Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 15

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 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 →

Contents

Project banner overhaulage...

Hey all, I've been looking into tinkering with the project banner template ever since we've added the task forces, and I finally have been able to take the time to look through the code. I've actually synthesized something that retains most of the style of the current banner, while overhauling the code underneath so that things like adding particular articles to certain project categories becomes more automated. This new template will also allow the task forces to keep their own assessment tables concurrently with the full project one. Most of the code was retooled from {{WPMILHIST}}. I'm still working out minor issues in the template sandbox and tweaking things like precise category names, but I think it's far enough along that it can be open for general critique and review.

You can see the template here: User:Girolamo Savonarola/banner. I've also posted a similiar message on Template talk:Film, so it might be better to consolidate discussion either there or my template's talk page. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, no one has any comments whatsoever? Girolamo Savonarola 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not so much a comment as an acknowledgment. To me, the biggest change is an additional hidden to-do checklist field, which should be helpful in developing articles up to B-class status. Will the template still behave the same as it does now, with the expanded guidelines for the stub class template?— WiseKwai 21:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You really need to run it in the Template:Template sandbox to give it a full test drive. In short, yes and more. It also does a lot of auto-categorization and can check against faulty entries for certain things like peer review. I hope to overhaul the template instructions (currently still copied verbatim from the WPMILHIST template) so as to make the parameters more obvious, although almost all of them except the task forces are identical between the two. We also have task force parameters for our task forces.
I'll try to work on that tonight. If you're really chomping at the bit, you can always try to read the code in the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks nice, mate! Good work. :) Cop 663 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's just that this is probably over most of our heads. I was going to ask for a demonstration but this works. I'd maybe move the task forces up under the main icon like they do for the WPBio banner. It's huge but it looks like it should actually be quite useful and cut down on a lot of clutter. Code frightens me though, so you're on your own. Kudos, though. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Updated. Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I've also made a note in the usage section that the template has been overhauled and that any apparent problems should be noted for checking. (Currently looking over a few pages, I don't see anything that stands out blatantly...yet. The template's own talk page might need to revise the example template, however, for the purposes of better categorization.) Girolamo Savonarola 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackass: The Movie and Jackass Number Two as documentary films?

In a discussion over whether Sicko (film) is the "fourth-highest grossing documentary film" another editor raised the point that the Jackass films are documentaries. I disagree. The editor is currently edit-warring on both of these films' articles to put the documentary category on them. Other opinions would be helpful. --David Shankbone 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE:It takes two to edit war, and Mr. Shankbone has at least as many reverts on these articles (two) as I do. Wikipedia defines documentary film as "a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality." The Onion, Blockbuster.com, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, and the New York Times have all called one or more Jackass films documentaries at one time or another. DS hasn't explained why he doesn't think the Jackass movies are documentaries. Nothing requires a documentary to be highbrow. THF 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Shankbone. Stunts and pranks fit the definition of "reality" implied about as well as Punk'd or any reality TV show does. Which is to say it doesn't. In terms of reviews and such it's fine to use words loosely but for categorization and encyclopedic writing we have to be a little more strict otherwise every film with end up 4 or 5 different genre categories. I laughed, I cried, I was on the edge of my seat; it was an action-comedy-drama-thriller. It's best to keep it simple. Doctor Sunshine talk 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Curious, then: why is "Sicko" or "Bowling for Columbine", which also consists of staged stunts and pranks, albeit ones aimed at conveying a political message, a documentary? What's the definitional distinction? (It's not interviews: the Jackass movies have people speaking to the camera.) (This isn't WP:POINT; I do believe that all of these movies are documentaries.) THF 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can't tell the difference between Sicko and the Jackass movies, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You are seemingly intelligent Ted, that to make such a comparison is very pointy. For one, Moore explores contemporary issues as a social critic; Knoxville et. al. stage a series of puerile and dangerous stunts (e.g. cattle-prodding their testicles) for a laugh. Jackass and those who create it don't set out to "document", explore or say anything about anything. --David Shankbone 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. I'm not the only person who calls Jackass a documentary, as I document quite extensively on the Talk:Jackass Number Two page. And I wish you'd stop falsely accusing me of WP:POINT: I'm arguing a consistent point on two different talk pages. WP:POINT is where someone loses argument X, and then tries to disruptively argue not-X on other pages where it doesn't apply out of spite. If I were to go to the Sicko page and complain that that is not a documentary because Jackass is not a documentary, then you could accuse me of Point, but I'm not going to do that: both movies are documentaries. Again, I see nothing about the definition of documentary that requires it to be about a serious subject: there are documentaries that do nothing but show pretty pictures of nature while soaring music plays; there are documentaries about comedians performing their craft; thirty years ago, there were documentaries about Evel Knievel. So the fact that Jackass is documenting puerile and dangerous stunts instead of social problems appears to be an irrelevant distinction. THF 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate David Shankbone's request for additional comments, and I disagree with his point of view. As TedFrank points out, a documentary movie merely needs to document events that occurred in real life in front of the camera, as opposed to an enactment of a storyline known to be imaginary fiction. Whether or not a film is documentary has to do with the intent and practice to capture real events, not with whether or not those events were noteworthy. Unless the stunts were dramatized in a fictionalized way, e.g. with special effects and stunt doubles, Jackass is a documentary. It might well document trivial, stupid, ill-advised behavior of bad role models (I suspect even many fans would agree), but the poverty of the subject doesn't prevent the nonfiction cinematography from being a documentary. VisitorTalk 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break with sources

More sources:
  • Philadelphia Weekly, 3 January 2007: Jackass Number Two (2006) (Shown on DVD): It might not have inspired the flurry of think pieces Borat did, but the year's best, most twisted cross-over documentary-and don't forget it is, in every definition of the word, a documentary-offers more of the versatile tomfoolery found in previous incarnations. (no link available)
  • Village Voice, Nathan Lee (best of year list), 3 January 2007: 5. Jackass Number Two [Jeff Tremaine, U.S.A.] Braver than Borat, funnier than Talladega Nights, more cathartic than United 93, crazier than Apocalypto, and gayer than Another Gay Movie, the studio film of the year is also the best documentary and features the best ensemble performance.[1]
  • Columbus Dispatch, Frank Gabrenya, 31 December 2006: Twenty documentaries had commercial runs in central Ohio, presenting a range of subjects as disparate as Dave Chappelle's Block Party, Who Killed the Electric Car? and The War Tapes to The U.S. vs. John Lennon, Jesus Camp and, yes, Jackass: Number Two. That's a wealth of choices.splog scrape
  • Deseret Morning News, Jeff Vice (worst of year list), 31 December 2006: JACKASS: NUMBER TWO. Like the first film, this "extreme-prank" documentary exploited human and animal cruelty. Shame on anyone who paid money to see it.[2] (Note that "extreme-prank" gets scare-quotes, but documentary does not.)
  • Village Voice, Armond White 1 Jan. 2003, Best Documentary: Jackass, far and away. It makes the self-important, pseudo-political quests of this year's trust-fund and grant-hound filmmakers irrelevant. Fuck Bowling for Columbine. Ass Kicked by Girl, Roller Disco Truck, Paper Cuts, and other Jackass routines show what's really going on in the frustrated hearts and minds of America's misdirected white youth.
  • Andrew Sullivan's blog, 30 June 2004: F9/11 wasn't the biggest grossing documentary. Jackass was. It was non-fiction, and about as informative as Mr Moore. And a lot more to look at.

I can find many more (including a piece I've had tentatively accepted for publication in a reliable source). How many do we need for a consensus? How about the objectors find one reliably-sourced film critic who says it is not a documentary? THF 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break for discussion

See Documentary film and Reality television. The Jackass films are considered reality films, not documentaries. "These films differ from conventional documentaries in that they create new, and sometimes artificial, situations instead of simply trying to document life as it is." —Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that definition is exclusive from "documentary" I disagree; moreover, it fails to create the necessary distinction because it is broad enough to include the contrived and artificial situations in the documentaries Sicko, Roger and Me, and Fahrenheit 9/11. It also appears to be an unsourced neologism. In contrast, I have multiple reliable sources describing the Jackass movies as documentaries. THF 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Worth noting: the neologism reality film did not exist as a separate entry on Wikipedia until a couple of hours ago. THF 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't be deceitful. The "Reality films" subsection at reality television exists as far back as July (probably goes further back). Viriditas merely created a redirect to that specific section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A little further backtracking; the subsection existed back in February. Feel free to see how much further back it goes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Fascinatingly, the editor who authored the phrase Viriditas relies upon states that reality films are a subset of documentaries. THF 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


(unindent) And Google has over 35,000 hits for "reality film." As a member of WikiFilm I propose we create a new category. In fact, here is an excellent article on the difference between a "documentary film" and a "reality film".

Critical to this is an awareness that although documentaries always deal with real-life events, they aren't those events. Like reports written in newspapers, spoken on radio or shown on TV, they're only ever about those events. And that's all they ever can be. As Nicolas Philibert, the French director of the international hit, To Be and To Have, puts it: "A documentary isn't the raw event, the raw reality. Nor is it a photocopy of reality. It's a construction, a reconstruction of events made up of many choices. I decide whether to film this or that, whether to put my camera here or there, how to combine the shots I've filmed, and so on. Showing is choosing. Editing is renouncing. Filming this is not filming that."

--David Shankbone 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a distinction that doesn't distinguish reality films from documentaries. In fact, the article treats the two terms as synonyms: the first example in the article of a "reality film" is Fahrenheit 9/11. Shankbone's cited article is support for my claim. THF 14:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised you misread the article (and so quickly) - the article discusses both genres, and then distinguishes. The lead paragraph specifically calls Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary. --David Shankbone 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I just reread it a third time. The only place "reality film" appears is in the title, and the entire article is about the ethics of making documentaries. THF 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Ted. The title is used to launch into what documentaries are not - which are reality films. Which is what Jackass is. --David Shankbone 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a really strained reading of the article for two reasons. First, there's no discussion of reality television at all in the article, other than a brief mention as a possible explanation for the new popularity of documentaries. Second, the distinction you single out--the filmmakers' choice of editing--doesn't distinguish between the so-called "reality films" and documentaries. (It doesn't even distinguish between documentaries and heavily edited faux documentaries like Borat.) Reality films choose what to edit, how to combine the shots, what to leave out, etc. Think, for example, of The Real Cancun. And the Jackass articles discuss decisions to cut material from the movie. Indeed, everyone will tell you that the whole methodology of reality television is to have hours and hours of tape for every 22 minutes actually broadcast. THF 14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say I'm fairly neutral in this, having come across this purely through Jackass and not Sicko. I'd wouldn't categorise Ted's actions there as edit warring, we had a couple of additions and reverts (3 additions, 2 of them reverts by Ted on JN2 for example, not 3 reverts as was suggested in an edit summary) but he was quick enough to engage in discussion and provide references. I wouldn't personally categorize the Jackass movies as documentaries but some of the cited sources (not all, by a long shot) certainly suggest that some reliable sources have done so. I've made a suggestion for going forward at Talk:Jackass Number Two. Deiz talk 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Split the baby - cat it as a Reality film and subcat the Reality films cat to Documentary films. If you want to get into Film theory arguments, there are magazines for that. ;) Girolamo Savonarola 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've heard the term "nonfiction film" used increasingly to describe films which are not purely fictional. So Sicko, Jackass (questionably), Trading Spaces, American Idol, though not "documentaries," are surely nonfiction. Whether Michael Moore is "performing" as opposed to simply interviewing people and present facts, is another issue. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

proposed edits: list of highest-grossing documentaries

As I alluded to above, I have researched, generated, and sold for publication in a reliable source a list of the highest-grossing documentaries that is more accurate than the Box Office Mojo list commonly used on Wikipedia. Per WP:COI, I should discuss on a talk page, rather than simply insert the material. I recommend its inclusion in relevant articles: while the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, it is still better to have verifiable accurate information than verifiable inaccurate information. To the extent these figures disagree with the demonstrably inaccurate and internally inconsistent Box Office Mojo rankings, and one thinks the Box Office Mojo ranking statistics should be included at all, WP:NPOV would seem to suggest that both points of view be included. One possible solution is a List-of-highest-grossing-documentaries article, like List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada, that can be created that includes the disparate rankings from The American, from Box Office Mojo, and from The Numbers.

I have raised the issue on a couple of talk pages; in each case, David Shankbone objected. Rather than scatter identical debates on several different talk pages, it makes more sense to center the discussion here. David Shankbone objects to the inclusion of the list in any article because the article criticizes Michael Moore, because he objects to the title of the article chosen by the publication's editors, because The American (magazine) is not a film publication (though it has published other articles about film), because the magazine has libertarian/conservative/pro-business affiliations, and because he contends the magazine is not notable. If I've inadvertently inaccurately characterized his criticism, I'm sure he won't hesitate to let us know.

What say the WikiProject? THF 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is your list of highest-grossing documentaries that is unadjusted for inflation "more accurate" than a list that accounts for ticket price inflation?[3] Also, how can your article be taken seriously when it admits its bias in the lead sentence? And, your comparison with the Transformers film is beyond bizarre. Health care reform is one of the top domestic issues for Americans; Transformers aren't even real. You have recommended the inclusion of this artilce in relevant articles -- for what reason may I ask? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The BoxOfficeMojo list is not adjusted for inflation. I fail to see your point. Do you think I have undercounted a Michael Moore movie? THF 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Your list is unadjusted for inflation and mixes and matches IMAX, large format, concert, compilation, and reality films to skew the data. Can you show me a popular, reliable film, entertainment, or trade secondary source that lists documentaries in this manner or relies upon an industry listing to make a similar point? No, you can't, because this list is based on your own cross-categorization which you wrote and published. Unless your original criteria for documentary films is embraced by the industry and popular secondary sources like USA Today, The New York Times and other heavy hitters, we can't use it. You're not an expert in the field of entertainment research, like ERC Box Office,[4]; neither do popular reliable secondary sources rely on your unique research and reports, nor can reliable secondary sources be found to corroborate your unique perspective, therefore we can't use your data in any film-related article. Wikipedia tends to use the most reliable reporting methods available. —Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The BoxOfficeMojo list is not adjusted for inflation either, and omits several documentary films; my list is more accurate and internally consistent. Wikipedia characterizes most of the films I have identified as documentaries as documentaries long before I wrote the article; the others are considered documentaries by reliable sources, as well as several Wikipedia editors. THF 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Your list is unadjusted for inflation, is US-centric, and mixes and matches unique categories; Your "method" is not being used to track box office reports by anyone but you, and you are a political commentator, not an expert in entertainment research. Why isn't the industry rushing to embrace your method? —Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This would be more productive if you didn't keep changing your argument. Can you delete 12:31, 13:06, and 13:32, and make one complete case in 300 words or less? THF 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You must not be paying attention. You offered an argument for inclusion. I responded to and questioned your argument on several levels, receiving no answers in the process. —Viriditas | Talk 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The problems with including Ted Frank's Documentary List

  1. Ted Frank has no expertise in film, in charting films, or in compiling a list of this nature.
  2. The Internet article is not an article about ranking films, but an article that is a Michael Moore hit piece against his film Sicko
  3. This is a one-shot deal: this is not an on-going list, but a list compiled with one objective: a one-point-in-time effort to criticize the generally-accepted method of ranking documentary films because they show Michael Moore's film Sicko is "fourth highest-grossing" (currently). There is no "The American List of Highest Grossing Documentary Films"
  4. Inclusion of films such as Eddie Murphy Raw and Jackass The Movie, The Real Cancun and Jackass Number Two are not generally accepted as documentaries in the film industry. Neither BoxOfficeMoJo.com nor the-numbers.com nor mainstream film critics review these films as or call these films documentaries. Ted is unable to provide citations to any film theorists or mainstream film reviewers who have called these films documentaries, or reviewed them on such terms. He only provides bit newspapers, a couple of alternative weeklies, or political commentators. It would be undue weight to take a minor review or off-hand remark to create a list of documentaries when no other mainstream publication includes these as documentaries. The only inclusion of these films is Ted Frank, who has no film expertise, who published a partisan hit piece on The American magazine's website, which has no standing in the film community.
  5. IMAX film numbers until recently have never been audited. IMAX films count busloads of school children who go to see their movies at no-cost or sharply reduced cost as having paid full price. This is the reason IMAX films are typically not included on documentary lists for box office receipts.
  6. No other mainstream news source uses this list, nor its methodology and criteria.
  7. Wikipedia would be the sole source for using this list, and for the sake of consistency would need to amend over 25 articles to reflect this new ranking, unused by any other mainstream source. We would thus be the sole source promoting this list.

