be hidden. This allows everyone the ability to view articles according to their own preference. This is, of course, ideal for parents, but if there are Wikipedians who prefer to be warned about so-called "spoilers" they should be able to do that on their end without changing the article. This applies to every tag, including references, which should be easily hidden to allow for easy reading. Unfortunately, the developers haven't been able to keep pace with this vision, so we are still years away from user-defined views. In other words, even if the guideline is successfully deleted, nothing will change. —Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting! I wasn't aware of these future developments, so thanks for the info. My lack of surprise, however, had to do with the fact that it's my kind of luck to semi-defend something that (with my head perpetually in the sand) I wasn't aware was such a contention. If I had known it was, I would have put more energy into my reply, heh. Personally, I can go either way with the tags, but I must say I do believe the main purpose for them is courtesy. Go ahead, call me soft if you must.  :) María (habla conmigo) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm only speculating about future developments. Anything could happen. I'm wondering if a short-term solution would be for someone to write a script for the monobook.js that would warn interested users of spoilers via hidden tags and modify accordingly, such as using collapsible sections. So if you had the spoilers=yes set, the section containing spoilers would appear collapsed (hide/show) by default. I'm just throwing this out there. —Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see. Anything could happen, but your ideas are intriguing. I take it you mean a collapsible table similar to what is used on talk pages when there are numerous WikiProjects and other templates at the top of the page? That would save space, as well as protect delicate eyes. You should think about contacting someone higher on the food chain about this -- unless, of course, you already have and I've my head in the sand again. (And so as not go more OT, I'll leave it at that, but you're welcome to reply on my talk page if you'd like. Always a pleasure, Viriditas.) María (habla conmigo) 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for listening. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you are, then I am as well. While the preferences work-around might be in the medium-range works, having the spoiler tags in place will allow for better identifiers as to what needs to be coded for suppression and whatnot. It seems silly that some folk are making the argument that NPOV is being violated thusly., Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I missed that you were just speculating, what with the assertion that it would become reality. That aside, that would be a nifty development. However, most new developments build on replacing/streamlining older ones, not creation without necessity. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We actually did create something similar to what is being described here a few months back, described in the archived discussion here. It was for people who wanted short summaries of the plot or a full description of the film. There was a proposal also at the Village pump, described here. Many oppositions to collapsible sections is that it difficult for printing information and the display of the monitor for readers. An example can be seen at User:Hoverfish/Notebook. --Nehrams2020 02:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at the proposal, do you know if it was for client-side preferences? If so, what's the opposition? Someone could just write the script and use it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, looking at the proposal, that has the same problem as the spoiler tag: it forces the change upon the user instead of giving them the option. —Viriditas | Talk 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The full proposal with opposition and discussion can be found [2] with the heading "Collapsible synopsis sections for films". (Sorry couldn't get the link to work better.) --Nehrams2020 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, the MFD has been closed and discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. As you can see from the archives on that page, this discussion has been going on for five years. Heh. I'm reminded of the Martians in Stranger in a Strange Land. :) —Viriditas | Talk 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a massive edit war/move war in progress, so those links may not work just yet. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Bloody.... and in the midst of it someone's been messing with the base template of {{spoiler}} so that the borders (purple) cut through everything else on the article page (i.e. infoboxes, rating boxes, images, etc). Assume it'll get fixed asap :( SkierRMH 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival Photographs

I finally got around to categorizing my 2007 Tribeca Film Festival photographs into one place on the Commons. It might be useful for other film projects: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_Tribeca_Film_Festival --David Shankbone 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of works

There has been an ongoing effort at AfD (articles for deletion) to delete or merge lists of works or bibliographies of authors. If you have an interest in this topic, please join the discussion here. The outcome will inevitably effect many editors of this project as the current hullaballoo has resulted because of List of the writings of William Monahan. Also, please post this alert anywhere you think it might apply. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Style guidelines

A "new" editor seems to be taking the style guidelines literally, insisting that Film articles should have only two paragraph leads. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous, as the lead style guidelines derive from WP:LEAD and do not override it in any way. As far as I can tell, the Film article style guidelines give examples, and in this case, the example is of a two paragraph lead - this is not meant to imply that all film articles should have two paragraph leads. Since this is less than clear to some editors, I would like to get some clarification on how to fix the style guideline so that this doesn't happen again. —Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! This isn't going to turn into n00b bashing again isn't it? I hope not, anyway. The issue is rather specific to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, so I'll just comment on the guideline here. I think the guideline is pretty clear on how to write the lead section. An overly long lead section is rather hard to read for the n00bs who don't now anything about the article s/he reads and so, the guideline pretty much explains that it is a "Quick introduction to the film" which means that it doesn't have to mention anything to a degree of detail and provides a rather broad short overview of what people can expect to read in the article. I cut the lead to the article to two paragraph not because it says so on the guideline, but after cleaning up, that's what I come up with. A rather short but broad explanation of what the article is. In short, I think the guideline is pretty concise and clear. - Time Immemorial 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD already covers the definition of an "overly long" lead section; the film style gideline does not. The old lead was no different than the degree of detail seen in Blade Runner, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Night of the Living Dead, and others.—Viriditas | Talk19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a vote going on right here.

I just had to bring it to attention to two WikiProjects. It's a vote about moving "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)" to "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King". Just click the link, note I'm a member of neither projects I brought this attention to. TheBlazikenMaster 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

I've requested a bot-generated/maintained watchlist for the project. You can read the request here. —Viriditas | Talk 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The always helpful Ingrid, owner and operator of User:WatchlistBot, has generously created a bot-maintained watchlist for this project, now located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Articles. Due to its size (9000 articles!), the actual watchlist may have to be split into four pages. When the links are finalized, I recommend linking to the watchlist(s) on Template:WikiProject Films tasks with either one character links (Non-working example: w1 | w2 | w3 | w4) or small, unobtrusive icons. A new "Watchlist" department (other names are possible) could be created, or the watchlist could be merged into an already existing dept. Ideally, this would allow the project to keep a closer eye on vandalism, edit warring, and controversial changes, facilitating requests for page protection, etc. which could feed up into the main request pages if project admins aren't able to handle these requests, first. Links to Possible film AfDs, including Fiction/The Arts and Media/Music could be merged into a subset of this new department. —Viriditas | Talk 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone play with {{filmwatchlist}} and put it in the appropriate place on the project, perhaps on the task list page? Here's a sample, but the template needs work:
WikiProject Film watchlists: Maintained by WatchlistBot
A-G G-R R-V V-Z Project
Related changes watchlists for WP:FILM presently consist of five separate pages:
—Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers and style guidelines

A discussion about whether or not Film-related spoiler tag style guidelines should conform to the proposed Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline is in progress on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and essentially duplicated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Presently, the Film style guideline states, "Include a {{spoiler}} template, at the beginning which will warn readers of the article that this is a complete plot summary, and that they should not to proceed if they do not want the film "spoiled" for them." This statement contradicts the proposed spoiler guideline which reads: "Spoiler tags are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Using such headers is stylistically preferable to a tag." To resolve this problem, please comment on either or both of the above talk pages. Please keep your comments brief and topical. —Viriditas | Talk 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this is a contradiction? One says "you should include spoilers". The other says "don't mark spoilers with a tag". Isn't the contradiction actually about the tags, not the presence of the spoilers themselves? Just trying to clarify things. Cop 633 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Good eye. Fixed the text above.[3] —Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Carry On films capitalization consensus