--David Shankbone 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus: Not to use Ted Frank's list

Based on arguments over this list on Talk:Sicko, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, the consensus is that this list should in no way be used. --David Shankbone 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign titles and naming conventions

I am having an extremely difficult time with User:Dohanlon changing the titles of numerous French film articles (mainly involving Juliette Binoche) back to the original French title. He's essentially trying to crowbar the issue by claiming that if any English territory ever referred to the film in the vernacular, then the title should be the French one, regardless of the WP:UE and WP:NCF guidelines. I've had extensive discussion with no progress. Someone else wanna have a go? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion, and I'm not clear about the conflict. WP:NCF says, "If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world - if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries - use the native title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold." Dohanlon seems to have made the case that the native title has been used in English-speaking territories. Can you point out the specific film titles that you think need to be addressed? You both throw out a lot of titles in that discussion. :) Also, I would not cite IMDb to support the cause for using foreign-language films' native titles; both Pan's Labyrinth and Downfall (film) have IMDb entries that show their native non-English titles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a go at him. Reginmund 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The NCF argument pertains mainly to where there is an even split within the world about the dominant title - even then, this is rarely applied unless neither is particularly recognized (hence why Shoot the Piano Player trumped both Shoot the Pianist and the French title). But the most important thing is that WP:UE outranks them all as a general Wikipedia-wide policy - the title shall be the most commonly recognized title to English-speakers. The argument is not about whether there are multiple titles or whether someone English-speaking has used the French title - it's what is the most commonly-used title to English speakers. I would wager that a quick perusal of critical writings on these films (academic or Rottentomates/Metacritic) would overwhelmingly use the English titles. If this continues, I'm going to have to do a mass of Requested Moves, which is a pain, but the bigger problem is that the user theoretically will continue this - I'd rather solve this at the root of the problem. Girolamo Savonarola 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to revisit the policy. I originally wrote WP:NC(F)'s foreign language section from WP:UE and WP:NC(CN). Cop 633 added the bit about reverting to the native language title when there are multiple English language titles. The change didn't get much discussion at the time.[1] As long as this is being debated, getting a wide consensus here might help.
Basically, with the original method, you wind up with the most commonly used title every time but because the American film industry is so much larger than the UK, Canada, et all, they win most every time and you get calls of bias. With the revision, it's a compromise, a lot of the time there is a difference between the US and the UK titles (I've never seen anyone argue for a Canadian, Ozzie or Kiwi title) and the native language title wins by default which contravenes the two original policies but sidesteps any claims of bias. Obviously, neither method is free of controversy.
Personally, I still prefer the former but lost interest back when it was changed. It's more consistent and, per the rationale on the policy page, if you go with the most common English language title, American or no, it'll get the article listed higher in search engines. Also, there are fewer loop holes to argue and parts of WP:ENGVAR can be applied to the policy to help assuage disputes. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? No opinions? Doctor Sunshine talk 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. I do understand the 'most commonly used title' argument. I'm happy to agree that "The Eiffel Tower" is the common English name for "La Tour Eiffel". But the idea of different releases in different countries complicates the issue because within countries the most commonly used title can be different. Example: in the UK, Les Amants du Pont-Neuf was released under its French title, (in theatres, on TV, or on DVD). As a Brit, that is how I thought of the film. When I moved to Canada, I once tried to find it in a video store, and couldn't, so I assumed it had never been released there. Only much later did I discover it sitting there on the shelf under the name The Lovers on the Bridge (and note that this isn't even a straight translation of the French). The "commonly used title" in that case may have been "common" in North America, but not at all in the UK. Now, I realize that the population of the USA is 4 times that of the UK, so in terms of numbers, "The Lovers on the Bridge" wins out there. But in terms of geographical distinctions, calling it the "common title" is misleading. Right...? Cop 663 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Having said, that, I do not mean that just because one person somewhere called a film by its native title we should revert to that. If a film was widely released on DVD under an English title, but was once released at a film festival under its native title, I'm not saying we should use the native title there. Cop 663 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about - when I mean most common title, I mean, is there a single title which seems to be predominantly used across several areas (not necessarily judging purely by population numbers). Or for that matter, what tends to be the more common critical usage? For the Carax film, I believe that the French is actually the most common in English countries (even used in the US to a large extent). For most of the other titles that are at the heart of this dispute, I believe that the English title has the predominant claim. But again, if there's a critical consensus or a large plurality of English-speaking countries with a common title, that should have precedence. And yes, the existence of English-speakers using the vernacular should not under any circumstances be construed to invoke a de facto adherence to the vernacular without regard to the existing WP:UE guideline. Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not comfortable with theorizing about what is and is not the common title to the majority of people, which is hard to prove. For me it's all about what's on the DVD box (or on the theatrical release poster for recent films). Anything else risks POV. The problems then only arise if different DVD releases have different titles, which is fairly rare. Cop 663 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If a foreign film has been widely released under it's native title, that's a good reason to name the article as such. The problem I have is with defaulting to the native title when it's not widely used in any English-speaking country. For example, Elevator to the Gallows (US), aka Lift to the Scaffold (UK). That's basically the same thing, allowing for continental variations, yet the article's defaulted to Ascenseur pour l'échafaud. In your video store scenario (assuming the video store is Wikipedia, in this case), neither one of us would be able to find the DVD. That's the problem with compromises, nobody's happy. That's why I'd prefer to handle it with WP:UE regulations. And WP:ENGVAR provides advise for choosing between the UK and US, usually determining if there are any cultural ties between the film and a country, or simply going with the variation of the first major contributor. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, this is a darn good point. Simplicity is a virtue. Does anyone else have any views on this? Cop 663 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult one this. I must admit for French. Spanish and Itlaian film I prefer the native titles. It is only where translation is difficult e.g with wider field countries like Bulgaria, Russia, China etc which use a totally different leterring system. I'd prefer to keep the titles to correspond to the posters and then state the english title in bold in the intro. For instance you wouldn't have a article on Mont Blanc as White Mountain on wikipedia would you -but saying this The Eiffel Tower wouldn't be in frnech either -its confusing itsn't it! But you can't "have a go" at that user for his efforts . See Ascenseur pour l'échafaud -this is exactly how I like to see them. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Les Misérables for instant is wel known worldwide by that frnech title. To name the article anthing else would seem odd. Well this is my view of the French films if they haven't been released under a different title. They should keep the original names -its not as if the articles are in french is it? -Also if you are browsing through the categories many title sin english may seem unrecognizable to those familiar with the french titles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the title of the article should correspond to the film poster title. For instance Gio was right to redirect to The Horseman on the Roof as this has been rleased in the english speaking world with this exact title. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sir Blofeld, thanks for your comments and I'm sure everyone agrees with these points - but the problem we are discussing is when there are different poster titles, e.g. imagine if Horseman on the Roof was released in the UK as something different, what then? Cop 663 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld, you're making a bad comparison - Mont Blanc and Les Mis are both overwhelmingly known by their vernacular titles in the English speaking countries. No one contests those. The issue is whether we should always favor the veracular per se regardless of all other factors; the answer, as per WP:UE and WP:NCF is currently no. Changing basic guidelines like WP:UE is not going to happen here, so if you have a broad problem with that guideline, I'd suggest taking it there. All we are trying to discuss here is how to implement the UE guideline on films when there are differences in English countries. (Speaking of which, should be move this discussion to NCF?) Girolamo Savonarola 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep the discussion here for now. As little response as it's getting here, it'll get even less over there. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across this issue, and others, after seeing the mess that the Juliette Binoche article is in. In my opinion, any English title, if "widely" circulated, is preferable to the original foreign language title. There are obviously going to be exceptions (Chocolat) because that is how some films are distributed, but we are the English Wikipedia, and if a certain amount of sources refer to the film by its English title, then there should be no cause for edit warring in these cases. On a different note, the user who has mucked up many of these articles has also moved the previous articles to several other incorrect names, causing numerous superfluous redirects. For example, La Vie de Famille (1985 film); it is now impossible to move the article back to Family Life (film), which already exists as a redirect, and La Vie de Famille, if it were to keep the original, French title, is more than enough to keep without the "1985 film" indicator, since nothing else exists under this title. There are a handful of these with similar unnecessary dab indicators in parentheses; how do we fix this? I honestly think this editor just greatly misunderstands naming conventions, but the edit warring and moving back and forth is greatly messing with the interwiki links. María (críticame) 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've come round to Dr Sunshine's point about the WP:UE perspective, and I think we should rewrite WP:NC(F) to reflect it: we should recommend using the commonest English name, even if that sometimes means using US-only titles. However, I'd like to reiterate my point about using the names on DVD boxes or film posters (whichever is most appropriate) as our indicator of what the film's title is. I'm slightly concerned by Maria's attitude that if "a certain amount of sources refer to the film by its English title" then we should use it - film reviewers and film historians can be pretentious and/or lowbrow and may not refer to films by their commonest wide release title. It's the latter we must reflect in the film's title, not "any" English title. Cop 663 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend for it to sound so open-and-shut-case; I do acknowledge that there can be complex examples of such a thing happening, and there is an exception to every rule. However, by "sources" I do mean reliable, secondary sources, so I would hope that it would weed out the most narrow-minded or lowbrow, as you put it, of reviewers. So to clarify: if a certain (to be read as: an overwhelming amount) amount of reliable, secondary sources refer to the film by a common English title, of which it was released in varying countries, then we should use it. María (críticame) 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to think of it is, whatever a film's been titled for a major theatrical or home video release in one of the English-language countries listed in the policy, that's a contender for the article's title—though not necessarily the one that should be used if there's a more common title. For example, Rashomon has actually entered the English language, but even if a foreign title hasn't made it into the dictionary, like Bande à part, as long as it's used prominently among the listed countries, it's an English title. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

An interlude: why French?

The thing is - I see these sorts of arguments back and forth all of the time when it's regarding French titles. This is not to say that articles on films with different languages haven't sometimes started with the vernacular title, but it seems that usually when the Italian or Spanish titles, for example, are moved to the common English title, there's little if any complaint. Proportionally, however, I've seen a great deal more contention regarding the French titles. And it seems that the French films are proportionately more likely to start with a foreign title than most other languages' film articles - even when the starting editors are clearly familiar with WP:UE policy. Is there some reason why this is happening? (Or at least appears to be?) I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything, but perhaps if there's a central root of this problem, it would be good to identify and address it. Girolamo Savonarola 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel like it might be dangerous to answer this question but there's always been sort of a rivalry between the two languages. France and Britain were the two big colonial powers back in the day. Language is strongly tied to nationalism, which tends to get people fired up. And the French have a long history of revolution which is a source of pride to this day, meaning they're not afraid to speak their mind. I know language is a key issue in the Quebec separatist movement in Canada. One would think that having the French Wikipedia would alleviate these situations somewhat but I guess the best way to think about it is these help keep one's debating skills sharp. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just to clarify, I'm not trying to offend anyone. But I do find these issues more prevalent with French titles, and rather than making sweeping character generalizations, I'm curious if there are perhaps particular cultural influences, standards, and precedents which would bring this about. Some of your answers seem like feasible explanations. Girolamo Savonarola 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the issue

If anyone could please step in at Talk:Children of the Century...it's getting kinda ugly. Girolamo Savonarola 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm ready to get involved in the Children debate quite yet but I took a stab at modifying the policy per the above discussion. I hope the see also links to WP:UE and WP:ENGVAR are enough in terms of general dispute advise. I want to avoid instruction creep too. Here's what I did, by the way. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template issues

Template:Alien is very bulky, and just seems to be cluttered with any content related to Aliens and Predator. While they have had some crossovers, I think it needs a split of some sort. A few crossovers shouldn't justify lumping them together. I've brought this issue up in the past, with only a few replies. Anyone an expert on either series, want to help clean the template up and help with a split? RobJ1981 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe have two separate Alien and Predator templates (each with the AvP stuff included), defaulted to "hide", and they can both be placed as appropriate (AvP). Girolamo Savonarola 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Poster image at Highlander (film)

We are requesting assistance to find out what the consensus is for the Highlander (film) poster. It was discovered that the original image was actually for a video game and since then two candidates have been fighting for supremacy. Well since there can be only one, yes I am having fun with this :-), we need you help. The debate seams to boil down to stylistic preference and which one was the original. The conversation is located on the Highlander talk page for reference. The candidates are Image:Orig.highlander.poster.ital.JPG.jpg and Image:Highlander 1 poster.jpg The first poster is admittedly the Italian movie poster Style B version. The second is the US Style A version, and possibly the only original US poster created.

Evidence for both posters originality: American Type A version Italian version

Movie Posters USA movieposter.com Movie Poster shop The Movie Poster Page cyber-cinema google produce poster search

The conversation has been ongoing for about a day with myself UKPhoenix79 and Arcayne.

Arguments for Image:Orig.highlander.poster.ital.JPG.jpg by Arcayne

  • The image using hte original artwork is the official poster for the film's release, released throughout Europe and the US.
  • The b&w poster for Highlander is not a poster from the original release, and is likely a post-release mock-up for one of the very many video releases during the 80's. The link to MovieGoods provides an inaccurate title of American type-A for the b&w mock-up; virtually every other googled site clearly identifies the Italian version (and the German, and the Dutch) as the type-A posters, and fail to identify the b&w version as such. The same color poster poster was released in the UK and US with text in English.
  • The color image, in keeping with the Wikifilm guidelines is in fact the promotional style/type-A poster for the film. Ideally, it would be in English, but as the text in Italian is more accessible to English-speakiing audiences (as opposed to say, in Japanese or Chinese), this shouldn't present an insurmountable obstacle to inclusion
  • In terms of content, the color, illustrated image depicts the artwork styling of the time, displays the main character and the protagonist (dirtectly tying it to the plot), whereas the b&w image is a grainy closeup of Christopher Lambert's face - a practice that would have never been done in an American market where Lambert was a mostly unknown actor. As well, most film posters of that time utilized 4 color, as they were (ands still are) shown to capture the attention of moviegoers and increase ticket sales.

Arguments for Image:Highlander 1 poster.jpg by UKPhoenix79

  • we should not use the Italian poster even though it may look nicer it is not the original American poster for the films release. This only matters since the film was released in the US first and it is general policy in Wikipedia to use the original version
  • Taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Image
    The image presented in the table should ideally be a promotional style-A or teaser one-sheet (27" x 41") poster for the film. Failing that, a DVD or a video tape cover may be used [...] For films that have multiple posters, limit the infobox poster to either the teaser (first run) or style-A (occasionally second run) version.
  • if you follow the link provided you will see that this is indeed the original US style-A version [5]. What you are putting up is the incorrect Italian Style B version. This is an American movie that was first released in the states.
  • If you were to look at other foreign films like the original Japanese Godzilla you will see that it is the Japanese poster not he US poster [...] Life Is Beautiful [...] use the Italian poster, The Triplets of Belleville [...] released in the US, a French poster is used.
  • The poster is really the poster from 1986 and is indeed the American Type A version and the version that you keep on putting up is the Italian version.
  • I have spent a couple of hours scouring the net even to the official highlander forum and I have not found ANY American versions of that poster. It seams that the Italian version is preferred because it was one of the best looking versions created for this film, but the Italian version was released over half a year after the original theatrical release in America. And not only that it was the Italian Style B version here is the Italian Style A version.

Despite present and to the point conversations we are unable to agree. Please can you help us correct this. I'm sorry if I have skewed this in any way I will give Arcayne a link to this discussion so that he can add more to this. Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It isn't a matter of the original image "looking nicer"; it is the original promotional type-A image, whereas the b&w image was never used in conjunction with the release of the film, and no citation exists (outside of various online poster companies hawking something as "original" posters) indicating its usage during the film's release in 1986. Therefore, the b&w image does not fulfill the criteria of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Image guidelines, in that it is not a promotional style-A image or a teaser poster released during the film's original theatrical release.
The drawn image with the Italian text was, and in fact was duplicated in at least three other languages aside from English, substuting alternate language text. As well, UKPhoenix is mistaken in the release date of the film in Italy (or Germany, or France) being six months after the US release. Highlander was released in Europe and Japan within a month after its release in the US, as the studio was concerned about the slow initial returns from the US market. Speaking personally, I received as a boy the Italian poster (identical to the original theatrical image being disputed) whilst the film was still in the American theaters. Then, as now, films weren't really held over for 6 months; this effectively obliterates the argument of a substantially delayed European release.
User:Erik suggested finding an alternative image from the DVD release, reasoning that - while the original artwork in itself is noteworthy, the absence of an original poster in English makes it difficult to include. I tend to agree with this, and think that this image would serve as a suitable alternative; it is in color, it depicts at least one of the characters in a way that has a clear provenance of authenticity, and is not in dispute (UKPhoenix79 recommended it as an alternative). As well, the DVD image text is in English for the initial British release fo the DVD. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What about this one? Soundtrack Collector seems to do pretty well with posters. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that this might move us further afield, as the image is from the soundtrack for the film, and not the actual movie. I've since put a temporary placeholder image in the article (to have an image for the article). I mentioned this particular image before as being recommended by PhoenixUK. It's authenticity is not in dispute, it's in English, and it relates directly to the film (albeit the UK re-re-release of the DVD in 2006). If the original artwork poster image cannot be used due to the foreign language, this would be my secondary choice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne can you provide any image for the official US release? I said it was 6 months because Living in the UK then I was always waiting for releases to come and they were at the earliest 6 months after the initial American release. It is only recently with the theaters fearing mass piracy and large world releases of Harry Potter (in the contract from JK to have UK premiers) and LotR (with a New Zealand premier) that movie studios see the benefit to global releases. There is no US releases of the Italian version given. There is no other official US version. The sites are not hawking a fake poster, that is the original version. If you do not think that is the original version then why is there no other one available, if they were hawking it wouldn't they be hawking the real one also? Why are you so convinced that this is not the real one. You yourself just admitted that you have the Italian version not an American version. Check the links provided, search the web yourself, this is the real one, I'm sorry if its hard to fathom but I have seen no evidence to say otherwise. Thanks for putting up a temporary image, but we should keep it temporary until the gathering when they are both drawn to a new land to do battle until there is only one to gain the ultimate prize. Yes I'm being silly I know but I'm just trying to keep this light hearted :-) -- UKPhoenix79 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but you have misconstrued both the facts and my statements. I said that the Italian poster uses the same image as the US poster (and the German, French, etc); I didn't say they were different images. they are the ame image with different language text.
You claim that there is "no other official US version" other than the b&w image you have offered. This is not an official image. It simply isn't. It wasn't utilized in the original theatrical release (man, I am wishing i had my old copies of fangoria and other scifi mags - the illustrated poster was actually in there, too). It was likely created for a VHS release well after the original theatrical release, or was a secondary image for poster use, but not introduced until relatively recently. AllI know is that the b&w image never saw the light of day in 1986 as far as the viewing public was concerned.
Why do they not have the image in English? I don't know; maybe the copyright for the artwork ran into snags for secondary usage (ie, commercially available posters) - a problem notoriously sidestepped outside the US until quite recently.
I've looked at the wikilinks you presented. 75-85% of them identify the illustrated image as style-A, whereas fewer than half identify the b&w image as such.
I think that, due to the foreign language of my image, and the lack of authenticity of yours that we opt for the placeholder image currently serving in the article. I am willing to compromise, so long as a genuine image is used. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So far this is only your opinion that it isn't official. You need to have proof that states it isn't. I have provided proof, yes I really have
  • moviepostersusa states that this is the ONLY highlander poster, names NO STYLE versions
  • movieposter.com ONLY lists this and the Italian highlander style A selling THE ORIGINAL version for $200, names NO STYLE versions
  • moviepostershop Lists ALL Highlander posters (except for the German), only B&W is shown in English aside from the uber rare Australian version, names NO STYLE versions
  • The Movie Poster Page is selling the ORIGINAL US version for $99 guess what B&W, names STYLE versions, notice no version number for the US... Thats because there was ONLY ONE common practice in the movie poster industry
  • cyber-cinema Lists the US & Italian versions Lists the version your stating as Style B because there were 2 versions. US has no version because that was the ONLY one.
  • moviegoods Lists ALL VERSIONS Guess what version is called Style A, no country is given because it is assumed known that is the American version.
I have given you proof again, you have given nothing but your opinion, please deal in facts since this is wikipedia and I have verified my information and you have not done the same. Actually if you do check the information again what you have is the ITALIAN Style B version the picture of him in his Highlander costume is the ITALIAN style A version. Please in your reply list sources to your claim as I have done for mine :-) oh and this is the German version it is obviously based on the Italian version but I think you can agree that it is not exact. It is useless arguing opinions without something backing you up... pretty please... -- UKPhoenix79 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

women in Indian Film

Please see Women in Indian film, List of Indian film actresses, Category:Indian women film actors, and the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_4#Category:Indian_women_film_actors. There is obviously some merging to be done, but I leave it to the experts here. DGG (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged page

I think this page is incorrectly tagged as a film: Back Street. Anybody like to comment.

Might be an idea to create a tag/category that we can add to pages to mark articles such as this for review and removal of tags if needed.

RWardy 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For that one, the case is clear-cut. It's a romance novel of which several films have been made. It should not have film-related templates placed on it, and the ones that were placed were done poorly. Have you noticed this same issue with other articles? It may be a one-time thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Seen a few like this now. Have started making a note here User:RWardy/None Film Pages. Another question, are characters supposed to be included in this project? If so what infobox should be used? RWardy 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked at what you found, and it seems that Hobson's Choice may warrant film-related templates because out of the four film-based adaptations there are, only one has an article. The situation could perhaps be handled so that article stubs for each film can be created. Same thing goes for Beau Brocade. However, for Bratz (dolls), the templates should be removed. For fictional characters, I think that those that have been in films can be part of WikiProject Films -- this is the case for Superman and Batman. Not sure about the appropriate Infobox -- there is some discussion over that in terms of what kind of detail is appropriate to include for a fictional character, like you would not include when a character died because a fictional character isn't really real. I'll nudge someone to respond about this, if you're interested. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Might be worth looking at creating a specific character infobox and maybe change the "need infobox" tag in the film template to have multiple allowed values, eg "Yes" for default film box, "Char" for character box etc. Would not know where to start in creating an infobox so maybe somebody else could pick up on this? RWardy 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty open and shut - if films were made, they should be split into their own articles. Under what circumstances would an article require both a film infobox and a character one? Girolamo Savonarola 01:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying they would need both, but it would help the task force's adding infoboxes to artices. There could be a separate list of articles requiring a character infobox to the articles needing a film infobox. RWardy 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

open request for comment

Conflict over listing a film's producers

I would like to seek the community's opinions about a situation regarding the listing of non-classic producer positions in film articles. I had assumed that consensus was established that names of executive producers and associate producers were too indiscriminate, but there does not really seem to have been a full discussion about the matter. (If there is, feel free to point it out on the archives; I do not see any there.) The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Producers, executive producers, et al.. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Moving discussion here, as we need more opinions.

Due to a situation at The Spirit (film), I'd like to ask for other editors' opinions about the inclusion of attributes for executive producers and associate producers. It seemed that these attributes were only briefly included in the Infobox Film template before being removed. I couldn't find a full-fledged discussion about the matter, but the implicit logic seemed to be that it was indiscriminate information. In my work with film articles, it seems that any producer position beyond the classic producer position (like Joel Silver & co.) would be indiscriminate. For example, WikiProject Films' most recent article of FA status 300 has sixteen overall producers listed, but the list is limited to the four "classic" producers. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial also lists two classic producers out of three overall producers. Yet The Pit and the Pendulum lists three overall producers, with only one of them being a "classic" producer. Another article of FA status, Borat, is also strikingly inconsistent -- the star, Sacha Baron Cohen is listed as a "classic" producer at IMDb, yet he is not listed, while two executive producers are. Additionally, the Infobox Film template for Terminator on WP:MOSFILMS shows three overall producers, with only one of them being "classic". I think we need to have a discussion to establish consistency in which producers should be mentioned in the template -- it seems to me that 300 listing all sixteen of their producers would be a bit too much. (For The Spirit, it would be seven listings instead of three.) What do other editors think? They can read about a breakdown of the different positions at film producer, but I'd rather use an off-wiki reference.

To sum up the conflict at The Spirit, the other editor believes that because all the different producers were mentioned in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, they should be included in the article. I opposed this, considering listings beyond "classic" producers indiscriminate information, and two other editors have agreed with me on this premise. Also, the trade papers are for the Hollywood industry, so mentioning all the producers of a film are the most relevant in this field. However, from my experience, producers that are not part of the "classic" mold rarely ever get covered beyond these trade papers. Of course, I concern myself with future films, where these trade papers are more relevant, so I do not know how an attempted consistency would apply to older films, which in my opinion seem to have less numbers of producers. This difference may be why the detail in the producer attribute of the Terminator example in WP:MOSFILMS is accepted -- three is a comfortable threshold, but seven or sixteen may be too much. Thoughts on this matter? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the 'other editor' referred above. I can't imagine a rationale that would exclude producers of any kind...but particularly Executive Producers. Such credits are not dispensed at the water fountains and obviously reflect significant contributions to the film (with rare exceptions such as managers of stars). Evidence of this would be found in the very industry trade papers that presumably know best who is important on a film...and who is not. Are editors of these articles better positioned to judge the relative importance of "classic" producers than the editors of the industry daily trade publications?
Moreover, I have supplied links to many non-trade publications with the same Executive Producers of The Spirit mentioned in the proffered text. As some point, the burden must shift to an editor who resists inclusion of pertinent provable credits to demonstrate that the contribution was irrelevant to the film. Particularly in an article that includes a reference to the prior work of a writer who will not be credited at all.
In Schindler's List, many producers are listed who actually served as Executive Producer and Associate Producer. And the sample used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines includes Executive Producers. There are many others in the film project. It seems to me that the template must be revised to include a section for Executive Producers (whose contributions must be presumed to be relevant) or just credit them as Producers as in many other films on this project. My choice would be to change the template as being more accurate.
There is more discussion of this by those who favor this change at Template talk:Infobox Film. Dawgknot 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the Producers Guild of America, an executive producer supervises a "classic" producer: "An Executive Producer supervises, either on his own authority (entrepreneur executive producer) or subject to the authority of an employer (employee executive producer) one or more producers in the performance of all of his/her/their producer functions on single or multiple productions." Executive producers basically serve as bosses and are less directly involved with the actual production of the film. 300 had seven executive producers, as opposed to four "classic" producers that were actually helping to shape the film. Executive producers are basically overhead roles. The links provided by Dawgknot only reiterated information from the trade papers and does not necessarily reflect encyclopedic value as such names are rarely reiterated in later independent, secondary sources during a film's release. I do not believe that the majority of sources at 300 bother to talk about the film's executive producers. The threshold, beyond the requested attributes in Template:Infobox Film, should be for inclusion. I do not think that anyone wants to list all sixteen producer positions for 300; names can be easily rattled off, but they do not necessarily provide encyclopedic value without any context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the PGA says about Executive Producers:
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER


1. The credit of Executive Producer shall only apply to an individual who has made a significant contribution to the motion picture and who additionally qualifies under one of two categories:
a. Having secured an essential and proportionally significant part (no less than 25%) of the financing for the motion picture; and/or
b. Having made a significant contribution to the development of the literary property, typically including the securement of the underlying rights to the material on which the motion picture is based. http://www.producersguild.org/pg/about_a/pcoc1a.asp
I'm missing the part that says 1) These film articles should only include mention of those who were important to the process from beginning to end and 2) that a credited Executive Producers (and Associate Producers for that matter) didn't make "a significant contribution to the development of the literary property" and who is "an individual who has made a significant contribution to the motion picture".
We're not talking about editing 300. We're talking about editing The Spirit. Dawgknot 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Since 300 is both a recent film and a recent article of FA status, as well as crediting sixteen producers, it's worth looking at the film article as an example. In regard to The Spirit, I am thinking that it may be appropriate to remove the names of producers Gigi Pritzker and Deborah Del Pete as opposed to Michael Uslan, who is mentioned twice more in the article. Thus this is my proposal: In order for an involved player to be covered in the body of the article, there must be some independent, secondary coverage reporting how that player helped shape the production of the film, rather than use the generic action "produce". For example, the article body should not mention a film's cinematographer unless there is detailed coverage about the person's contributions (see Road to Perdition#Cinematography). I think this should address the issue of mentioning any and all apparently-involved figures in the body of the article. If others agree, then the more pressing issue would be which non-classic producers, if any, should be listed in Template:Infobox Film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be especially pedantic, the entire article shouldn't even exist yet, since it violates the future films guidelines in WP:NF. However, the article was created months before this guideline change, so the point probably shouldn't be pressed. In either case, it's probably worth leaving the issue at an acceptable compromise for the moment - anything can happen between now and the release of the film, and several factors can always change the final producers credits. Girolamo Savonarola 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True, the content should belong somewhere else until filming begins (looks like October, but who knows), but I think that the same issue would be at hand regardless. The sentence in question about identifying the producers would exist in the film article or the article of the source material. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem in Notability with this article. There has been substantial trade press news as well as blogging interest in The Spirit. Plus Frank Miller's every move is the topic of discussion on many fora. I don't think that editors here should be in the position of deciding who is and who is not important to the final product. If the producers (Pritzger and Del Prete) made a decision to enter into a collaboration with Batfilm including Uslan, Melniker and Maier, then editors can't possible know the inside business about how the various talents are distributed. The only sign we have is that insiders and journalists see fit to include mention of certain people. And in the case of The Spirit, that would include not only Melniker and Maier but also Co-Producers, DeSanto and McDonough.Dawgknot 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a general attitude that Execs are non-notable in general, but on a case by case basis, may warrant in-article coverage of notable choices. No on infoboxes unilaterally, though. ThuranX 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial restrictions