As I'm working on correcting incorrect caps in article titles, I wanted to get group consensus before making any move on the Carry On films series. Grammatically the titles of the subsequent films such as Carry On Abroad should be "Carry on Abroad," but my gut instinct is that this should be an exception to keep the "on" capitalized as part of the series title. The category for these films is Category:Carry On films. I spot checked IMDB & AMG and there doesn't seem to be a consistency in the titles at either of them. Thoughts please! :) SkierRMH 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). —Viriditas | Talk 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't answer my basic question, which is why I brought it here. Maybe I wasn't clear enough - this is a conflict between:
  • Capitalization - reading "on" as a preposition - which would call for "Carry on XYZ"
  • Capitalization - reading "on" as part of the verb like Carry On Wayward Son - which would read "Carry On XYZ"
  • Film series - which would possibly mean renaming the lot of them "Carry On films (Carry on XYZ)" - and still doesn't answer the base question of the name that would be added parenthetically.
  • Treating them like a film series, not adding the series name to them, but using the base capitalization from the series "Carry On" and whatever follows would be treated like it would follow a ":", getting a Capitalized next word and the rest following with standard caps ("Carry On XYZ in the Jungle).

There's several interpretations (as is evident from the current variations) of the conventions, and this is an attempt to see which one is the most favourable. SkierRMH 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, tricky. The reason IMDB is inconsistent is that they use the title as it appears on the film's own title screen, and clearly the films themselves are inconsistent. One could do the same thing on Wikipedia, but it's a nuisance. My gut says treat "on" as part of the verb and capitalize it because I think that's the way we use "on" when talking about these films. Cop 633 13:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment

Is there somewhere in the WikiProject that gives instructions on how to rate a film by its "importance"? I've read the information at /Assessment, which has a lot of information on rating by quality, but not so much on importance. --Elonka 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's linked to the category listing at Category:Film articles by importance. Use Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic as your baseline. Some projects will modify the criteria to suit the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware. It's completely subjective. Because of this, there have been discussions about whether to remove the 'importance' rating, but they have always been inconclusive. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Cop 633 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty subjective, and from what I've seen, there's never really been collaborative effort to determine the importance of a film. Someone usually sets it to what he or she believes it is. I've attempted to petition for a guideline or its removal altogether, but there's been minimal response to do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that all films that received an award as "best picture of the year", have to be rated at least as "High-Class". The films that were nominated for awards should at least be "Mid-Class". If a film that has never received any awards or been nominated for one, it should be rated as "Low-Class". Top-Class is reserved for the films that won multiple awards including an Academy Award for Best Picture. This is what I think the guidelines should look like for this Wikiproject. --Crzycheetah 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a very intelligent approach. I would drop the reference to Academy Awards (as that would exclude almost all foreign films from 'Top' status), but otherwise, this seems an elegant and objective solution. Cop 633 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of biased to Academy Awards. What about films that are not featured at the AAs, but win awards in other places? What about films that win Saturn Awards, but not Academy Awards? I thought we strived to have a neutral encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that quantity of awards is a good criterion, but shouldn't be the only one. For example, right now I'm working on Dirty Dancing which I'd like to push to FA status. By some criteria it's a small low-quality low-budget film with a predictable storyline, and no major awards except for its soundtrack. By other criteria its cultural impact has been huge: First film to sell a million copies on video, often listed on "most watched" lists, huge international fanbase, multiple spinoffs including a stage musical with sellout crowds, lots of references in pop culture. But, does that make it "high importance" on Wikipedia? I'm honestly not sure how to rate it. --Elonka 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it would fall either at Mid or High. What you could look for is if Dirty Dancing was a major influence on romantic films. Jurassic Park is well-noted for escorting in a respectable age of computer-generated effects. Maybe there's something to Dirty Dancing doing something for its genre. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not the only criterion. You have to consider important directors. I'd say any major production by Hitchcock, Godard, Ozu, Capra, etc. is at least Mid. If someone disagrees you can always change it. I think the hardest movies to assess are foreign ones that haven't gained great critical notoreity. For instance, I think a Filmfare Award for best picture is probably enough to make a film of high importance... but, how else do we assess Hindi cinema? or should we expect that most highly important films will be Western? gren グレン 11:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that a film has to be a Western film to be considered important, but I would say that it has to have been important within English-speaking culture. If a film was huge in, say, Bangladesh, with sell-out crowds throughout that country, but was never in wide release in English-speaking countries and never had major coverage in English-language press, I'd be reluctant to give it a high rating here at the English Wikipedia. They could definitely rate it as high importance at the Bengali Wikipedia though. --Elonka 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's how things do work out but not how they're supposed to. That's really systemic bias and ideally every Wikipedia would be the same... just translations of the others. We should in every way possible avoid what you just said... but, the practical issue makes that difficult. gren グレン 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what Importance has to do with WP Films as a WikiProject, which is what the assessment schemata exist for. It would be a relevant criterion if it existed for the purpose of clarifying which articles have higher priority for the purposes of editing. Which is what it should be considered: a judgement of priority or project importance, not overall importance. For certain types of projects, it may be more obvious where the main topics are and where the smaller ones lie. However, it has been criticized within the 1.0 group several times in the past as being both inadequate for many of the projects dealing with more subjective fields, as well as having a problem of irresolvable POV. Even if you were to try to create importance criteria based on awards or reviews, you'll run into a major crisis of POV due to the nature both of deciding which awards actually have value, as well as the fact that most awards are granted far too soon to be able to determine much with regards to actual legacy in the long run.

Frankly, the fact remains that the Importance scheme has been a controversial and somewhat vestigial part of the larger assessment project, and it currently serves no concrete basis at a wiki-wide level. In my opinion, we should firmly reject all use of it, both within this WikiProject, and across the wiki as a whole. Girolamo Savonarola 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it useful at the WikiProject level alone. In theory, it allows the project to focus and prioritize work, but in practice it is greatly misused. I think vigilance is needed. I just ran into a situation where Paris Hilton was assessed as Mid-importance in the musician workgroup while Bill Evans was classifed as "Low" in the same scheme. I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. I am trying to use the importance assessment on WikiProject Hawaii to determine which articles are the most important to the project and which should be worked on, first. For this to succeed, a task force would be required, so that the importance is only relevant on a subtopic basis. This would work for this project, such as prioritizing all films by genre, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/New articles

I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/New articles. Please join a discussion about the use of these feeds on Portal_talk:Film#Portal:Film.2FNew_article_announcements. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the reviews of critics undue weight?