While we're discussing certain issues above, can start to come to a general consensus on the point that the infobox should not contain information about line producers, co-producers, associate producers, etc.? In other words, while we're still discussing "classic" producers vs. exec producers, can we all agree that we can rule out all other types of producer credits? Girolamo Savonarola 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, the Infobox for films should be a concise list of details about the film. For example, it's recommended to keep the "starring" attribute limited to major roles in the film. Smaller roles are either listed in the body of the article if they have some impact or not at all if the role is not substantial enough. It seems that "classic" producers are the major roles in the team of various producers, and that they would be more appropriate for inclusion than any other producer. If other non-classic producers have had some kind of notable impact on the project, their contributions can be covered in the body of the article under Production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that would be an acceptable practice. CoProducers and Associate Producers do a lot of unheralded work that is very often instrumental to the success of a film. Many supervise post production. Many others actually work with the writer on a daily basis. These things aren't discussed on the front page of Daily Variety, but those inside the industry know. That's almost always how those people received their credit. The acceptable test, it would seem to me, would be that if the name appears in the text of an article in the trade press or even the consumer press, that ought to be an indication that there is a preponderant weight of opinion that so-and-so has done important work on a film. After all, editors of the trade press are as chary of their ink space as anyone else. And in that way, editors here can avoid constantly ambiguous standards.
This ambiguity will lead to 'endless' conflict over who is mentioned and who isn't Dawgknot 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If your perspective is taken, then virtually anyone whose name is tied to production would warrant a mention. The trade papers mention the different producers because they are preliminary roles in the production of a film. Players that can be argued to be just as notable (casting supervisors, stunt men, set designers, visual effects supervisors) are obviously not covered in these trade papers, and they are not necessarily covered later. There are roles that are taken for granted as part of a film's production. Just because a name is mentioned in the paper does not entail inclusion, if there is no real-world context -- what did this person significantly contribute to the project? We may as well indiscriminately reference everyone in a film's credits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that the implications of my view are that every credited person would require a mention in a film article. It is generally accepted that producers of any type are the most senior people on a project. It is the producers who decide upon and then hire all the other elements. However, there are real-world contexts for others. Hal Needham, the famous stuntman was very often discussed in articles about films on which he worked. Great cinematographers too. Composers. Who hasn't read an article about Edith Head? The point is that the producers I have tried to include in The Spirit article have been repeatedly included in almost every trade article and a great number of articles in the consumer press. And those mentions have even been included in articles in which the primary focus of the article was the hiring of some actress such as Scarlett Johansson. How much more proof do we need that certain folks are important to the real-world context of a certain film? Are we, as editors, capable of more subtle distinctions without endless conflict about it? I don't think so.Dawgknot 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Trade papers also mention the names of agents that represent actors that have been cast in a film. Entities like producers and agents are preliminary figures in a film's production; it could be said that they are explicitly named "go-to" people. This does not mean their names have encyclopedic weight if there are no reliable, published sources that reflect their significant contributions. The people that you've named are welcome to film articles with their notable contributions. However, the trade papers that mentioned the producers do not detail their contributions except for Uslan's so far. I found an executive producer that warranted inclusion: Steven Spielberg for Transformers. He is not just named in this film article; his collaborations are significantly covered, as well as the "classic" producers' collaborations. The "classic" producer is a key component of a film's production, but the more subsidiary producer roles are not as notable. This is less a matter of what they do and more a matter of how reputable they are. I'm sure the subsidiary producers contribute as much to the project as do the casting supervisors, stunt men, set designers, and visual effects supervisors, and the same can be argued for other positions as well. (Without the guy who buys the cameras, nobody could film this movie!) "Classic" producers should be a staple in a brief list of credits for the Infobox, but the subsidiary roles' significance needs to be reflected in the body of the article, as has been done with Steven Spielberg. With this litmus test of significant contributions, there is less chance of listing indiscriminate names and subjectively arguing the notability of these names. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the editor, Eric means well, but it's my view that he tends to over rely upon the 'indiscriminate' issue reflecting a personal judgment of the significance of one kind of producer or another. Such a judgment has no support as the PGA standards point out. Certainly, the issue that distinguishes Executive Producers from Producers is not "how reputable they are". There is an endless list of Executive Producers who have repute. The editors cannot substitute their judgement over and above the judgement of those in the industry such as reporters in the trades and executives in studios that grant credit in contracts. It is not germane what some camera owner does. It is germane who makes the important creative decisions that get a film made. All sorts of people think they have great ideas for a film. Usually, it is the Executive Producers who had the early creative judgment, made the right connections with talent actually get it made.
Talent agents aren't credited on pictures. Although it would be certainly a real-world context if such-and-such an agent fought unusually hard and colorfully to get a client the work. Similarly, it would be informative in an article if a particular agent advised a client to refuse a role that was later significant. However, producers of all stripes play their parts from beginning to end and it's not clear to me that editors of a wike article should unwind the ball of wax.
In the article in question, the text read that Oddlot began to collaborate with Uslan of Batfilm. As it turns out that collaboration was also with the cofounder of Batfilm, Executive Producer Melniker and the other Executive Producer, Maier. That point is repeated many times in trade articles. You can't single out Uslan, no matter how talented and remarkable he may be, to the exclusion of the others in that context. Now if the text were discussing that Uslan supposedly taught the first University accredited course on comic books (as his page alleges) then there would be no need to mention Melniker and Maier. But in the context of the Spirit and the collaboration to get it done, then all producers are relevant. I don't see any reasonable alternative to that other than the clearly subjective picking and choosing that will inevitably lead to dispute. Just try to take out Kathleen Kennedy's Executive Producer credit from Schindler's List (mistakenly credited as producer) and see how much dispute there is. No policy can be as editor-centric as has been proposed.Dawgknot 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that the current parameters are set so that the heads of department (HODs) can be displayed. We can list the cinematographer, but why should the infobox list the gaffer or the focus puller? The line producer/associate producer/co-producer roles are equivalent: senior assisting capacities. And once again, please limit this discussion to those roles; the conversation about exec producers is happening above. This sub-proposal was meant to sweep up some outliers, in order to make the original discussion more clear-cut. Girolamo Savonarola 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appear to be contentious, but I disagree. I don't think that there is any analogy to focus pullers and gaffers and coproducers and associate producers. I think that greatly misstates what is known about what they do. Producers of any kind, while certainly working largely in a hierarchy have independence of judgement and creative thought and action that focus pullers and gaffers do not have. In the case of The Spirit alone, there is plenty of authentic sources that demonstrates that one of the coproducers has been no gaffer. While I think a rational criticism could be mounted against producer credits accorded to studio executives and a star's manager, for the most part, the producing credit appears to be a well-earned above-the-line creative credit. Line Producers are extremely important in making sure the vision is achieved during production. Associate Producers typically supervise post production. I favor listing any producer credit in the template. And if there is any narrative that can be advanced in the article, I wouldn't hesitate to mention any of them right along with the writer and director and actors and composer and editor.
What is the point of an article in an encyclopedia about a film if all of the above-the-line elements are not credited? I agree that it should not be a compendium of names that appear along with the production babies and production accountants. But the significant creative and business elements must be addresses and we don't have the tools to distinguish between dopey credits and real ones expect to the extent that they are mentioned in the trade press. Dawgknot 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it is extremely unflattering to imply that Line Producers somehow are more important in achieving "the vision" than anyone else. Especially being a professional crew member myself - we're all there to help achieve the vision. No one is there for anything else but to help put it together. The drawing of the line for acceptable crew members in the infobox has nothing to do with the type of pay the crew member would typically get, nor the quality or "importance" of their work or position. It has to do with being in charge of their department. Line producers manage budgets and are considered high-ranking production staff under the aegis of the producer, who heads the Production Department. Everyone has an impact on the film, but there's no point in trying to quantify it - the gaffer's deployment of the electrical department plays a large part in the length of time it takes to shoot (thus effecting all production), and a focus puller getting crucial shots soft will ruin a whole day's shoot. So what? The point is that HOD roles are generally considered acceptable for infoboxes because they head the creative departments. And if we're going to start giving out infobox parameters willy-nilly, I'd rank a spot for the first assistant director well ahead of half of the HODs. (And no, I'm not saying we should add that parameter.) Girolamo Savonarola 23:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I implied what you say. And if I did, I sure didn't intend it. I was addressing your statement that a line producer was a senior "assisting" sort. While filmmaking is certainly collaborative, the line producer is nobody's assistant. As far as I am concerned, the producers are especially responsible for the film getting made from the very start. It was, very often, their original vision, their risk and their effort that gets a film to the point where everyone else gets to work also...including the 1st AD.Dawgknot 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the word. I said assisting (as in, to help facilitate by means of the job), not assistant (as in personal underling). Almost all positions are assisting someone else (who ever is directly above you in the hierarchy). So yes, the line producer assists the main producer(s). Just because the position ends with the word producer does not change the areas that the job is - and isn't - responsible for. Producers, directors, editors, cinematographers, writers, etc have creative oversight on the content of the film. Line producers do not have direct creative control. To say that they do by the fact of causality would implicate all on-set positions as being creative. Girolamo Savonarola 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Erik and Girolamo. I've been watching this debate since about the time it started on here, and I tend to also believe that unless there is verifiable evidence that some of the, what Erik would call, "non-classic" producers have contributed significantly to the film, then they shouldn't be mentioned. I mean, look at the definition that was provided above. A significant contribution to a film can easily be taken as a monetary contribution to the film. That would have nothing to do with shaping the actual film, but have to do with allowing the shaping to occur. In that case, we might as well list the owner and CEO of all the production houses that contribute to the production of a film, since they technically are the be-all-end-all. More specifically in that definition it says, "typically including the securement of the underlying rights to the material on which the motion picture is based" -- That could easily mean they negiotiated the film rights for the studio. That has nothing to do with the final outcome of the film. I believe what Erik is trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong Erik, is that the only credits that should be given in an infobox are ones of the producers who actually helped the actual film in production, and less of the people that just gave some money and were awarded executive producers status because of it. I mean, these people's contributions are significant, no one is trying to downplay that idea, but when it comes to the purposes of an encyclopedia, it's really trivia. I mean, IMDb carries a huge list of just about everyone on the project, all the way down to the Best Boy, which is an important job on set, but one we wouldn't list on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an artificial distinction it would seem to me. Where in the style guide of this project does it state that the intent of these movie articles is to highlight the work of just the key creative players during production or those who "actually helped the actual film in production"? And what kind of encyclopedia would it be if key people were left out of the article? This isn't PEOPLE magazine. And then why is a writer discussed in the article that played absolutely no apparent role in the material to be shot and who is never mentioned in trade articles? On top of that, I think you misread what the PGA is saying. The "securement of the underlying rights to the material" is not a negotiation with the studio. It is the identifying of a property, seeing the creative value in film, and obtaining those rights from the copyright holder. In this case, clearly, Batfilm and Maier worked on this material with Will Eisner and obtained the rights from him long before any studio was on the scene and then developed the material further. That much is evident in the published articles. The editors of these articles cannot possibly be equipped to weigh the relative contributions of the various producers and just assume they are money men. If so, show some sources. And then explain why early money, associated risk and development support isn't crucial to the life of a film project that later hires all those people nobody has any problem listing in an article about the film. If someone wants to read a real-life context about a film, there's plenty of life before the red carpet is rolled out.
The CEO of the studio is not credited on the film. Nor is the CEO mentioned in trade articles about the film. In this morning's Variety is another article about the film reporting that Eve Mendes is in the cast.....and mentions Meliniker, Maier, DeSanto and McDonough yet again. I want to see the wiki policy that permits editors to make assumptions about the relative importance of their contributions that flies in the face of actual sources who must think it relevant enough to print names of important producers. And, by the way, in one article, a producer from Lionsgate is credited, but never mentioned with those in Variety today or Hollywood Reporter. Isn't it clear who is relevant?
I see in X2 that all the producers are listed. I may be wrong, but this whole discussion seems to be focused on a fairly idiosyncratic view of the limited content of articles that conforms to standards that are not wiki and making assumptions that are not wiki. And that in the face of glaring contradictions in practice on other film articles. I repeat my earlier observation the irony that the very example used in this Films/Style guidelines listed all the producers.....until it was changed on that style guide page yesterday after I pointed it out but it misrepresents what is on the actual WP:The Terminator (film) film article page which lists all of the producers of any type. I'm sure it was unintentional, but it demonstrates that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues have to be monitored. And wouldn't those who are postulating about dark motives of mine on Eric's talk page better serve the project by openly addressing these arguments here rather than giving the perhaps erroneous impression that this project is theirs and others aren't welcome to express reasonable views? I'm pretty sure that an objective person would conclude that based upon the diversity of past practice, the lack of confining limits in the style guide and the clear record in the press and blogs, nobody can reasonably refuse to mention credited producers when appropriate and list them. Dawgknot 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, two industry trade articles have been published today in connection with the casting of Eva Mendes in The Spirit and the producers under discussion have been mentioned. How can any intellectually honest editor conclude, in the absense of a reliable source that those producers were mere moneymen or inconsequential to the outcome of the film? What speculation of editors of film articles is permitted to govern that only "classic producers" are worthy of mention?

Erik, I'm sure in good faith, but in the clear absence of consensus, has already edited Schindler's List to remove Kathleen Kennedy and other producers who have been mentioned in favor of "classic producers". I reverted the edit because this conduct is just incomprehensible to me. On the one hand that editor argues that we have a consensus, then concedes we don't and then argues for reaching a consensus here on this page and then acts when there isn't. What is wrong with this picture? I think that this matter should have a RfC. This is all just too idiosyncratic to a particular taste or view of the limits of an article. I don't think that this encyclopedia is just a specialty publication. Dawgknot 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not a trade industry newspaper. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they provide reliable sources to verify info and that's all - we're not bound or obligated to discuss all minutiae of the article, even if they do. Much like any other source. And as mentioned before, early production staff is always mentioned in Variety because it allows for industry professionals to locate points of contact during pre-production: it is the entire function of Variety to cater to the internal needs and wants of the film industry first and foremost. Just as American Cinematographer will cater to those of the camera department. Both are good sources for info, but both also contain a lot of information which is useful for their purposes, but superfluous and unnotable for ours. We are an encyclopedia, not a credits roll. Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And to answer your proposal, I agree - let's RfC it. Girolamo Savonarola 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly a credit role to list the producers. Producers are not "minutiae" Listing the production babies and the production accountants would be a credit role....and minutiae. In the absence of support, mentioning the Best Boy would be a credit roll. Let's try not to argue reductio ab absurdum. You make assumptions about Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter for which you must offer WP:V. They are trade papers of record. Front page articles (some of which include the producers under discussion here) are not job listings. And they are not limited to specific crafts as American Cinematographer would be. However, there are many non trade press links that refer to these producers. I have supplied them and will happily supply more. If we are discussing a film, we should discuss those who clearly have made an important creative and business impact on getting the film made and the final outcome. Not just those that reflect an unnecessarily limited view of who is important ....and who isn't. Particularly when the trade press apparently thinks otherwise. Dawgknot 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Variety is limited to specific crafts - namely the Production Department. You don't see many articles about editing, cinematography, or sound design there. It's about the business and logistics of filmmaking. Girolamo Savonarola 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox should keep to the "classic" producers. If there's anything to be said about the remainder they can be included in the prose. Infoboxes are too long as it is. They're meant to be concise summaries of the article, not a credit roll. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read this through, and like Bignole, Erik, and Doctor Sunshine, agree that those outliers should NOT be considered notable as a general rule ,but only on a case-by-case basis where events transpire to describe notability, such as accidents on set, or public statements which draw undue attention to themselves, to name ONLY two examples, other situations certainly exist. I further support extending the same ideas to the Exec. Producer. ThuranX 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the problem we, as retail editors, have to face is that we are terribly ill-equipped to make decisions about who-does-what on a film on the inside where it matters. The parties seldom discuss it in public comment for many reasons any more than a slugger showboats when he hits one into the parking lot. It's bad form. So we are left, instead, with indicia. We have signs. One such sign is that insiders in the industry see fit to grant credit and trade writers report by including those credits in their articles. And it's clear that they are discriminating. Not everyone gets mentioned. More indicia.
Finally, is this an encyclopedia or is it a specialty publication that only places weight on the contributions of key "creative" people? We can buy fan magazines to get that kind of info. There is far more involved in getting a movie made than being a Speilberg or a Scott Rudin. That is a narrow and cramped view of who it takes to get things done. And at the top of list are those producers (of all kinds) who had the vision, courage, tenacity and power to assemble the right package to get it made. We are poorly equipped to distinguish between them and "classic producers" aren't the beginning and end of the story. If we are going to write articles that highlight central characters that fit our neat little constricted view of who is a central character, then let's rename the project and call it WikiProjectFilmsWithEmphasisOnPeopleMagazineFanInterest. Dawgknot 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles are written based on reliable sources, including the filmmakers, scholars, historians, critics, etc. If executive producers don't get mentioned, they don't get into the prose. If they are, then by all means. The infobox is meant as a concise summary of what's in the article. Even the cast there is limited to four, ideally. What are we supposed to do for Altman films? It's not a perfect world but that's how we roll on Wikipedia. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No one has discussed anything regarding inclusion or exclusion within the article body itself. Yes, there clearly could be cases where non-HODs can be mentioned in the text, so long as it remains relevant to the larger goal of providing an encyclopedia-level article on the subject. But encyclopedic does not equal all-inclusive - indeed, one of the fundamental characteristics of an encyclopedia article is the summarization of a topic into its most salient points. And as always, the burden is on the including editor to show verifiability and notability within the context of the article. Discussing many of these non-HODs in the context of something unusual like The Twilight Zone tragedy, which resulted in deaths on set and many court cases, is certainly acceptable (and interestingly enough, at the moment, this event is lacking the coverage in the article which it probably deserves). But for average film [x], I can't see the need to discuss these positions as a matter of routine article style. And as far as the infobox goes, it should be a quick listing of only the highest roles - namely lead actors and HODs. Girolamo Savonarola 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The info box should include all of the important elements of the film. That must certainly include Producers and Executive Producers. I happen to think that Line Producers certainly fall into that category. As for the actors, it's not hard to limit the list to the stars and leading parts. But the infobox must include them. As far as the text is concerned, it should be a narrative that tells an interesting and inclusive story about the film and its elements and that can only come from reliable sources. I'm not arguing anything to the contrary. The main question is on what rational basis does anyone think that the producer unit isn't comprised of key indispensible elements that aren't worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia article about the film? And what support do they have for that view? Dawgknot 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Offer of settlement and compromise

None of us has enough time left in our lives to worry about this stuff. How about this? In the spirit (The Spirit) of compromise, can we agree that Executive Producers and Producers would be listed in the info box and the Associate Producers and CoProducers will only be mentioned if there is something somehow noteworthy about their particular contribution in the same way as a Costume Designer or Special Effects creator would in a particular film? In The Spirit article, for example, one of the CoProducers is already mentioned in the text for having been on a panel about the movie. In that way, important people will not be left out merely because we can't agree on what basis to decide if they are important.

This will also have the salutary effect of letting us clean up other films that have inaccurately recorded the credit of some producers without eliminating many of them. If we can reach this agreement, then all we have to do is request a change to the info box template which shouldn't be hard to get if we are in agreement. If they request the code for the fix, I'll try to supply it. I think I saw a format for it somewhere. Will this solution fly? Dawgknot 00:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to include a Co-Producer on the infobox because he appeared on a panel about an as-of-yet unfilmed movie? I fail to see how that's important in the large view. As for this proposal, I suggest you go back and look at my first comment - my original idea was merely to confine this entire debate to the Producers and Executive Producers only so as to keep the discussion streamlined. I did this in the (naive!) hope that this was uncontroversial. Then we can actually have the discussion about whether and how to decide who should be included from these two jobs. Girolamo Savonarola 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I should have been more clear. It is my proposal that we edit the infobox template to include Executive Producers so that they will be listed as well as Producers (and more accurately than is currently being done in many instances). I do not propose to add CoProducers or Associate Producers. Where I was unclear was that there is no reason why mention cannot be made of CoProducers or Associate Producers in the text if the reference is notable or of interest in Erik's real-world context test. So it's a trade. Toss the CoProds and the AProds over the side in favor of the considerably more important EProds. Dawgknot 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, all of these proposals have nothing to do with the article text. Of course any information of note and sourced can be included in the articles. And just to be clear - this compromise is not going to settle whether or not we're gonna include EProd's (of which I have no opinion yet). It's just gonna clear the field so that we can discuss that issue more clearly in its own context. All good? Girolamo Savonarola 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's tough to bargain in a mirror. As I have argued extensively, I think all producers are probably worthy of listing. If it were entirely up to me, I would include them out of respect if for no other reason. Those kinds of credits are not passed out in swag bags at the door (although sometimes it sure looks that way as in the case of 300 which is a clear outlier). However, in the interest of not making a career of discussing this, I thought I'd offer to abandon my view in favor of settlement on including Executive Producers in the infobox and elsewhere in the text where called for in the hope that other editors would then be free to move on to more interesting subjects. Dawgknot 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this offer? Can we agree to edit the template of the infobox to include Executive Producers? Dawgknot 03:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any further advance on this issue? In the absence of a demur, I will make a request that the infobox be unlocked and modified to include Executive Producers. If they want proposed code, I'll take a shot at providing it. Dawgknot 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any editor agree with your stance. I don't believe you'd be able to make a request without any support. The discussion will need to be linked to, of course, and nothing here shows clear consensus to update. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that is a cramped and narrow view of the kind of important information that should be in these film articles. Possibly, some of this could be due to some unsupported assumptions about who does what and their importance to the outcome. I really can't imagine how anyone could reasonably conclude that EPs are not essential. They aren't 'hired' for the job. They work for no fee until such time as their film is made. They are typically the first on the scene and guide it creatively until the rest of the above-the-line talent is hired. Almost everyone gets paid for their services except the producers until the film is made. And their credits in the main titles reflect their importance. Surely we can agree to include them.Dawgknot 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film up for deletion

The article and category of the same name came from a disagreement, but one that I think fleshes out the issue well: What are films such as Jackass The Movie and The Real World Cancun? Are they documentaries, in the same category as Capturing the Friedmans, March of the Penguins and Ken Burns's work, or are they something different? If they are documentaries, are they a sub-genre of documentary or their own entity (e.g., a Reality film)? It's worthwhile to research and flesh out, which is the reason for my strong keep. I think it strikes most people odd that Jackass Number Two is being called a documentary, whether it technically fits that definition or not. Unfortunately, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's definition is unhelpful (a recording of an unfiltered performance is excluded from documentary). Anyway, whether this should or should not exist is up for discussion, and could use some voices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film
--David Shankbone 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources referring to them as "documentaries" you can include quotes from those sources in their articles. If you find reliable sources referring to them as "reality films", you can include quotes from those sources in the articles. It's as simple as that. --Pixelface 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Fonda

Henry Fonda 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. Grim-Gym 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Movie Trailers

Got a question for which I can't seem to find a direct answer. Some film articles contain images in them, particularly in the synopsis/plot section. I was thinking about illustrating some of my articles with stills from movie trailers. 1) Is it okay to add images in an article for a lesser known film? (Therefore going to have less content... and not going to be an FA...) 2) Is it okay to use still images taken from movie trailers? 3) If it IS okay, is it advisable? Thank you for your help! Nihao48 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the film is well known or not doesn't come into it, if an image is beneficial to understanding the topic it should be fine. I believe trailer images qualify as film screen shots in terms of fair use rationale. However, as you seem to be interested in older American films, according to this link, American trailers from before 1964 are in the public domain and may be used freely. In other words, go right ahead. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of flags makes information harder to read

Here is an example of a film article that shows what I'm going to talk about.

As you may notice, all the distribution details and release dates use template:flagicon. I suppose the thinking was that it made the infobox look prettier and the flags occupy a uniform space, improving the tidiness of the infobox.

However this overlooks the fact that the reader now needs to know the flags of many nations on sight when reproduced in a small format. I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this difficult.

Surely there is a better way of presenting this information. How about using ISO country codes? Most of us know ES, FR, TW, etc, although we might find it hard to recognise the flags of those countries. Using these codes, or other, similar codes designated by ISO, would surely improve our presentation of information while answering concerns about use of space in infoboxes. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the flags, but I find the ISO codes arcane and confusing. — WiseKwai 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, the style decision was that the only countries which could be displayed would be the premiere country, producing country, and any English-language countries. And that in the case of the latter, these would only be added at will. So clearly the example is contrary to that and, IMHO, shouldn't even be counted as a valid article for the purposes of this argument. However, regardless of that fact, the flags are no more or less arbitrary and "difficult" than the ISO codes, as mentioned above - both require familiarity and memorization to have down perfect. However, being as the flags are also links to the country articles (as the ISO codes would, I'm assuming), there's no reason to object to the current formatting; I'd be more sympathetic were this a non-wiki article, but clearly the interactive context allows any confusion to be settled by one click. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've emended the article accordingly with WP:MOSFILM, and clearly this version is not objectionable. Girolamo Savonarola 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we should rewrite WP:MOSFILM to avoid flags altogether. They do help save space, but they're not necessarily easy for everyone to read - in particular Flag of Australia Australia and Flag of New Zealand New Zealand are barely distinguishable. And if the producing company is something obscure like Flag of Mali Mali, they're useless. This essay makes good arguments against flags appearing without country names. Should we simply recommend using country names, even if it looks ugly? Cop 663 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed the flags being used in the release-date field, and really have no problem with using them there, but country names, set in a reduced point size, would be okay, too, and probably preferable if push comes to shove.
I've noticed the flags spreading to the distributor field, as in the example of the Sandra Bullock film, where they are unnecessary. Just listing the distributors is enough - showing what piece of the distribution pie they are getting is in the realm of inside baseball and isn't really of concern to most viewers.
Lastly, I've seen some articles that use the flag in the country field, where, right next to the name of the country, is redundant. — WiseKwai 07:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've also seen them in the 'Running times' section too, e.g. [6]. If flags are used in all these sections, the infobox starts to look like the United Nations Building and looks very cluttered. Can anyone think of any arguments in favour of flags? Cop 663 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not have flags for production companies (especially if someone's gonna tag a "world" flag where it would otherwise be blank). As for running times, most of these are sourced from the IMDb listings, which are not considered reliable sources. And many of those differences can be accounted for by factors like local censorship, PAL/NTSC speed differences, and so forth, so it is probably fair to assert that the running time should only be gauged by the initial distributor's intended length (ie original theatrical version), with additional listings for directors cuts and restorations if they are released. Does that make sense? Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I used to use them for the release date but I've stopped altogether. I think we're better off getting rid of them. As it says in the essay, they do tend to spread. Here's an example of a particularly shameful example of something I did on an international co-production, and how it looks now. Much less whorish and it still conveys the same information, maybe still more than it needs too, at the expense of only an extra line or two. Doctor Sunshine talk 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another example. This is for a flag-less format for the release dates. — WiseKwai 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That looks great. Neat and tidy. Cop 663 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above, I have removed the instruction to use flags at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Release_dates, since consensus seems to be against them. I personally don't plan to remove flags from infoboxes in a systematic way, but I will certainly begin removing the more egregious examples as I discover them. Cop 663 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting plugin for Wikipedia like IMDBs "user rating"?

IMDB.com has a "user rating" for each movie so visitors can see how other visitors have graded the movie.
Can someone write and implement such a plugin into Wikipedias movie articles?

Digg.com grades its articles and lets its visitors sort the articles by popularity. It would be nice to be able to click on the Wikipedia "sci-fi-movies"-section, and then on "sort by voted article quality" or "sort by voted movie quality". And come to think of it; every article on Wikipedia could have a 0-10 quality grade, that comes from visitors/members votes. Is this the right place to discuss such a plugin? Has this been discussed/proposed earlier? A voting plugin could be used for any purpose. Not just the quality of articles/movies. So it would be time well invested writing such a plugin. We could also make the plugin take up small screen space and make it easily embeddable. Oftentimes someone asks for consensus on a particular matter on these talk pages. I think it would be great if someone would be able to write a question or proposal, add a <vote> tag and get: "Am I beautiful? (Y)(N)(Results)". It would be compact and useful.

When I find a movie title that sounds interesting, I prefer to come to Wikipedia instead of going to IMDB to see what the movie is all about. But there is always this question: "Ok, now I know what the movie is about. But is it good enough to bother watching?". Tommy 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you asking for user ratings on the film articles themselves? User ratings are discourage, usually removed outright on site. There is an issue with vote stacking and the bigger issue of "not being a representative sample" of the viewing public. The ratings are regulated to people that view IMDb.com, and not an accurate poll of viewers at a theater.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not specifically written to tell you if a film is worth seeing or not. These articles, if they have well-conveyed critical reaction sections, can provide a pretty balanced impression of the film. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, so the focus should be on real-world context. User ratings of a film at its Wikipedia article would most likely not be verifiable -- as Bignole said about IMDb, there is the issue of votestacking, which happens in every poll that isn't bona fide. There are other places to check to gauge viewer impressions of the film, though they may not be the most accurate -- many films with fan bases, I've noticed, tend to wind up in the Top 250 at IMDb (300, Transformers are examples) and later taper off. That kind of imbalance is just another reason why a user rating about films on Wikipedia would not suffice. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No user rating is a reliable source. Why do you need another IMDb? The existing one is more than enough. Colchicum 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your "voting idea" violates NPOV like a big dog. Ain't gonna happen in a reference work like WP. Sorry to be a dick, but this is a very basic principle of WP. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a single individuals opinion about the quality of a movie should be considered a "personal POV". But a consensus opinion about the quality of a movie would not be a personal POV. I still think it would be interesting to see a voted 1-10 grade for a movie I read about on Wikipedia. Or any encyklopaedia for that matter. If we let only registered wikipedians vote, we could mention that the votes are not representative of the general population, but that of registered wikipedians. Tommy 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are asking that Wikipedians vote and we establish our own user rating. I didn't get that from the beginning. Again, that seems irrelevant to the article as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Even forgetting NPOV, it fundamentally violates WP:RS and WP:NOR. We are an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Girolamo Savonarola 01:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How's this idea any different from albums having a rating pulled through from sites like Allmusic or Rolling Stone, Q, Mojo, etc? Lugnuts 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing staff-authored reviews from respected topical magazines meets WP:RS and is a type of reference. Soliciting opinions from the community en masse is the definition of research. Girolamo Savonarola 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
But it's still someone's opinion on the score. I don't see the difference of say, Dark Side of the Moon getting good ratings from a site I've mentioned, and a film like Pulp Fiction having it's rating from IMDB. Lugnuts 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, luckily you don't have you. Please read all the guidelines linked above. Girolamo Savonarola 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

The Jason Voorhees article is up for featured article status. Please bring your opinions/criticisms to its FAC page. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was promoted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Girolamo Savonarola 12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Roll call?