I've begun to wonder this lately. Considering most films that are successful get torn apart and then there are popular films that get surprisingly average response, does anyone feel that critics should just be cited to understand a film in the long run? I have no opinion in the matter, I'm just wondering after reading these: [4] [5] [6] Alientraveller 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we consider both as relevant POVs worthy of mention (albeit neutrally)? I think that a big box-office success should be noted as such. So should its reviews, whether it's hitting 5% or 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is critical response and popular response... and the two are often not the same. I think "Crix Nix Kix Flix (Part I)" by Jim Emerson is a great critics analysis of what you're talking about. The article he pans in Variety is the flipside. I think they are separate issues. R. L. Stine's Goosebumps series was incredibly popular but I seriously doubt that any literature reviewer gave it good marks. With movies it's the same idea. So, I think critics are important but they don't address the same issues. I also tend to think the first article is crap since there are different models for #3 films in a trilogy... you have the Matrix Revolutions which the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate gives as 37% (28% cream of the crop) or Return of the King where the aggregate is 94% (98% cream of the crop). Now that I read more into the article he mentions those examples. So, I think it's important to make a kind of distinction in articles between the reviewers from trade journals or whatnot that try to gauge box office success and the critics who write their reviews before the film is released and at least try to do their work independent of the success of the movie. gren グレン 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
the reviewers from trade journals or whatnot that try to gauge box office success - I would consider these people analysts first and foremost, regardless of their claimed title. Critics generally should be divorced from considerations of such things. Girolamo Savonarola 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Future film}} usage

I added a {{Future film}} template to the U2 3D article because the film isn't due out until the end of the year, and information about the film is likely to be updated frequently until then. However, another editor removed the template, calling it "ugly," and saying that it isn't necessary because it should be "self-evident" that the article is about a future film. I re-added the template, telling him it is inappropriate to remove a template because he finds it "ugly," and that there is a reason the template is there. About 10 minutes later, he went and removed it again, stating that the template is unnecessary because "the article explains [the future film] properly." Every future film article mentions the fact that it is about a future film, and the template is just there to make users aware that the information is likely to change. I did not want to start an edit war the other user, so I figured I'd would seek comments and advice here. (U2 3D edit history) –Dream out loud 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the template, and explained why on the article's talk page - • The Giant Puffin • 10:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Coonskin FAC

The article Coonskin (film) is currently nominated for featured article candidacy. Please take a look at the article and evaluate its status. (Ibaranoff24 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Film journals and magazines

I am requesting an experienced, neutral film expert to review the listed publications at Film journals and magazines and remove the ones that don't belong. —Viriditas | Talk 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all external links should be removed. If it is notable enough to be on the list then it should have an article. The redlinks act as a guide for what to create and if anyone really cares to see the journal's website they can easily search for it. If you really want links then out them after the redlinked page. Unfortunately I can't help you with what's notable. Cahiers du cinéma is... but, you probably knew that... oh, and blimp is a flying machine (I'll start dabbing some of them). gren グレン 07:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I moved the external links out... so that if you want to remove them it will be easy to do... and if you don't you can format them how you want. gren グレン 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Generic "Character" infobox?

OK, I'm probably just missing it entirely, but is there a 'generic' character infobox (not one linked to a specific series, like Star Wars or James Bond)? Not just the generic infobox, but one that has details specific to film characters? SkierRMH 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie template problem

This template is too bulky: Template:Alien. I discussed the problem before, at the template talk page (and at this one) and it didn't seem to get anywhere. So I'm trying again. Why must Aliens be lumped in with Predator? They have had a number of crossovers, but so what? There is plenty of crossover content (which doesn't lead to a huge bulky template). One example is the video game characters Mario and Donkey Kong: they've been enemies in games, and they've just appeared in games together... that doesn't mean a big template combining them needs to be made. It needs to be split into 3 templates in my opinion: Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator. The Alien template for solo Alien articles, Predator for solo Predator articles, and A vs. P for things related to A vs. P. I think this needs to happen, as one bulky template takes up too much space for one thing. For another thing: it makes it seem like both subjects are completely related, which I'm pretty sure they aren't. RobJ1981 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to make it default to hidden. If you look at France or any of the other countries they now default to hidden... If I remember when I have more time I'll play around with it but it's the best option I can think of... I do think they belong together but maybe that's because my first exposure to any of them was the AVP game. gren グレン 07:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would advise that only 2 templates be made - one for all Alien and AvP articles and one for all Predator and AvP content. The current template could be retained exclusively for use in AvP articles. Girolamo Savonarola 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Also: I think some of the redlinks should be checked out. I don't even know if they are worth making. I'm pretty sure those same redlinks have been there, since I first brought this bulky template up.. last year. RobJ1981 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King move request is re-nominated.

Last time I did it improberly. Please see poll at the bottom page for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs)

Bumping this up

The voting is almost finished. It would be nice if someone would break up the tie. I'm brining this up because I want the tie to break. If you would be so kind please post your opinion, before the end of the day to break up the tie. Click here to vote. Thanks a lot. TheBlazikenMaster 18:22, 1 June 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
Escape from New York.
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Using films as a primary source

Input needed regarding this discussion about using films as a primary source for article content. —Viriditas | Talk 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New stub/category proposed

Your input would be appreciated here[7] with a new category & stubs proposed to complete the comedy section. SkierRMH 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - an additional category for horror films was also proposed here[8] - your input would be appreciated. SkierRMH 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose a stub type for documentary films. I just created an entry for For_the_Bible_Tells_Me_So, which is definitely a stub in need of a stub tag. -- Steve Schonberger 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is covered by {{documentary-stub}}. --Belovedfreak 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I looked for that in the tag list, but I didn't see it. --Steve Schonberger 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One film two pages

This is a note to the members of the film project to make you aware of the fact that we have a film that has two seperate pages here at wikipedia. Song of Freedom and Song of Freedom (film) are both about the same film and have the exact same info on their pages. The one without the (film) in the title was created first. I don't know if you just delete the younger one or merge them so I am pointing this out so that those of you who know what to do will be able to take care of this situation and thanks in advance for you help. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone had done a cut and paste move and then blanked the original page, only the blanked page was reverted so that's why there were two identical pages. I've reverted the cut and paste and I'll refer the editor to the move requests instructions. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be fixed - Song of Freedom now redirects to Song of Freedom (film). SkierRMH 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the page histories, because the new article used content from the old one without any attribution, which does not comply with GFDL. I also moved the article to Song of Freedom, to get rid of unnecessary disambiguation. Prolog 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to all of you members of the filmproject for taking care of this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Category:None-language films

Hi all, I have opened a discussion on renaming Category:None-language films and I would appreciate your views. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper use of 'Year in Film' link

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Film reel and film.jpg

I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that this image is going to be deleted.Hektor 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Transparent film reel and film.png

I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that this image is going to be deleted.Hektor 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Film Reel 4 by Bubbels.jpg

I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that this image is going to be deleted.Hektor 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that this image is going to be deleted.Hektor 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair warning. Thanks! Both this one and the other one (see above) are used on templates, which are on hundreds of pages. — WiseKwai 10:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Arent we going to have lots of red links on all our templates? Surely there is a way to save them, or an alternative to them? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Alternative images or icons are going to be needed, or the templates will have to be redesigned. It's time to get creative. — WiseKwai 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Mrs. Doubtfire

As an academy award winning film please can somebody try to clean up and improve Mrs. Doubtfire -its in a terrible state. Ahhhh I can't bleive those film images will be deleted - they are in all the tons of templates!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which film images? I've done a minor bit of cleanup... gren グレン 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see all sxc.hu images are going. gren グレン 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about a new template