I've seen several WikiProjects that have been taking roll calls to determine who are active and inactive members of the their projects. Are we willing to do the same thing? I would like to know in the next couple of days so I can include a notice in the monthly newsletter. If approved, we can then send it to all current members. This will help to cut down on delivery lists by not having to deliver to inactive members. We could set up a period of a few weeks to a month for members to include their names before we move inactive members to another section. An example message (based off of another roll call message):

"Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please move your name from the current members list to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Members section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the "Known to have left" section. Thanks and happy editing!"

If somebody knows how to make this more decorative with a background color to the text that would probably be more eye-catching for talk pages and more likely to be responded to. Anyway, what do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Good idea. — WiseKwai 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that some WP's just do a quick check to see if their users have recent activity (~3 months or less). I think it's safe to assume that someone who's using the wiki in the recent past would say something if they didn't want continued newsletter delivery. It also will avoid presumptions on our part regarding unsubscriptions because someone didn't/forgot to/wasn't able to reply, but still wanted to stay in the thick of things. Girolamo Savonarola 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's just for the newsletter, even though it is part of it. Our project numbers over 400 members (good job by organizing the members list by the way), and some have been part of the project since it's beginning a few years ago. It is likely that a portion of our members have either moved on to other focuses on Wikipedia or have even left Wikipedia completely. There can still be an option for members who aren't active but who still want to receive the newsletter. We're not completely excluding members who are inactive, we can still keep them on an inactive list and they can always update themselves down the line when they see the notice. --Nehrams2020 06:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be in support of a roll call so we can define our current roster better. I'd suggest having this roll call last long enough to ensure most of the list will be aware of the situation. Maybe in going through with this, we can ask members to redefine their goals in relation to this WikiProject. It would be beneficial to know what everyone's preferences are, for easier collaboration. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, can the roll call include two other things: first, are there particular areas which they'd like to see task forces for? (These could be national cinemas, time periods, genres, etc.) Second, if we're gonna get everyone's attention, I'd like to bring up the idea of creating one or several "Coordinator" position(s) similar to WP:MILHIST. (Yes, I steal a lot from that WikiProject, but it happens to be a good one! :) ) I think with the number of editors and articles under the project's purview, it would help organize the project better and, well, coordinate the administrative end. (The position would have no executive powers, just to head off any concerns in that direction.) In any case, I'd like to bring this up as a proposal in the near future and it would be nice to add this to the roll call - if nothing else, this (and the task forces poll) will actually provide a secondary "lure" to at least visit here again. Girolamo Savonarola 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be reasonable to include if other members are interested in having coordinators for our ever-expanding project. We could include a section of potential task forces and ask members to also include their name in the section if they're interested. Information about the roll call isn't necessary to include in the newsletter this month, as we should have enough time to plan out what we want members to include in their "check-in" and allow us time to set up possible coordinator positions if other members agree. Plus, if the roll call lasts for a month or so, they can get a second notice in next month's newsletter (if members are reading it). I'm open to whatever we think we want to include in the roll call, but don't want to include too many options as it may be a bit overwhelming. --Nehrams2020 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is good. It roots out those who are actively contributing the the project and those aren't. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy during the week with school, but I'll work on this further this weekend. We need to modify the members page to reflect on active/inactive members and if people are still interested in several coordinators for the project, that needs to be set up as well. Ideally, I'll see if I can find a bot to send out the roll call to all of the members to save some time. --Nehrams2020 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I modified the members page to prepare for when the message is sent out to all members. Before I send out the bold text message above, I want to see if there is anything else we should include in the roll call. Have we decided on the possiblity of having members express interest in task forces and coordinators? If so, do we want them to state their interest on the members' page or somewhere else? Also, is there anything else that we should be mentioning to members during the roll call before we do it (votes on style guidelines, merging of the task forces/WPs, ask them what areas they are focused on within the project, etc.)? --Nehrams2020 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should mention information about task forces and coordinators as a separate item in the newsletter. Also, I don't think we should require members to put anything on their user pages about their involvement with the project; we can ask, but it should be up to them how they want to format their userspace. Also, mentioning votes may be perceived as canvassing, so I think it would be best to keep mentions to the WikiProject mainspace. Finally, for the roll call mention, it can be asked if they can explain what area of film they plan to work on in a brief manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, we can deal with task forces/coordinators down the line. For the userbox, it only suggests you can add it if you want, so it's not required, but I can remove it. I'll modify the message to have members state their areas of interest within the project. Anybody else? --Nehrams2020 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - if you read the WP:CANVASS guideline, it specifically allows (and encourages) "Friendly notices" and even mentions projects as a good example of where they are permissible. If we were selecting particular users by ourselves for the discussion, or if we were to put a slant on the discussion topics in the roll call, then that would be unacceptable. But in this case, we're simply notifying people with a self-identified interest on the topic of several major project discussions. In particular, mentioning the task force interests are crucial since many users do declare their subinterests on the members page. Many may not know yet that there are now also task forces that they can join. (This might also be linked from the main members page.) As for Coordinators - it's a crucial community position. Were these each just content discussions, then I'd agree that they should only remain on the normal monthly announcements. (Which is why I'm not mentioning the Scope question here.) Girolamo Savonarola 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but do we have any information about the coordinator positions, and anywhere where members can express their interest in the creation of the positions or task force interest? If not, we can just send the roll call out exclusively for the active status, and then send another message later about the coordinator/task force/anything else we want input on. --Nehrams2020 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

American films

TakuyaMurata (contribs) has been adding [[United States|American]] to the lead sentence of a few film articles lately. I was not sure of this approach, as it seems nonstandard. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Although for most of the articles on wikipedia, I think nationality should be stated because the fact that something is American (or British or whatever) shouldn't be assumed, as far as films are concerned, surely the vast majority of films that have articles on wikipedia are American and English-language and should only be differentiated if otherwise. --BelovedFreak 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. There seemed to be justification for it, which is why I didn't challenge the editor. It's something that I've rarely seen in the majority of film articles, though. Maybe this editor can update all of them for us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But why make a strong rule? If he wants to do the updates, let him, as there is nothing wrong with that. It should be neither mandatory nor forbidden to mention "American" film AdamSmithee 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Country in infobox (and production companies)

On Fargo (film), I thought it was pretty odd that the countries listed were the UK and the US, so changed it to just the US. Another editor changed it back, noting that Fargo was a Working Title Films (UK) production. So I've left it alone for now.

I looked at the parameters on Template:Infobox Film, and the only guidance I find is to "Insert the country or countries that the film was produced in. Link each country to its appropriate article if possible." What does that mean exactly? Where the film was made, or where the money came from?

I know this has probably been discussed before ad nauseum, but if the field is for where the film was made, then that would mean Star Wars IV is a UK-Tunisian film and Apocalypse Now is a Philippines film. It just seems ridiculous to call Fargo a British film, when there's nothing inherently British about it, except that it had the backing of a British production company. — WiseKwai 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

'Where the money came from' is the usual way of describing the 'nationality' of a film. So Fargo would be USA/UK because Working Title is a British company. But Star Wars is just 'USA' because even though they filmed in Tunisia, they were not actually working with a Tunisian production company. This is often a useful distinction to make, e.g. with Letters from Iwo Jima which looks like a 'Japanese film', but was entirely produced by an American studio.
However, I agree that the situation is confusing and has indeed resulted in ad nauseum discussions. I think we should clarify things by changing "country" in the infobox to "producing country". This would go some way toward avoiding confusion for casual readers. And change the parameters in Template:Infobox Film to "Insert the nationality of the production companies that made the film." Cop 663 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Argh. I'm nauseous already. In this globalised age more and more films have multinational backing. For example, Ali G Inda House could be listed as a France/Germany/UK film, even though there's nothing French or German about it. Hot Fuzz is a France/UK film. Are these details really relevant in the infobox? I don't even want to think about categories. — WiseKwai 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it can look odd. Sometimes co-productions matter, sometimes they don't. The trouble is, it's hard to draw up a guidelines about when co-producing countries are important and when they're not. For example, it might seem irrelevant that the French film A Very Long Engagement had some American funding - but it wasn't irrelevant when it got turned down for government subsidy on the grounds that it wasn't French enough.
I think it all comes down to the individual user. If I was writing the infobox for 'Ali G', I would just write 'UK' - I don't care that it had French or German funding. But some people do care and are interested in global film funding, so if they want to add France and Germany, well, c'est la vie; it's undeniably true, after all.
That's my opinion, but maybe I'm being too laissez-faire? Cop 663 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done to remedy this, although I concur that "guidelining" it will be difficult if not impossible. For a case that will blow your mind, see Blackboards. Does anyone really see this as part of the history of Italian or Japanese cinema? Let's be honest here - it's an Iranian film that needed money, which happened to be supplied by Italian and Japanese groups. The location of the funding did not fundamentally change the film in any regards; all they did was facilitate this film by supplying funds. Girolamo Savonarola 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Debatable. Iranian films are often co-productions when they are anti-government in some way. Simply listing them as "Iranian" would thus obscure the fact that they are 'westernized' to a degree. Still, this kind of thing is complicated and better discussed in the text than in an infobox.
Here's a solution: get rid of 'country' altogether, and list production companies instead. If their nationality is interesting, mention it in the text (or perhaps in the infobox, e.g. Working Title (UK)).
Here's another solution: get rid of 'country' and replace it with 'setting'. List Hot Fuzz as "London and Gloucestershire". List Blackboards as "Halabja, Iraq". List Fargo as "Minnesota, USA". This is more interesting information than a simple country name.
Just a couple of thoughts! Cop 663 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's as easy as just where the money comes from. The way I've heard it, it's the crew makes the difference but even how it's determined may vary from country to country. Apparently, Cannibal Holocaust needed to get a couple Italian actors in order for the film to be considered Italian in Italy. I'd like to keep the field but we probably shouldn't count on the IMDb for this. In grey cases, like the above, we should probably just follow reliable sources. The All Movie Guide seems good, it lists Blackboards as Italy/Iran[7] and Fargo as just USA.[8] Doctor Sunshine talk 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is All Movie Guide more reliable than IMDB? Cop 663 01:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It won't be perfect but it's not user submitted. I just mentioned it because it has that information where it's hit and miss in reviews. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally defend IMDB but at least they have give the reasons for their "Country" entries (albeit in a long-winded way) - if you look at the "Company Credits" entry for Blackboards, you can see that it was made by two Italian companies, an Iranian company and a Japanese company (the nationalities can be found by clicking the names of the companies). By contrast, All Movie Guide simply says "Iran/Italy" with no explanation as to why Blackboards counts as Italian but not Japanese. I'm with IMDB all the way here, at least in terms of logic.Cop 663 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Variety calls it an Iran-Italy production as well with a little more detail, "A Makhmalbaf Film House (Tehran)/Fabrica Cinema (Rome) production, in association with Raicinema, T-Mark (Japan)".[9] I think limiting country of origin to the main production companies is reasonable, and listing all of them in the prose. The IMDb is a tad too indiscriminate for me. Turns out we actually have a sourced article on this here: Country of origin#Country of origin in movie and television production. I'm not sure how I feel about a production company field, on the one it's as relevant as the distributor, on the other it'd take up a lot of space—the Ali G example below would add eight lines. I think I'd rather leave it be. Doctor Sunshine talk 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As production company vs distributor goes, I'd favor the production company, as they are the prime movers who actually get the ball rolling and do make the film - generally before there is a distributor. There are also usually one to three production companies, whereas the distribution possibilities are limitless, especially if there is a different one for each country. And the distributors contribute little to nothing creatively; by definition all they do is roll it out. If they're involved earlier, then they would also be listed as the production company. In the US, for instance, the major studios produce far less product than they distribute. Is it really relevant information, if all they're doing is packaging and delivering the film? I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant, but to my mind, it's clearly exponentially less critical to what a film is than the company which actually created the content of the film. (This is not to belittle the importance of a film's release, but obviously an encyclopedia article will want to spend the vast majority of the body text discussing the film itself, except in the case of outliers. Girolamo Savonarola 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually do think they're more important too but, at the same time, distributors make or break a film. Without marketing films never get seen, even terrible stuff can make millions if a major studio picks it up. I always assumed distribution was chosen over production because you could keep it to one or two companies if you limit it to that of the country of origin. It does bother me not to include them but infoboxes should be a concise summary of the article, they lose their value and look unprofessional when they get overlong. And it's a lot of man hours to update. Maybe an overhaul is in order, though. It could be modeled after review summaries, such as this (click Pg1), or the like. Just throwing that out there. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

After a night's sleep to let my stomach settle down, I think Cop's laissez-faire approach is probably the best approach in dealing with this issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is: Sorry I brought it up - it just ain't that big a deal in the greater scheme of things. — WiseKwai 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you've raised an important point: a confusing ambiguity in the style guidelines. If we're going to leave things as they are, we should at the very least change "country" to "producing country" in the box, so that it reflects what we're actually doing. Does anyone agree? Cop 663 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Producing country" sounds like the country is doing the producing. More relevant would be the production company. As far as countries go, the important thing would be language. I'd say if you give a link in the infobox to the production company and the language of the film, that should be enough. If the production company does not have an article, put something in brackets after it. eg. Name of Company (Iran). Carcharoth 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That's an even better solution. A bit more radical though, since it results in the removal of the 'Country' line and the insertion of 'Production Company' instead. Who else supports this? I do. Cop 663 19:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that there is already a parameter for distributor. For some films, the production company does the distribution as well, but this is not always the case. It depends whether you want the infobox to replicate the long list of companies you see at the start of a film. The exact role of each of those companies (some owned by each other!) varies. Something that requires editorial judgement (otherwise known as edit warring). Sorry, that's a bit cynical, but I definitely think production company is more informative than "country". Carcharoth 22:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
So, if we did that, instead of 'UK/France/Germany', Ali G Indahouse would look like this:
FilmFour (UK)
Kalima Productions (Germany)
Studio Canal (France)
TalkBack Productions (UK)
WT2 Productions (UK)
Working Title Films (UK)
Hmm. I think that's more useful. Four of the six companies have articles, which isn't bad and suggests there is an interest in this stuff among Wikipedians. However, I don't know much about the movie industry and possibly we could get contention, as Carcharoth suggests. Does anyone else have a view on this? Cop 663 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Five out of the six, actually. WT2 is a Working Title subsidiary created for tax and funding purposes, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola 02:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about whether to include production companies in the infobox has been had a few months - see here. A vague consensus emerged that it was a good idea. But then nobody did anything about it. Maybe we should be more decisive this time? Should we have a vote or something? Cop 663 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Film lists and 20th Century Fox

I've just been tidying up 20th Century Fox. The predecessor companies that merged to form this company are Fox Film Corporation and 20th Century Pictures. Fox Film Corporation used to have its own article (the history is at Fox Film) and got merged. 20th Century Pictures also used to have its own article (the history is at Twentieth Century Pictures), and was similarly merged. I'm not 100% convinced these early film companies are well-served by being merged into 20th Century Fox, but I reorganised the page to make things a little clearer, and spun out the list of Fox Film Corporation films to List of Fox Film films. I also created List of 20th Century Pictures films. I'm not sure how this sort of thing is best handled, so I'm now offering this all up for review here. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. Splitting off the lists of the 20th Century Pictures and Fox Films was a good solution. It keeps the focus on the history of the company, and makes things absolutely clear. — WiseKwai 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Dated Film stub updates

Just an "FYI" for those that attend to the categorization of film stubs, specifically those dated-by-year - comedy, drama, horror: For those films that do not have a specific "by decade" stub template, it is now possible to "force" the categorization out of the top category into the "by decade" category by adding:

|category=[[Category:XXXXX]]

For example in an 1890 horror film the stub will look like this:

{{horror-film-stub|category=[[Category:Pre-1960 horror film stubs]]}}

This does not effect any stub templates that do not add the piped "force" category. SkierRMH 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This could actually be a problem, as that approach currently goes against our current categorization scheme (which avoids intersection categories for the most part). Girolamo Savonarola 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As it stands now, it actually only has effect on less than 15 films, so I really don't see it going against the overall categorization scheme. It's an attempt to keep in line with the concept behind categories that are marked as {{catdiffuse}} (as it "empties" these categories), as well as keeping in line with the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and not creating bunches of categories for one or two films. SkierRMH 05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"As it stands now" has no guarantee of remaining that way. An 1890 horror film at the moment should normally be categorized as an 1890 film, a horror film, a silent film, and a [country] film. Having the bot automatically create faulty categories will force us to hunt these variants down as a regular task. I thought the bots were supposed to minimize manual work? Girolamo Savonarola 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of problems with that last statement: First, bots aren't doing this, this is manually done - don't know a bot that's adding the "forced"/piped categories to any existing stub templates (in fact, I did all of these manually). Second, we're not talking about standard [[category:xyz films]] categories, we're talking about the stub templates that automatically transclude into a category - huge difference. Third, it's not putting in any "faulty" categories - you forgot the prime one that is in question - the [[Category:Pre-1960's horror films]]. In the cases at hand the standard {{horror-film-stub}} transcludes into the [[category:Horror films]], which is incorrect, but is the default for this template. What the option does is to remove the incorrect default category with the correct category without having to create a pleathora of worthless stub templates. Fourth, realistically, looking at the categories mentioned, are there really that many films that will be added into them? Looking at most film histories, comedy & drama won't reach the number of films to warrant a stub template. The only one that possibly will be broadened is horror films. Fifth, if and when these categories are broadened downwards chronologically, it's not going to be an inexperienced editor/admin that's adding/dividing the category. If they're savvy enough to be able to do this, they're well aware of the work that needs to be done to populate the new categories.SkierRMH 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I foresee this discussion probably going out of a "film" discussion into some of the internal technical features, I'd suggest the discussion be carried out on my talk page. SkierRMH 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to say technically. It appears that Category:Horror films currently is subdivided into by-decade categories, which is something that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization has for the moment recommended specifically against. But that's really a separate issue. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Threequel (film term)

Hi folks. A user is changing the lead of articles about the third films in a series. Rather than them being described as the 'second sequel', the term 'threequel' seems to be cropping up. It's not an expression I've come across before, but it Googles relatively well in relation to recent films. How do we feel about this? I'm not entirely comfortable with it. The JPStalk to me 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Last I looked, we didn't use slang in articles, unless it was about the slang itself. Alientraveller 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not "slang," it has become a common term in movie-making parlance. I'm curious - why was this article removed before there was a proper discussion about it? I don't appreciate all my work disappearing without having a chance to explain/defend it. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Given that both the previous Threequel (film term) article and its current version within the Sequel article are completely unreferenced, and since I'd never heard the term before, I assumed it was slang. That's why I reverted an insertion of the term "threequel" into an article. Sounds like a silly marketing slang term to me, and most likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. In any case, it's certainly not a term that most readers are likely to be familiar with, and so it probably shouldn't be plugged into opening paragraphs of film articles. I think that simpler wording like "second sequel" or "third film in the ____ series" sounds much more professional than "threequel." --IllaZilla 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The article was not unreferenced - please see [10]. May I ask if the word prequel also sounded like "a silly marketing slang term" to you when it was introduced? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that articles should avoid neologisms. Girolamo Savonarola 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
While the definition of "neologism" is somewhat fuzzy, I'd think this probably doesn't qualify. It could be considered a jargon word or a term of art - something in between would probably be most accurate. It generally isn't, as far as I can tell, attributed to a specific author as the coiner of the term. And the term does seem to have found its way into common usage. — xDanielx T/C 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Neologism has nothing to do with traceable creators or uncommon usage. It's simply words which are not commonly found in established dictionaries and are probably of recent origin. Google tests have no bearing on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Neologism" is generally defined as "a newly invented word or phrase." Words which become terms of art not because they are inventively coined but because numerous individuals simultaneously find utility in the use of some borderline jargon are generally not considered neologisms. An example is determinism - the etymology progressed naturally from "determinaire" to "determine" to "determinism." The neologism Wikipedia article even defines "neologism" as "a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ('coined')" and notes that they "are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period or event," which "treequel" is not. I'm not saying it is strictly incorrect to call "treequel" a neologism, but I would think that it's somewhat different from what the writers of WP:NEO had in mind. — xDanielx T/C 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a time when the term prequel was new, and now it's understood by just about everyone. And Google tests DO have a bearing on the matter if a search for "threequel" yields 47,100 results. The word is used not only in trade papers such as Variety and film-oriented magazines such as Entertainment Weekly but by mainstream publications like the New York Times, New York Magazine, and even the Christian Science Monitor, as well. I still maintain that an article for "threequel" was a valid addition to Wikipedia, and its redirection to sequel can be reverted by an administrator. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can revert the redirection, since nothing was deleted. You don't need an admin for it. However, that doesn't mean that you necessarily should do that, since there's not much useful to say about 'threequels' in particular that wouldn't be better covered in the sequel article, where the term currently redirects. It's just a term for an additional sequel, and there's nothing particularly special about being the third part of any installment. Listing the third parts of some film series really doesn't seem like an interesting or useful endeavour. - Bobet 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to revert the redirection and got the response that only an administrator could do so. I'm curious, as far as your opinion is concerned, would you apply it to the prequel article, too? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, looking further into it, there already were two afd discussion for the term, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threquel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threequel, both which resulted in a redirect decision, so I guess that's why someone would tell you to seek an admin to revert a decision (if you put the article up for deletion review again, please mention those discussions, so people will know there's actually something to overturn, thanks). As to my opinion on the prequel article, yes, it seems there's something to say about prequels that is better covered there than in the sequel article, although I don't really see the usefulness of listing every prequel people can think of. In the case of threequels, you can say that it's the second sequel to something, and that pretty much covers what you need to know. Like I said, there's probably nothing particularly in common among third installments of a series. If you can show otherwise using reliable sources, you would have a case for a deletion review, however. - Bobet 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Bobet, for uncovering those AFDs. I was unaware of the history. You are correct, also, in your comments about prequels. It reminds me of amateur college bands who insist that their article should be kept because they might become famous. The JPStalk to me 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threquel 2007. The JPStalk to me 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gross uneveness in INdian films

I've just been browsing and cleaning up the telugu list a bit and in seeing some of the articles they are shockingly terrible!!! It amazes me how many contemporary Bollywood articles on actors and films have the golden seal!! yet most of the tamil. telugu and malayalam articles are diabolical!!!!!! I know Bollywood is the main and most popular industry but the Indian cinema work group shouldn't neglect the other articles. They are either polished articles or completely unclear stubs which aren't even written in proper english!!! I really think the Indian cinema work group or some of us should try to start developing the other articles. The film articles on Tamil. Telugu, Malayalam films are the worst on wikipedia. They are a shambles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Independence Day really high-Importance?

What makes an article high-Importance?? I wonder because Independence Day doesnt get the attention I thought a high-Importance article gets....which brings me to another question....he it really B-class? It has tons of trivia(I mainly removed what was taken from IMDB) and many things wrong with it...I really think its start class.. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an important question - what exactly is the importance parameter doing for this project? (As for the class, if you think the rating is wrong, consider changing it.) Girolamo Savonarola 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've brought up the inquiry before, and I think it's just a scale to determine what editors at WikiProject Films would consider a film's status. There's a lot of factors involved, to be sure, but it seems more for the project (as the status is on the talk page and not in the article itself). There's been corrections back and forth, so I think the best way to determine a film's importance is via discussion, considering factors of how it has impacted the real world (box office record-breaker, resurrecting a new genre, influencing society, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That film, in my opinion, probably should not qualify as high-importance. It's a fairly subjective scale and something that editors experienced with film articles should discuss to reach a consensus. B-class, also, is not exactly a respectable categorization. There's a plot summary, a cast, and some (messy) criticism, so it has some basic information about the film. It could definitely be improved, but I think that the B-class is appropriate. Start-class would be more for articles that have a very brief plot summary and almost nothing else, I believe. Others are free to correct me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears the article was given a high class by a school anon that had a history of vandalism and some beneficial edits back in 2006. I would probably say mid importance, but I don't place too much emphaisis on the importance rating as it is difficult to judge and can differ by the editor. For start class articles, we had a discussion earlier this year or so (don't remember the exact time period) about what an article should include to meet start class. I came up for an idea of including the Template:Upgrading needed on all film stub article talk pages on what needed to be done to bring it up to start class. It doesn't require too much, only a developed intro, a plot summary, cast section, infobox, an image, a few categories, and two other sections (production, soundtrack, box office, etc.). So far, the start class requirements have been accepted, and I was thinking of including a similar requirement for what the B class article requires down the line. The article currently exceeds the start class criteria, and although it does need some cleanup, I would classify it as a B article. It does need a lot of work, however, to get to GA status. Usually, if you disagree with a class assessment you can change it yourself based on the article progress grading scheme or can ask for a reassessment at the project's assessment department. I've done most of the reassessments in the past for the Assessment department so I can help with any further assessment questions. Many editors have assessed thousands of film articles, so I'm sure there are going to be some errors as articles increase/decrease in quality over time. --Nehrams2020 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've just posted a long list of possible resources (offline, though) on the talk page for Independence Day (film). Seems like there was a lot to say about its summer blockbuster status. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My question isn't about what the importance parameter is - it's about what are we doing with it? The class parameters are important because they give us an overall picture of the state of the project en masse as far as where we stand on average, what articles would be ripe for quickly bringing to FAC, and what needs immediate attention to bring past Stub status. Those have immediate tangible benefits and the classifications have fairly objective guidelines for assessment.

Importance, however, is not so clear-cut. For projects of a much smaller scope, such as a single contained hierarchy (like Star Wars), it's easy to name the most prominent and work your way down. But when dealing with the Films project, where the vast majority of our articles are film titles, they don't really have a natural information hierarchy - they're all on the same fundamental organizing level. So distinctions often become very subjective and ripe for silly tagging edit wars. Some of the larger projects have completely abolished the use of importance (such as Military History). Others, like Biography, have decided that doing a project-wide importance assessment is too subjective and not productive enough for their purposes, and instead have merely assigned a Top importance to a small handful of subjects which have been listed in multiple independent rankings. The reason for this is to try to concentrate the project effort foremost on vital topics that would be considered overall Wikipedia Core or Core Supplemental topics.

I happen to agree with one of these more limited approaches - I think it's unrealistic for the project to be spending time trying to decide what all 30000 (as of now) articles need in terms of importance tags, much less spending time trying to come up with those guidelines for how to tag them. It wastes valuable project time for little payoff in the sense of what will ultimately be done with the data for the vast majority of the articles (nothing) and will likely create a lot of ill-will amongst editors who disagree with the importance of film X.

Therefore I propose that we either decide to abandon the Importance parameter completely, or come to some agreement on a very limited use of it solely to identify our Core project articles. Girolamo Savonarola 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be a very limited use? Just identifying the films of top importance, and disregarding any film article that does not reach that level? I think "High" might be disputable, but I don't think there's a need to categorize for Middle and Low importances. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that we would first identify Top candidates. In order to appease several demographics, this should probably be from a combination of sources as objective as possible. Such as top box office performers (both adjusted and not adjusted for inflation), films which have won major awards (from a wide variety of national and international places, so as to achieve an intl mix), and maybe films which have been listed on one or several notable polls (such as Sight and Sound, AFI, etc). This would cover a wide range of types and regions of films, probably enough to satisfy most editors for a start. Maybe 200 films or so? We'd have to see. These would be our main "targets" for reaching FA or at least GA status. When we reach or approach 100%, then we can start to draw up another listing.
In theory, the Top importance tag could even be merely an administrative tag; ie - we'd only apply it to films which met our Core but had not yet reached GA/FA. When they reach it, then we'd remove the tag. That way when the next round of Core is drawn up, it doesn't look odd that we keep on adding more and more films to Top Importance; it would only be a temporary tag essentially saying "please work on this if you can!". Anyway, that's a starting point. What do you all think? Girolamo Savonarola 02:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds acceptable to create a list of a couple of hundred films that should be at least the B /GA status, and ideally FA down the line. If editors saw a list of potential articles that are important to the project, hopefully we would be able to continue to bring them up to higher classes. It would be great to start a framework of ideal articles to improve for the project. However, how do you determine which films should be on Top importance? Are we just going to have all members vote on acceptable lists or each recommend a film (of those interested)? --Nehrams2020 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest deference to lists. While no method will be 100% objective, I believe it's better if we can point to "established lists" used to compile it. Which lists will have to be at community discretion, but I believe that something like my approach outlined above is a good way to keep a fair mix of genres, periods, nationalities, and interests represented. Girolamo Savonarola 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not think I would get this much input.....thanks for the input, especially the the refs...but I dont think I understand them clearly..

"[Keyword Hit]BAUGHAN, Nikki: The top 20 blockbusters of all time Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.52 , June 2004, p.68-87, English, illus 'The top 20 blockbusters of all time' featuring details of INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)."