Hello to all the members of the project. Recently User:Adam B. Sheets created Template:Legends of Horror Cinema. and began inserting it into the relevant pages. I am not very adept in the ins and outs of templates so I have come to you all to find out some things. The editor obviously put some work and thought into it and I am not posting this to have it eliminated. But, I do have a concern over the subjective choices of the people listed. Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins are there for there roles in Psycho. While this is a masterpiece of the horror/thriller genre both of these actors had wide ranging careers outside of this field. Also Stanley Kubrick is listed for The Shining, but, this is his only film that entirely fits this category. So my question to the project is should we come to some kind of consensus as to who should and shouldn't be listed in this template? I have invited the editor to comment also and will look forward to hearing everyones thoughts. Thanks in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I think the template does need to be deleted, either through TFD or CSD#G7 if the author agrees. "Legends of..." is just so subjective and unencyclopedic topic for a template, that I do not believe this can be turned into a useful, neutral template. Prolog 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I created the template to try to help people navigate and explore a little deeper into the history of horror cinema. I agree that it is all subjective (although I think in general most people would agree with most of the choices), so please feel free to add anyone to the list that would apply. I can see your point about Stanley Kubrick and Janet Leigh being deleted. However, in the case of Anthony Perkins, in additon to Psycho, he was also in it's three sequels as well as Daughter of Darkness and possibly Pretty Poison.Adam B. Sheets 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Adam B. Sheets
I think that they should go to the horror film page to navigate where the writing should make clear who are important figures in horror. Templates like this create too much clutter and... while they can be useful they usually end up coming into conflict with other templates and succession boxes for awards, etc. gren グレン 02:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a POV problem. Girolamo Savonarola 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated this template for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Legends of Horror Cinema for the discussion. Prolog 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Split of Category:World War II films

I've proposed subcategorizing the World War II films category by theater and/or front. If you're interested, please offer comments, naming suggestions, or help with recategorizing articles at Category talk:World War II films#Proposed split. Thanks. --Quuxplusone 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Need translation of French article

There is a French article here about the Onimusha film. The content about this film is not in its own article yet due to uncertainty of production, but film talk is at Onimusha (series)#Film adaptation. Can anyone translate the article and include the necessary information there, please? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A list you might be interested in...

Hi,

Have started to compile a titles list based on a 16mm Film Libray catalouge from 1978 I found.. Perhaps someone would care to look at User:ShakespeareFan00/Film List and try and make some of the links blue rather than red? The list is under expansion. ShakespeareFan00 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Wikipedia Meet-Up

Hello all. Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

afd notice for List of counterculture films

I have renominated the article List of counterculture films for deletion. In its original afd earlier this year, the result was no consensus in part because it was hoped that the article's references and objectivity and verifiability could be established. That has not happened, and in fact the list has simply continued to grow with no references or attempt to establish an objective definition of "counterculture". It is simply a hodge podge list of films that certain individual editors feel in their opinion are counterculture films, which violates WP:OR. At this point I'd say there appears to be little to no hope of correcting the major original research issue for this list, so I recommend deletion.

Feel free to post your comments in favor or against deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterculture films (2nd nomination). (Don't post comments here - try and keep them centralized at the afd page so everyone can see them.) Thanks! Dugwiki 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made my recommendation with several arguments, and I would encourage additional recommendations to be backed by details rather than a short sentence as to outline the consensus for this AfD more strongly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Is this external link legit?

To the members of the film project. In the last few days User:200.76.12.182 has added reviews from the critics society.com website to a whole batch of films. Here is one example [9]. I don't know whether these meet wikipedia's external link guidelines or not so I thought I woould bring them to the projects attention and let those of you who are more conversant with the specifics decide. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not. Doesn't appear to be any kind of professional critic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the user is soliciting that particular link, that kind of action seems to qualify a site as linkspam. The site uses user-submitted reviews, which doesn't seem to me to be the most appropriate external link for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles about future films

Do the words at Wikipedia:Notability (films) about future films reflect the consensus of the participants of this project? If so, it seems at least some (if not most) of the articles in Category:Upcoming films should be nominated for deletion. Just curious if there's an established consensus about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a lot of upcoming films are certainly big and notable. However, the problem is when a film is in development stages and may not come to pass, so merging is preferable. Alientraveller 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Perferable to merge into what article - studio, director, stars? For example, I added a template:prod tag to Azazel (2009 film) which the creator of the article deleted. Fair enough (that's how prod works, after all). But the question is, if I took this to AFD would the likely consensus be keep or delete? The creator of this article notes that there are plenty of other, similar, "future film" articles. So, is there an existing consensus about these kinds of articles? I happen to agree with what Wikipedia:Notability (films) says about this topic (such articles are generally not appropriate), but this proposed guideline looks nearly moribund which suggests it doesn't (at least entirely) reflect current consensus. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not set in stone, so ignore it for now. Indeed, merging and splitting when content arrives is the best approach, per WP:SS. For example, Magneto and likewise other in-development comic book films have been merged to their comic book articles. Alientraveller 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, the likely consensus is "no consensus" or "keep" and rarely "delete". BUT, if you were to do a proposed merger, you are more likly to get the merge, and even get people who said "keep" to support a merge. This is because AfD means "deletion", and people will vote to "keep" solely because it means the information will not be lost. If you do a merger, on the grounds that the film hasn't entered production or some other reason, they are more likely to suppor that because you aren't deleting anything. As for where it goes, depends on the subject. If it's part of a film series, then a "film series" page if one exists. If it a mere sequel to an original movie, than on that original film's page. Adapatation, then on the page of whatever it was adapted from. If it's an original film, I'd say put it on the director's page. It's all kind of case-by-case, based on the actual film. For Azazel, I'd throw it on Paul Verhoeven's page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole about the likely AfD consensus. There usually seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to keep articles if there is the threat of deletion. Also, it's difficult to make clear to all editors in a film's AfD that just because a film is announced or has a writer attached means that it will be made. The nature of the industry constitutes that not all projects will go through. Citing WP:CRYSTAL won't always work because in the majority of cases, information of a film is based on something true. It's better to pursue a merger citing WP:CFORK because it is not determinable if the article will continue to be developed. It's best to place minimal information on a future film in a broader article -- film series, franchise, source material, et cetera. I've done this for Knight Rider (film), Logan's Run (2007 film) and others, and I just merged a whole bunch of announced projects under Neil Marshall recently. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Related to this dicsussion, I've suggested Wikipedia:Notability (films) move from proposal to guideline. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken Park

Could some experienced film editors please take a look at Ken Park? The "detailed plot" section of the article is really excessive and describes the action scene by scene. It really needs to be cut down but I'd prefer editors with experience in writing such articles to take a look at it. There's one editor who feels it is very necessary to have this detailed of a summary (see the talk page of the article). Any help that can be lent would be appreciated. Metros 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Monster (film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Cinema of Palestine

In order to continue the standardisation of the national Cinema of... articles, I moved the Palestinian cinema article to Cinema of Palestine 3 times, but on each occasion it has been moved back by a particular user. Realising I was getting nowhere, I have changed track, by leaving my arguments as to why the article should be entitled Cinema of Palestine on the article's talk page (Talk:Palestinian cinema). I have invited comment from the user who keeps reverting the move and I would also like to invite comment from anyone involved in this project, with the hope of reaching some agreement. Thanks. Gram123 13:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

TASK FORCES: Getting the ball rolling

Given the apparent lack of current activity there, including non-response to my original discussion of the idea, I've initiated the first task force by moving WikiProject Persian Cinema to WikiProject Films as a task force. This should have very little effect on the group should it decide to resume activity, except that their project notice template will be integrated into the general WP Films template pending the necessary syntax monkeying. There might need to be some minor renaming of the ex-project's categories to reflect task force status. (See WP MilHist's template for an example of how this will be implemented.)

Additionally, I have renamed the amorphous "Cinema of" project subpages for Argentine, French, and Italian cinemas, thus making them de facto task forces. The only outstanding remaining groups I am aware of are Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese cinema and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema. I have not yet discussed a move with the Chinese group. There was a discussion a long time ago about the Indian group (and where it belonged as a task force - basically WP Films vs. WP India), which IIRC involved the project being apathetic while some of the WP India editors strenuously objected to not being allowed to host it themselves. As a compromise WP InCine decided to stay in the WikiProject name, even though common concensus on all sides seemed to agree that it was more properly a task force. For the record, WP:COUNCIL seemed to agree that the task force should actually be located at the topic content WikiProject, but be accessible from and contain sidebars for both the content and regional WikiProject. Hopefully we can solve the issue more amicably this time.

But just to reiterate: the main work that needs to be done to completely integrate these projects is to fiddle around with the project notice template. Otherwise, the job's more or less completed. Now to roll up our sleeves and start organizing some kickass articles! :) Girolamo Savonarola 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Future tag on foreign films

On the film Ploy I have run into a conflict with User:Ask123 who insists that because this is English Wikipedia, and the film has not yet been released in an English-speaking country (there are English-speaking countries?), it should be classified as future. If that's the policy or guideline or whatever, then there's a good many "foreign" films made since the beginning of cinema that need to be reclassified as future. Anyway, the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival with a lot of English-speaking people in the audience, and is now playing in Thailand, where a good many English-speaking people have seen it as well. Once it opened in Thailand, I removed the Future tag and classed it as a B article. I hope I am doing the right thing, but then I thought spoiler tags were the correct thing to do, too. — WiseKwai 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the future tag served to identify articles that would have conventional citation problems due to their unfinished state. It has nothing to do with regionality or language whatsoever. Girolamo Savonarola 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That was my impression, too, and am doing my best on Talk:Ploy to relay that. Thanks! — WiseKwai 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That user is wrong. To satisfy NPOV, theoretically the English Wikipedia should be the same as any other language--just a translation. The obvious problem is our sources are going to be in English which will give us bias... but, our goal is to counter that not reinforce it. gren グレン 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox statistics

A while ago someone updates the statistics on how many infoboxes need to be done but they have stopped. The last update was May 22 when I did it. Is there a way to get the statistics automatically since searching (200+200+...) is not very efficient and even worse when breaking it down by letter. gren グレン 03:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

I have been wanting to get a peer review for The Power of Nightmares, but I don't know if it's in the area of the Film Project. Can anyone clarify where I should seek advice? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

11 Steps?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography has a section that outlines 11 steps to at least a B-class article. I think this is a fantastic idea, and something that could definitely be borrowed by WP:Film. This could encourage people who aren't particularly interested in doing a lot of research and being creative to help out, and a large amount of articles would skip being stubs and become B-class articles. Could we come up with something like this? Would it help? Would it just cause confusion? That's one thing I've always thought was a little bit shoddy about WP:Film: it's lack of focus. It seems that most people just already understand what's going on, and the page offers only slight help. It's as if you already have to be a full-blown wikipedian with experience with other WikiProjects to be able to be a proficient WP:Film contributor. If it were more user-friendly, I think more people would get involved. Is that reasonable? Another thing that they have that I think is a wonderful idea is their generic template for all biographies. Type "{{subst:Biography}}" in, and you'll get a generic template that you can conform to any biography. Obviously it would need to be a little bit more multifaceted for WP:Film, but I think we'd end up with a lot less articles without user boxes and just one sentence. Maybe not, though. Any thoughts? —imaek 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Procedure REQUEST FOR COMMENT for article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"

As per Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution I am asking any and all members of this project to add input on a dispute over deletion of Taglines for this film, which was added to the National Film Registry in 2005. The original tagline "A Different Set of Jaws" is also listed as one of the most memorable taglines in history along with others. I also have at least one other reference source, an article on "The Rocky Horror Picture Show as Cultural Performance" with mention on the cultural impact of the tagline "Don't Dream It, Be It." Input is needed to resolve a current "Edit War" where an Editor keeps deleting without adding a better reason than he "Does not believe they are notable" with no further reference to back up the assertion. Thank you. --Amadscientist 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Genius (2003)

Hi there, this article has been tagged as not clearly asserting notability since October 2006. I'm not sure if there are notability criteria for movies? Anyway, the sources it points to don't seem to actually review the movie. Would somebody be able to have a look at this article and hopefully improve it - maybe provide citations for the awards that are claimed that it won?

Thanks,Garrie 23:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Public domain films and infobox

For films Night of the Living Dead, M, and Charade which are public domain, since wikipedia is very big on free images lately, should posters be used in the infobox or should a screenshot take it's place. I think an image of the poster should be used for all articles above dvd cases, screen capture's, and vhs covers. But what is the choice with public domain films? Andrzejbanas 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the poster actually have a copyright owner, or was it part of the stuff that slipped into PD? Bignole 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The copyright on a film poster could be quite different from that on the film itself. All film posters in the US through 1977 would have to bear a copyright notice to actually be copyrighted. I believe almost none of them bear such a notice.--Pharos 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems someone needs to determine if that poster lapsed into PD or if it got picked up by someone. I would think that one of 2 people would have the copyright on it. Either the actual designer of the poster (if they didn't work for the studio), or the studio itself. But, it seems to me that if the actual film lapsed into PD that just about every associated with it would lapse too, but that's just my idea and no where near factual. Otherwise, I want my money back for the DVD I bought. ;) Bignole 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
THe poster itself claims PD. So, if you are challenging that, I think that should be brought up on the image talk page or another article that deals with copyrighted images. I didn't see the original poster at "allposters.com". Bignole 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is the two are separate issues. It's quite likely that the poster for a PD film would also by now be PD, but not necessarily so. Conversely, there are probably lots of PD film posters (under the criteria I explained above) for films that are still under copyright.--Pharos 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's rare for any film to lapse into PD, but even if it does, and the poster has not become PD, I still think the poster is the best illustration for the film as whole, but that's my personal bias. If you wanted a "free" article you'd have to put a screenshot, if the poster was still copyrighted. But, if the only non-free image in the entire article is the poster, I wouldn't see a problem. But, it could be easily argued that you "could" have an entirely free article without it. Bignole 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the poster should be used. No one screenshot can encapsulate an entire movie, and while a poster may not either it represents a (sometimes honest) attempt to do so and provides information about how the film was marketed, identifies actors and characters, styles of the time and so on. Most useful. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations.