Whats keyword hit? 'The top 20 blockbusters of all time' featuring details of INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)." : I take it this is a lil info of the ref? Cause if it is, I'll bold it out, to help me understand the refs more. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I copied the list from a site called Film Index International. For some reason, some items had stars next to them, which showed [Keyword Hit] when I copied/pasted it to the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 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. Greg Jones II 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Images in Plot section

In regard to non-free images used in the Plot sections of film articles, I am wondering if there is a better way to choose images, if at all. Traditionally, film articles have screenshots (limited to two for the most part), but in looking at Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (for which I had noticed its FAR process), I was wondering, are subjectively selected images for the Plot section really in line with fair use policy? At the Star Wars film article, I could replace the two images in the Plot section with another two images, and the change would not impact the article at all. This seems to indicate that such images would be decorative; there are dozens and dozens of screenshot candidates that could be added to a Plot section. What would be the justification in choosing them, if at all? I've found that images in the Plot sections of Dirty Dancing and Branded to Kill have some sort of real-world relevance. When I write film articles these days, I find myself fitting images outside of the Plot section, such as Sunshine (2007 film) and Road to Perdition. I feel hard-pressed to pick what image would be most representative of the Plot. Another example is A Beautiful Mind (film), in which there is a picture of Crowe as Nash in the Plot section. Yet we can see Crowe as Nash in the poster image. Some time ago, an admin brusquely removed images from the Plot section of 300 (film) (though editors, including me, contested him and were able to keep the images). This was somewhat a turning point in ensuring that whatever non-free image I add, its rationale would be as indisputable as possible. This seems most possible with real-world context, as opposed to choosing from a flurry of possibilities for any scene mentioned in the Plot section. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this matter; what is the most suitable way to incorporate non-free images into the Plot section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The same thoughts were crossing my mind lately, actually. The more I see images there the more I think, "it isn't going to hurt the article if they were removed." It seems, the more I think about it the more I feel that unless there is real world context beyond a simple "this is what Actor X looked like in scene 85" then I don't see a real point at having images there. It seems to me that if you need an image to illustrate a scene, then that scene is probably notable in some way--If that scene is notable in some way then it means there should be real world content discussing said scene, in which case you'd most likely find content and scene in another section of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is that for standard-fare films, the films that do not have any drastic shaping in terms of production/costume design and special effects, what part of the Plot section or what real-world context would be appropriate to support a screenshot of actors who look like they do in public? For example, for a contemporary romantic drama that is character-driven, how are images supposed to be chosen? A picture of John looking at Jane with a caption, "John tells Jane he doesn't love her anymore"? I understand that a lot of attention is focused on films that distance themselves from reality in some way (Star Wars, 300, etc.), which could probably have a lot of real-world context, but what about films from the genre I mentioned? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you've addressed through the Dirty Dancing example, there are particular notable moments in "realistic" films which do elicit real world content worth mentioning. Girolamo Savonarola 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So how should existing images in Plot sections be addressed, if they do not have backing like the Dirty Dancing image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(To Girolamo) Exactly. Unless there is a reason that the image is needed beyond a simple "this looks cool" then the sections usually can do without. If we look at the plots who's size is of a respectable length, and not overly long, even 1 image can end up cluttering the sections (let alone how 2 images make it look), all because someone deems a scene significant, without showing any verifiable evidence that it is. Does one need an image of Michael Myers on the Halloween page? Not necessarily, since we currently have about 12 on the fictional character's page (even if we didn't have 12, we'd have at least 1 image that showed what he looked like). I'm just saying that I am seeing more now that images in the plot sections, for the most part (as there are clear cases when it can be relevant), really serve no purpose other than eye candy. I even think that those that do serve a purpose, like the E.T./moon/bicycle image, or the Dirty Dancing image might even have a better home in another section (like one that deals with discussions on the film's impact).
(To Erik) Kind of answered in reply to Girolamo. I don't believe we lose any quality by ditching truly extraneous images that can easily be replaced by any number of other images from the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think you bring up some good points. Fair use is generally contingent on the demonstrated need for particular usage. Girolamo Savonarola 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about wanting an airtight rationale. It's a little disheartening to see or have useful images disappeared because someone got trigger happy and it slipped past you because your watchlist is too big. I think the fairuse paranoia is starting to subside though and the pendulum's swinging back towards the middle ground.

In any event, here's how I see it,

  • First, you have the infobox image which serves as primary identification and illustration of marketing.
  • Then, you have a screenshot which illustrates at minimum the visual style of the film and hopefully identifies key characters and/or illustrates a key scene, moment or element of the film as well.

After that, I think common sense is the best guide. Figure out what stands out about the film (between cast, crew, iconic bits, special effects, controversies, marketing, etc.) and can't be illustrated by words alone. Preferably an image would cover multiple aspects. I think the style guide (or a style guide somewhere) recommends no more than one image per every 250 words but obviously you want to keep the fairuse count as low as possible without harming the article.

However, I'd take things slow with removing "decorative" images. For one thing, nice looking articles might not be our primary goal but making a professional encyclopedia is. By this I mean, any image can be contextualized by its caption, so try to fit them in the most relevant section but if they have to go somewhere else, that's fine. Secondly, even a random screenshot illustrates something. For example, it's impossible to subjectively describe in text whether a film has good cinematography—so any image can potentially provide valuable information. That said, if there's a better image that can represent that as well as any number of other aspects we should trade up. Fox example, that one in the plot section of A Beautiful Mind is pretty bad, especially as it seems to have been further cropped and then desaturated from its source, but it still illustrates the visual look of the film and Crowe is in character, where often actors are posing or exaggerating for posters (see Rashomon for a good example). So, I'd like to see that one removed but only when it's replaced by something better that conveys the same (or more) information. And in regards to Mike Myers, we ideally want to keep articles self-contained, people shouldn't have to click between 12 different articles for what should be summarized in one—a full cast shot isn't necessary in Halloween but Myers is pretty important. Doctor Sunshine talk 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is why the images in the Plot section of 300 (film) were kept. Discussion took place on the talk page about what images would be most appropriate, hence the current selection. While it's a consensus rationale, it's not an airtight rationale (due to the admin contesting them). In the past, I've taken the "common sense" approach with trying to identify aspects of a film that may appeal most to the readers. However, considering the international audience of Wikipedia, it seems like a challenge to determine what is "common sense" for images. I'm aware that traditionally, "common sense" has been the process, and I'm not interested in disrupting Featured and Good Articles by yanking their screenshots abruptly. (People don't take kindly to that, as the admin found out at 300.) Personally, I'm trying to encourage a more updated mindset about rationales, whether in my own contributions or in my comments in a film article's review. At WP:FU#Acceptable images under #5, it says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." This can be interpreted liberally or conservatively, of course. It does not seem to me, though, that plot summaries count as discussion. #2 at WP:IINFO discourages plot summaries except as a complementary section for real-world context, so Plot sections seem secondary in the encyclopedic scheme. My issue continues to be the subjective argument. If a few editors decide on a particular image for the Plot section on a film article, and a new editor shows up adding another image, resulting in a dispute, then it seems that it would emerge in discussion that neither image has a strong anchor in the article body. There wouldn't be anything policy-wise or fact-wise to argue for -- it would boil down to, "I feel that showing multiple characters is more important to the reader than showing the climax space battle scene." I'm just looking to encourage more objective reasoning behind the choice of non-free images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews

Two of this WikiProject's Good Articles, Silent Film and Facing the Giants, have been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is invited to contribute to the discussions concerning these article's GA status there. Drewcifer 03:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

BIG ISSUES for discussion

As an example of the new capabilities of the revised project banner, I've just added the

|Persian-task-force=yes

parameter to as many relevant films as I could find. This then allowed me to set up the appropriate category structure to create another assessment table just for the task force, which you can see at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Persian cinema articles by quality statistics. Note that this exists in parallel with our project-wide assessment, allowing both the whole project and the task forces to each see where they stand, all implemented under one project banner. There's a slight gap in that the importance for the task forces is not yet ready (I simply forgot to include it in the code; shouldn't be too difficult to correct), but this only affects the task force assessments, not the project-wide assessment.

With this now ready and available, there are some much larger questions that I think need to be considered. The first and most obvious one for me is integrating Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema within WP Films as a task force, under a shared task force arrangement with WP India in which the task force address will be located here, but the task force will also be jointly operated with WP India in the same way as some of our current task forces such as Chinese and French cinema are. This needs to be mentioned simply because of two reasons: one, the Indian cinema group is by far the largest and most functional of all national/regional cinema editing groups, and secondly because historically there was a disagreement over moving the project to WP Films as a task force. It is my hope that with the integrated project banner code which will allow the project some assessment autonomy, we will be able to integrate them more easily into our group and also reduce banner clutter/redundancy so that Indian films no longer will need to have both a Film banner and an Indian cinema banner; the Indian task force identification is now encoded within the Film banner.

Second, the current task forces are all national cinema-based, and their interest - justifiably - extends not only to national films, but national filmmakers. I don't believe that it makes sense to delimit their scopes purely to the films, and a perusal of some of the task force article request lists (all transcluded into Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Requests) corroborates this. Therefore, I believe that we should allow the task forces - and the whole WP Films project at large - to expand our scope. It is true that we already do have an Actors and Filmmakers project, but this project is more rightly a workgroup of WP Bio, and there is no reason why the biographical articles can't be tagged both as a WP Bio article and a WP Films article. (Indeed, this is current practice at projects like Military history.)

Which brings me to another point. I believe that with the interest, participation, and scope that we already have, it makes sense to centralize the topic, much as several other successful WikiProjects have already done. What I mean is that the idea of subdividing the entire topic of Film into several WikiProjects such as Films, national cinemas, Filmmaking, etc is probably hurting each of these projects in the long run because it divides up common effort and common forums for discussion. I believe that the task force model is ideal for integrating different clusters of interest and type, with the added benefit of a larger overall membership and centralized coordination of common needs such as style guidelines, assessment, etc. so that each task force does not need to re-invent the wheel. Instead, all of the boring administrative overhead is left to the project at large so that the task forces can remain focused on work on the articles. It also avoids confusion for new or unfamiliar editors by having a central project that has scope over all film-related articles, instead of wondering which of several projects one should join/ask questions of/request help/point out issues, and resolves problems with certain areas of film-based articles which currently do not fall within any project scope. I, for one, am interested in merging WP Filmmaking into either one or several task forces, to start.

My final point, which I've already discussed in the Roll Call thread above, is that I believe that given the large number of members and articles, we could really benefit from one or several Project Coordinators. This job already exists at WP:MILHIST and is purely an administrative role involved with project housekeeping and...coordinating! The position would have absolutely no executive powers or special privileges with regards to content disputes or anything of that sort. It's merely a behind-the-scenes position to keep the project running smoothly and efficiently. (Just to clarify.)

Anyway, I know that's a lot of proposal up there, so I'd appreciate any and all comments. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Ultimately people are only going to work on the articles they want to work on but it may encourage more interaction between the projects and taskforces. I can't foresee any negatives. Have you brought this up with anyone from the India, Indian Cinema or Filmmaking projects? Doctor Sunshine talk 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Haven't yet bc I wanted to bring it up here first, being as it's a major change in scope for the project. I don't think Filmmaking should be difficult; there are only a few of us who are regulars, and I'll bring it up later today when I have more time. As for WP India, the last discussion ended in a stalemate (see archives from...January? October), but I think that if there is clear consensus (and now that we have independent assessment table capability), it should proceed without too much acrimony. It should also be noted wrt that previous stalemate, the WP:COUNCIL had overwhelmingly supported the group's location being placed here at WP Films, with WP India allowed to jointly claim it as a task force. I support that. Since there was a lot of shouting between the WikiProjects at the time, we decided to leave it on neutral ground for the time being; I decided that there was little use to force the issue again without first creating more a conducive and prepared project infrastructure. Girolamo Savonarola 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the proposal. I've always considered the foreign cinema projects to be disjointed, and this task force setup seems to help place everything under one roof so there can better focus and collaboration on film-related articles. I'd like to hear what the other film-related WikiProjects have to say about this; there don't seem to be any drawbacks, from what I can see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
WP Filmmaking seems to be supportive of the merge so far. It's still early, of course, and needs ample time to remain open for comments, but based on prior history, I don't think more than 1 or 2 will be made. How long should the question be left open before we decide to merge/not merge? Girolamo Savonarola 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Janet Dulin Jones

Can someone help fix the article on this screenwriter? Her notability seems borderline at the moment. Did she get a credit for Map of the World for example? Nick mallory 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed films

I don't know if anyone's noticed, but your unassessed films category now seems to contain every article tagged with your banner, which I know it didn't only yesterday. Something wrong with the banner, maybe? Katharineamy 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Very possible. I'll have a look. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's including articles which have received a non-standard class (anything other than FA, A, GA, B, Start, or Stub). I'll try to get that fixed as soon as I can find an admin to implement several fixes. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem! Katharineamy 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"NA" importance has disappeared?

It seems that the NA (na) in the importance scale has disappeared, leaving every film that was in these categories - Dab, template, category, NA, and list - categorized as such now showing as "???". There's thousands of these now showing as non-rated on the importance scale - which isn't correct. SkierRMH 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...will have to look into that. Does it really matter much, though, if Dabs and templates lose importance? That's not really what the parameter exists for. Girolamo Savonarola 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it keeps them from getting evaluated as film articles (sort of parallel to the NA = non-article class. All of the aforementioned categories are ones that aren't "no" importance; they remain in the {{film}} family, but shouldn't be evaluated on the importance scale. It keeps them from getting put into lots of list where they don't belong. SkierRMH 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me see about making the template do a generic evaluation of all NA articles to NA-importance class or something similar. Actually, why not "No" importance? Presumably all article subjects should have some importance, even if it's Low. Girolamo Savonarola 05:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This hearkens back to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (and prior evaluations) and their use of the importance scale (as well as other groups that look to the evaluation schemes). The reason that the aforementioned categories were "na" is because while they're essential to running the project, but they're not articles on films themselves and the rating is for articles on films. The exemption with "NA" is to keep them off the evaluation scales while keeping them connected to the project. You seem to hit the misconception here right on the head when you said "all article subjects" - and we're not dealing with articles about films, we're dealing with the other templates, categories, lists, etc. that operate with and for the project. SkierRMH 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I understand that, but my point is that all articles would have some level of importance, while all non-articles could be given No importance. But whatever works best is fine. Girolamo Savonarola 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Needs film infobox

Template:Needs film infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Preaching to the Perverted

From my point of view the article has fulfilled the start requirements, it can be reassessed.--Nemissimo 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For reassessments of articles, see the Assessment department. Make sure that the article meets all of the requirements of the banner on the talk page of the article ("Article upgrading needed: You can help."). The article needs a cast section, a fair use rationale for the image, and could probably use some more expansion. --Nehrams2020 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

There is a debate at Talk: Superman Returns#Fair use over the inclusion of a screencapture in the plot section. We would like a lot of opinions so that this debate isn't just between two people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made my comment, based on my arguments above at #Images in Plot section. These things really seem too subjective and subject to whoever perseveres the longest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

War films task force?

WP:MILHIST is currently moving towards creating a "War films task force" (relevant discussion here). Since WP:FILMS is the natural partner for running this task force jointly, I have been asked to bring the matter before the Films project for discussion. Comments would be welcome! Kirill 02:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections Beginning

As per previous discussions (see "Roll call" above), it appears that there is community interest in the creation of Coordinator positions. A /Coordinators page has been created to explain the position, and a separate election subpage is also now set-up to begin the election process.

Effective immediately, there will be a two-week signup period during which project members may self-nominate for a Coordinator position and begin to take questions and comments. Then from September 28-October 11, the voting will commence. The voting system will be approval voting. Most of the procedure and protocol for the position and the election is cribbed directly from WP:MILHIST, but if people have any questions or comments regarding the process itself, please feel free to offer them either here or on the article talk pages! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There will also probably be a banner announcing this and the roll call on both the main project page and members' talk pages in the next day or two. Girolamo Savonarola 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)