I thought I'd just post this here in case anyone didn't realize that this was something to keep an eye out for, and maybe to educate members of this project about. I'm not sure how widespread this behaviour is, so this might be just a single case, but it was pretty extensive. Zosimus Comes (talk · contribs) almost exclusively created articles using content from IMDB, NYTimes, and others as material in the "plot" section of the articles. To get an idea of how extensive this was, take a look at the clean up that was required at Special:Contributions/Sanchom. The copyright matter is already pretty prominent all over wikipedia, so I don't know what else you could do to encourage participants in your group to avoid this, but at minimum, perhaps just keep an eye out for it. Sancho 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Stripping

There has been a massive wave of image cleanups recently. I understand the policies are changing every week, but I am rather concerned that it is going quite far. Look at the Cinema of United States, Cinema of Hong Kong and Cinema of China for example. There is not a single image allowed, as articles have been stripped naked of all images. So I would like to hear some opinions from other editors. When images of starwars, bruce lee and countless movies are not allowed.... it seems like these new policies are not making sense? It's really hurting the pages and subjects. Benjwong 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the rationale used to remove images from the articles that you mentioned. The topics are broad, so if a certain film image can be replaced by another film image with no impact, the image placement is usually unwarranted. Whenever you use an image from a film, the image needs to be relevant to the content somehow. Some examples would be the screenshots in Branded to Kill and the one screenshot in Dirty Dancing. If you want to break the monotonous flow of the articles you mentioned, I would suggest creating quoteboxes or tables of statistics. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the Dirty Dancing page, are you suggesting that the images will stay if the captions are good? My understanding is that this is really not about the flow. As the new policies are unanimously wiping pages out clean. I don't think the people doing the deletion are actually reading the articles. Which is my concern. Benjwong 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant that the Dirty Dancing screenshot is more appropriate than any other screenshot from the film because that particular scene has been commented on. I looked at the revisions before the removal of the images for the articles you mentioned, and they didn't really seem to be tied into the article. Mentioning a film title as an example of a country's cinematic history doesn't warrant an image. However, if there happens to be plenty of critical commentary on a film that is quintessentially American or Hong Kong (can't think of any examples off the top of my head), that kind of particular focus would possibly warrant an image that can reflect why it was quintessential. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Let's try this. On this older US cinema page there is a picture of "The great train robbery" on the right. The image got deleted off the article even thought there is clearly a paragraph directly on the left about it. This is what I was saying before. How much fairuse description is actually enough if people are deleting at will. Would a long caption actually save this image on the page? I am bringing this up because it affects almost every film page. Benjwong 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is only 1 sentence about that film to the left. The section is about early development, but only speaks about TGTR for one line. I can tell you that if you are only talking about something for 1 line, and that line is merely about the success of that film, then some random image from the film is not justification for use. If the scene had been single out for helping US Cinema achieve something notable, that is one thing, but you are merely talking about the success of a film, but are using a random image of Justus Barnes from the film to illustrate that. The link takes you to the article on the film and the image is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the reply. I was just using that as an example of seeing what is enough. I think the new policies go far beyond that. If you have a movie box cover, I think it can only be used to describe that movie and nothing more. If you have pictures of movie stars, it cannot be used on a moviestar article since they prefer "free images". Now you are stuck to find an image of a movie star that is actually "free" and unreleased from a movie studio or press. Benjwong 03:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to a movie in general for laying some tracks in the world of American cinema, then there probably isn't a picture (unless free) that could be used. If you are talking about how a particular scene did that, then justifying the use of an image that illustrates that scene is a lot easier. If you need an image of a movie star, and they are living, then "free" is quite possible to attain. The image doesn't have to have anything to do with the film, if you just want an image of the actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well lets say you want to upload an image to show who an actor/actress/singer etc might be. You are suggesting I should just go randomly google up an image that doesn't belong in a movie/album and just claim it as fair use? Are you saying this will have more staying power than screenshot, coverbox or promotional posters? Cause this is what I used to do before, and people claimed there was no legitimacy unless it came from a legit source like screenshot, coverbox. There are quite a number of users experiencing the same thing. Many of them are in the same circle of uploading images multiple times, tagging multiple times. Benjwong 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about that actor's page, then any living person requires a free image (i.e. something someone personally took and releases to the public domain). If you cannot take the picture yourself, you put in an image request for one. If you are referring to an article that mentions an actor, then I would ask why you would need the image there if their page has an image already? Fair use is for all non-free material. And you cannot just claim fair use, you have to prove fair use. A screenshot can be used under fair use, if it meets the criteria set forth by Wikipedia, as could a promotional image of the cast. It all depends on how you are trying to use it. What you cannot do is go out and find some random image and claim it is in the public domain. Anything copyrighted must meet fair use guidelines. A random image of Justus doesn't meet those for that US Cinema section, because the 1 sentence in there is talking about the film as a whole, and not that specific scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, adding onto Bignole's comment : it's very important in attempting to prove why the image is suitable for use that a detailed, specific and unique fair use rationale should be used. Numerous images have very generic rationales that may fall short in explaining why that particular image (as opposed to "any-old-image") is being used. Anyone reading the fair use rationale should be able to see exactly why that image is essential to the article. Images with fair use rationales that achieve that tend not to be deleted so rapidly, although it's no guarantee. The fair use rationale on the image description page, and the text within the article that uses the image - should almost mirror each other in putting the image into context and demonstrating its usefulness. Basically, Wikipedia supports the limited fair use of images if they are chosen carefully, used sparingly, and used with a very strong, supportable reason that makes it clear to another editor exactly why that image is used. There are thousands of images with flimsy fair use rationales that say something like "low resolution image being used to illustrate (name of article) and it's considered to be fair use because it's an educational article and the copyright holder won't be disadvantaged". A lot of words that don't explain why that particular image was uploaded. As far as I can see they are the ones being listed for deletion, and rightly so, IMHO. Rossrs 07:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out... Image:Great train robbery still.jpg was public domain, so.... I don't see why it would be removed.... gren グレン 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please review a controversy brewing at Islam: What the West Needs to Know? CJCurrie 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A question about the categories commands

I am currently working on the British film list and as I have gone through hundreds of pages of films I have come across something that I hope that one of you members of the filmproject can help me understand. When you get to the categories at the end of each article some of them are recorded as [[Category:Category name|film name]] for each category and some have the collective {{DEFAULTSORT:film name}} which saves having to put the films name on each seperate category line. Now I understand how each of these work, but I have been noticing that some pages use neither of these commands yet the film is still showing up on the British film category (or any other category listed) page so my question is has the wiki command software (sorry that might not be the right wording but I am not very computer literate) been upgraded to the point that we do not need to use either of the commands listed above to have a film's page (or actor or any other page for that matter) show up in the category that one types in at the bottom of the page? It surely would save some time in adding them if this is the case but, as I said, I am not very computer savvy so if one of you can clear this up for me it would be much appreciated and my thanks in advance to anyone who can help. MarnetteD | Talk 22:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge you don't have to pipe your category links. However, the feature is generally used for properly alphabetizing articles which would otherwise be misplaced - such as film titles beginning with "The". Obviously most of them should not be placed under the T listing. If the title doesn't have these issues, a non-pipe should be fine. Girolamo Savonarola 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply GS and yes I am aware of the rules about where the "The" should be placed. What I was trying to get at is that it seems that you no longer have to pipe the links or use the defaultsort command at all. When I started editing here a little over two years ago you had to do one of those two things or the page you were editing would not show up in the category that you had entered at the bottom of the page. In other words the category would sit there at the bottom of the page and if you clicked on it you would go to that category page but the page that you had come from would not be on it. That no longer seems to be the case and I was just curious if anyone new when or why this change had taken place. When I went to the manual of style to try to find out about this was there was no mention of this change. Thanks again for your help and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite make out what you're on about, Marnette. You still need to list the categories you want your article to be grouped in at the end of the page, as far as I know. — WiseKwai 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that this hasn't been clearer. What I am on about is that when I started two years ago just putting a category at the bottom of the page didn't mean that the page would show up on the category page. You had to either put the title of the page on each category listed or use the default sort command. For instance when adding categories to a films page if you didn't enter the film Love Actually in one of the two following ways [[Category:British films|Love Actually]] or {{DEFAULTSORT:Love Actually}} [[Category:British films]] then when you clicked on the category link and went to the page entitled Category:British films, and scrolled down to the L's Love Actually wouldn't be there even though the category was on the bottom of Love Actually's page. What I have been finding with pages for films that have been created recently is that you no longer need to use either of the above commands to get a given page to show up on the alphabetical list on a category page. Now just having [[Category:British films]] would have Love Actually in the L's on the category page. I am just trying to confirm whether anyone is aware that this is now the case because it will be a small time saver to not have to do the extra typing. Thanks again for the replys so far and for any help that may come. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's worked like that for as long as I've been here, so, yes, you can definitely leave it unpiped and de-defaultsorted as the case may warrant. Also, semi-related though not directed at you, something I hadn't been aware of until a number of months back, when piping or default sorting it's best not to add the comma and definitive to the end of the title. Reason being that it's a holdover from analog file sorting and, in rare cases, can reverse related titles. For example, Blob 2, The would come before Blob, The because it counts the comma as part of the title. It should be done as Blob and Blob 2. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at I Not Stupid's most recent failed GA nomination?

I originally intended to renominate I Not Stupid for GA status on 8 July 2007 after rewriting the Plot section and expanding the Production and Political satire sections (the first GA nomination, dated 18 December 2006, failed due to choppy prose and lack of broad coverage). Unfortunately, on 22 June 2007, Homestarmy prematurely renominated the article, and placed it in the "Television" section.

In less than 24 hours, the nomination was failed by NSR77. I agree with the outcome of the nomination (failure), as the renomination was premature and the article was not ready. However, I disagree with some of NSR77's reasons for failing the article.

For example, NSR77 commented that "the plot should have the proper spoiler templates fixed to it"; most of you should be aware of the recent discussion which led to consensus that spoiler tags were unneccesary in Plot sections. Similarly, he claimed that "The images do not have the properly allocated Fair Use rationale", when they do. Moreover, I had a good laugh when he asked "In "Sequels and spinoffs"...does reference 34 cover the entire paragraph?" (the article had only 32 references when the nomination failed; 2 more references were added after the nomination failed).

Two other users - Wisekwai (a member of this WikiProject) and Bishonen - agreed with me that some of NSR77's reasons were unfounded. Perhaps several members could comment on the talk page and reach a conensus on which of NSR77's concerns are valid, and which are invalid. I do not wish to waste my time dealing with bogus criticisms, but I need help addressing issues which matter.

With two copy-editors - E@L and Haemo - helping me with the prose, the expansion nearly complete, and the rewrite about to start, I Not Stupid is nearly there. All it needs is a litle more effort to get the article the GA status it deserves.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you done WP:GA/R yet? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, because I agree with the outcome, but I disagree with the reasons NSR77 cited for the failure. If I disagreed with the outcome, I would have filed a GA/R a long time ago. That being said, if several editors agree that GA/R is the way to go, I'll file a GA/R. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert McKee (screenwriting lecturer)

I find the article Robert McKee to be rather unbalanced; it reads a little too much like hype from his own web site. I put some "citation needed" tags in the article, but it probably needs a more careful and thorough edit to ensure it maintains a neutral point of view. --Cinematical 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Movies about classical litterature

I'm looking for articles on movies about classical Roman and Greek litterature. Is there a category or article that can help me get started? Shinobu 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You might start here:


Jim Dunning | talk 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

American film list

Cinema of the
United States

1890s
1890 1891 1892 1893 1894
1895 1896 1897 1898 1899
1900s
1900 1901 1902 1903 1904
1905 1906 1907 1908 1909
1910s
1910 1911 1912 1913 1914
1915 1916 1917 1918 1919
1920s
1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929
1930s
1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
1935 1936 1937 1938 1939
1940s
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
1945 1946 1947 1948 1949
1950s
1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
1960s
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
1970s
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1980s
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1990s
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000s
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Just to let everyone know I have started on what should be considered one of the most important set of articles for film on wikipedia. To document the history of American film by year. This is a mammoth task with high potential but one which I hope all will see will eventually prove to be an excellent resource for film on wikipedia and the internet. Even if several people contribute a tiny bit the lists will be completed in no time at all. The lists also solve that crisis at the beginning of the year with breaking the American film category by year - lists were considered the answer. When completed I'm sure people will agree it will look terrific. But please please help!!!!! Particularly 1960-present ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopses too long?

After reviewing a number of film articles and the guidelines regarding article structure and format, I've decided that many of the Plot sections are way too long and detailed. This is especially evident for recent, popular films like The Prestige and Children of Men (I'm not specifically criticizing the contributing editors for these films (I'm one of them), and I'm not singling out just films: many novel articles are similarly developed). The Films Project does not have specific guidelines relative to this issue, but WikiProject Novels does; since both media are fiction then the same principles should apply.

To wit, "Plot summaries should not contain an explication of every subplot in the novel nor need they be told in the same order as the novel itself. Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve and one of the ways to make your article look like Sparknotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to detail the plot of every chapter rather than to attempt to truly summarize the novel. A summary details the most important events and character relationships in the novel." (WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines). Many of our film plot sections seem to violate this rather explicit guideline, as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Presentation of fictional material. I'm interested in other perspectives on this.

Click through a number of the articles in 2006 films — especially the popular films — and the plot detail becomes mind-numbing. The novella length content regularly contradicts the frequent headings of "Plot summary" and "Plot synopsis". I had a difficult time finding these examples, but take a look at Hollywoodland (although I would work on the word-choice itself a bit), The Squid and the Whale, and The Clearing for contrast; although some are brief likely as a result of lack of interest, they effectively communicate the essentials of the story without being diluted in detail. Are these detailed plot descriptions unencyclopedic?
Jim Dunning | talk 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not mind stricter standards. I've always adhered to the plot guidelines under WikiProject Films, but I've always noticed that it's gotten into unnecessary detail at times, like in the examples you pointed out, Jim. Plot summaries should provide enough detail about the film to make the article's real-world context understood. This may vary depending on the film, though -- thematically heavy films may require the outlining of scenes in the Plot section more than a straightforward romantic comedy. I do agree, though, that there's probably more than enough detail in a lot of popular films' articles for encyclopedic content -- especially when the Plot section is the only major section in an article, like at Ocean's Thirteen. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Prestige was much longer, before it became GA. I think many plot summaries are good enough, just the paragraphing can be insane and lead to bloat. Alientraveller 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more specific guidelines articulated by this Project, similar to what Novels has done (not that they are being followed; I'm going to raise the same question there as well). My preference would be to move toward more succinct, higher level descriptions, but the actual guideline can be left to the usual consensus process. I do not want to lose flexibility in article creation, but I'm interested in what the views are on plot description. Anyone interested in the project?
Jim Dunning | talk 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested in helping out. I'd like to see how we can shape the appropriate criteria to determine the length of plot summaries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole category of these at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. You're welcome to amend the guideline, the problem being I don't think anybody actually ever reads it, and the longer it gets the more true that will become. Doctor Sunshine talk 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That guideline section is too vague. It states, "Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary. As this is an encyclopedia not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending", thus leaving options too wide open. Certainly, many don't read it, but maybe the link to the style page should be more prominent on the Project page. I agree with Doctor Sunshine that making the guidelines overly-complex will defeat the purpose, but the Novels guidelines are just three paragraphs long and easily understood. We can certainly strive for that kind of clarity. Maybe all we need do is propose adopting/adapting the paragraph I quoted above, including a link to MoS's Presentation of fictional material?
By the way, thanks, Doctor Sunshine, for the attention list. I clicked randomly on a number of films listed there and all identified the problem as "overly long plots." Ironically, most aren't noticeably different in length than The Prestige or Children of Men. So maybe we just raise the Ginger vs. Mary Ann question: Hollywoodland or The Prestige?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think incorporating their guideline would be fine. Maybe adding a link to our style guide in the {{plot}} tag would help draw some attention to it. As for Ginger or Mary Ann, my vote would be both. Here, maybe Ginger's a little too long and Mary Anne's a tad short but they're not too far off. I usually use WP:FAs as a guide. I don't see any longish ones in there but something like "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" is appropriately short and Blade Runner, for example, is right in the sweet spot. Maybe including some examples in the guideline would help too. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the plot summaries in movie articles need to be severly trimmed. WP:FICT says "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them". What's being done here is exactly that. I dont have to go to a theater to watch the movie after reading some of the summaries here. I dont think a plot summary about a movie should be longer than 5-6 lines and no more than a paragraph. I was looking at Shooter (2007 film) and the plot summary is basically a script for the movie. Since I saw that movie, I'm going to trim down that article later tonight. Corpx 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Film icons

Several of the icons used by the film project templates have been removed from commons due to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Sxc-warning . --PhantomS 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What about using this temporarily? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I used this for the unprotected COTW templates. --PhantomS 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Either's fine for now. I'd go with the latter. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd already put in an editprotected request for Template:Film and have now changed it to one of the files suggested above, as a temporary measure pending a full "I like this one" "No, that's horrible" discussion. - X201 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for any WikiProject Films member to create a film reel using Photoshop, or have an artistic friend do the same and release it into the public domain? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We might be able to get the old film reel back. Did anyone try sending a message to Bubbels at the sxc? All we need is her permission. I was gonna but, y'know, I didn't wanna create an account... Doctor Sunshine talk 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

new icon

Hi, the new icon just doesn't look as good as the previous one, specially that now it's a SVG vector file, I think it will be better to find png icon (something like image:Exquisite-amorok.png or image:Crystal_Clear_app_aktion.png) --Andersmusician VOTE 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin Task Force

Hey guys, Im interested in creating a task force for Charlie Chaplin. There are numerous Chaplin articles that are merely stubs and need great expansion. Plus, the actual Chaplin page, should be a FA. If you're interested, please respond here. Thanks!LordRobert 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so certain that the scope is large enough to warrant a task force. Task forces generally are made to cover vast sub-sections of the WikiProjects without needing to re-invent all the policy and process. To do this you need both a large subject scope and a decent number of editors.
It would be better if your Charlie Chaplin work were a component of one or more larger task forces, like Comedy film task force and Silent film task force, for example. Girolamo Savonarola 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot style guidelines revision proposal

A proposal to revise the style guidelines for Plot sections is available for review. Input is needed, please.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests section created

The requests section has now been properly created. (It previously redirected to the appropriate section of the general requested articles.) The requests page has sections for article creation, image creation, cleanup needed, and so on. I've also subsectioned the requests of the task forces so that they can be transcluded to both their own page and the appropriate section of /Requests.

I've been working on a metalist database of numerous notable film lists for some years now. I decided to do a data dump of the titles, format them properly (Film Title, The > The Film Title), and wikify them. I figured anything on these lists automatically qualifies for inclusion and should be given an article. At the moment I'm actually processing this through a subpage on my userspace. I then check all the bluelinks to see that they actually go to an article on the appropriate film (or otherwise show the film to have an article). Films either have an article and are pruned from the list; have an article but need the film split to its own article - this is noted and the link is not pruned; or have no article and are thus kept, sometimes with parentheticals added as need be.

At the moment I've gotten from A to L, so they've been copied to the requested articles section in order to populate it (and give some good motivating work - there's PLENTY to go around). I probably should have also copied the requests from the general request area, but I was too tired to bother, to be quite honest.

Anyway, have fun! Girolamo Savonarola 22:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What make a film from a certain country?, part 2

Once again there is a disagreement at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)#What makes a film from a certain country? as to verifying that the film comes from both the UK and the US. See the bottom of that section, and please contribute. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at I Not Stupid's fourth peer review.

I Not Stupid is the third-highest grossing Singaporean film of all time. It contributed to reforms in Singapore's education system. For months, I have tried to improve the article to GA status, but to no avail. The article has undergone two failed GA nominations - the first in December 2006 and the second just last month, under rather extraordinary circumstances.

The main reasons cited for the failure of the two nominations are choppy prose and lack of broad coverage. Due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult, so addressing the latter concern has proven to be an arduous task.

However, a thorough expansion and copy-edit (with Haemo's help) has hopefully addressed both concerns. As suggested by Haemo, I filed a fourth peer review as part of my final push towards GA status. I invite all members of this WikiProject to comment at the peer review. Getting an article on a Singaporean film to GA status is no mean feat, and would help fight systemic bias.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Spoilers

I don't see any information about spoiler tags here in Wikiproject films, which seems strange. I see that spoiler tags are being ripped out of every movie because all readers are expected to know that a plot summary contains spoilers, but Bicycle Thieves contains a spoiler in the section discussing the title, before the plot summary. Now all of Wikipedia is a spoiler? --Tysto 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. Alientraveller 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
See WikiProject Films/Style guidelines.  ;) - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Project style guidelines

The Rocky Horror Picture Show article has recently been cleaned up for assessment with a great deal of work. I noticed that the style guidelines for Project Musical Theatre conflict with the style guidelines for this project. Since it is a film I believe the guidelines for this project should take precedence. Should there be a problem....how should it be handled. I had simply removed the article from the Musical Theatre project but it was recently re-added.--Amadscientist 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the Musical Theatre Project's own definition of musical theatre, you wouldn't think the film would be directly included (the stage show should be, however). I see the question has been properly raised on the article's Talk page, and Mark E's assessment offers a solution. The Project does explicitly include musical film in its scope, but since it is a film, the Film Project's guidelines should take precedence.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca FAR

Casablanca (film) 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.

Batman - in other media: movies

Am I wrong here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Batman#In_other_media:_movies

Please help... Ek79 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the discussion page. Please also note that new topics should be added to the bottom of talk pages. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)