Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 17

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 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 →

Contents

Remove link from Talkartoon page?

There is an external link at the bottom of the entry on Talkartoons, called "List of Talkartoons" which does do that, but is really a swap site of an individual for trying to arrange swaps of copies of old cartoons.

Would something like this actually meet the rules of Wikipedia, especially as the link shown above it is a legitimate listing of those shorts as well.

I did not remove it, as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedure and don't want to get involved in someone's turf war over "who did what to my article." But I brought it up for someone more knowledgable than me to make that decision.

J. Kulacz 24.119.221.235 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate per the WP:EL criteria, as it does not add any substance to the article. You can be bold and remove it with that backing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

Hey, um, I need help working on the Sakura Wars: The Movie article. I am working on it in User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars: The Movie. Can you give me some facts on how to expand it and point out to some sources Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Americanfilmlist}}

Why do we have an incomplete list for every year of the United States' cinema? The lists will probably be perpetually incomplete, their purpose would probably be better served by categorization, they are magnets for non-free media violations, and so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (a) some of the articles listed within (b) this template itself (c) various internal Wikipedia pages (talk, WP:, etc.) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree and would support a TfD. As you said, it is already better served with categorization. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the template itself is actually pertinent, but only because we have all of these lists. It's the lists themselves that I don't understand. If the lists were depreciated into categorization of the articles within, then TfD the template itself. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, true. Maybe a PROD of the lists, or AfD if someone deprods. I really don't see what purpose they serve that categorization can't serve better. It seems like most of those are mostly the work effort of a single editor. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible "fake" film?

Could someone with some knowledge of Surrealist films take a look at Topsy and Bunker: The Cat Killers? I've done some research through Google and am not convinced the film even exists. It's listed at IMDB and about 15-20 other websites, but none of them can be considered reliable sources. On sites that aren't copies of here or IMDB, the movie is listed in conjunction with either Steve Gunderson (actor), Kathy Najimy, or Paul Robertson, almost always in bios (like "Najimy, the star of "Sister Act" and "Topsy and Bunker"...) Only on Robertson's personal site is there much information - [3]. The plot summaries here and at IMDB are virtually identical. No one has it for sale. IMDB links back here.

So can anyone prove the film exists? Truthfully, even if it's real, it's a candidate for Afd - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Hope someone has fun with this one :) If I'm needed, leave a message on my talk since I'm not a regular reader here. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's fake. A result like this shows the film. It could simply be a very small-scale film. I'll see if I can dig up anything more reliable to ensure this film is authentic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was either never released or never finished. Most films get listed at places like IMDb when they're still in pre-production, with the intended release year, and often not removed when they don't end up going into production or are never released. There was a film called Zonad by John Carney that I wondered about for several years, but couldn't get my hands on and couldn't find any information on. At one point, I found a clip on YouTube, and it looked very low-budget. Finally, when Once became a big success and Carney was getting attention, word came from Variety that the film was little more than a rough unreleased video, and now Carney is planning to make Zonad with a full-fledged budget. Yet Zonad was listed all over the place for years. Was it real? Yes. Did anyone specify that it had never come out? No. Because why would it get any press attention when it had never come out? So it may exist... but not be notable. --Melty girl (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, it's not fake -- there's a review of the film at the Orlando Sentinel from May 29, 1993. An excerpt: "The truth, however, is that this peculiar organization has only two members: a demented soul known as Topsy and his loyal soldier, the kindhearted, retarded Bunker. In Topsy & Bunker - an unquestionably strange and often effective black comedy - these misfits live together in a rundown Manhattan apartment building plotting the death of the feline species... Neither has ever actually killed a cat, and Bunker secretly likes them. But to please Topsy - who has somehow gotten it into his head that cats are causing people to starve by eating their food - Bunker gives lip service to what Topsy calls 'the final solution'... Despite everything, these men seem to manage fairly well until, one day, a cat happens to wander into their apartment..." That's at least one reliable source with significant coverage of the film. Could be more out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New film group

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Film. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help review the article Golden Film

The Golden Film article is close to being a featured article. I need feedback (peer review) for the last improvements before (re)nomination for FA. You help is much appreciated. – Ilse@ 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Globes

As a heads-up to all editors involved with films, the Golden Globe Awards has its nominations announced. Perhaps we can collaborate on an award-nominated film drive for the films and actors in question. At this this gives us an idea of what will be looked upon during award season. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What have you got in mind? A quick run-through of the articles on these people and films to tidy them up to at least a basic standard? I'd be available for something like that, sure. Probably most only need a cursory glance, but I'll compile a list anyway. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A list of the Golden Globe-nominated films and people can now be found at User:Liquidfinale/Future/List. I've made a start with some basic assessments, and will continue later on this evening. Feel free to chip in. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 11:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Pixelface has implemented mention of the nominations wherever applicable, so that is covered. I was thinking more along the lines of providing background information for these films, which I believe is not always easy to accomplish. The Plot section is obviously easy to write, and the Critical reaction section can harvest reviews from Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'll see about doing a headline dump for these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I have been looking at the 65th Golden Globe Awards article and going to a few of the film articles and mentioning the nominations. Production information may be a little more difficult to provide, but the awards are about 4 weeks away. --Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I should have waited for a reply before charging headlong into it. What exactly do you mean by 'background information'? The usual development/production stuff? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I was thinking that all the film articles should be decked out with clean film infoboxes, external links, categories, and minimal critical reaction sections with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (as that's easy to pull off without having to see the film). I think that the biggest challenge for film articles in general is an in-depth production section. For example, a film like The Painted Veil (2006 film) (not related to this) is currently void of such information. Right now, I'm working on a draft at User:Erik/The Painted Veil which provides a lot of background information about the film than on the mainspace. For the nominated films' production sections, we could present citations on their talk pages for later implementation and focus on whatever film article may be to our liking. I personally think that a film like No Country for Old Men (film) should have a respectable production section as it seems pretty well-recognized as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current fiction

Template:Current fiction 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. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Year in film

There is a discussion at the talk page of the numbers manual of style that will potentially affect all film articles. Wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007]] would be removed from all film articles (and every article it seems) and replaced with 2007. I noticed the Zodiac (film) article has already been edited in such a way. --Pixelface (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Pixleface. I followed the thread there about "surprise" date links, and, yeah, we may have an issue. I like the 2007 practice (or for literature, or baseball, etc.); it is much more informative than just 2007. I agree it shouldn't be used with full dates, since it disrupts the date format function, but as a reader of fiction articles, I found it useful (and even valuable) to place the subject of the article in a temporal context. It appears the proposal is going in the direction of permitting the practice where "compactness" is a concern, such as in tables and infoboxes. I'm going to argue that a Lead shares some of those same "compactness" qualities.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I try to use 2007 film. Would this be acceptable? The JPStalk to me 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If certain editors keep using their script (which can do at least 8 edits per minute from what I've seen), wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007 film]] would be changed to 2007 as far as I know. You can see one such script here: User:Lightmouse/monobook.js. Lightmouse said " If the links are needed, you might want to put something like 'see [year in blah]'." --Pixelface (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Avriri Cinema

Hi. There is some film related article in question for deletion. its called Avriri, its a film manifesto and movement from Israel. Marina T. (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with an article

I recently started a page for Son of the Shark and was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me improve the article. Thanks! --Sharkface217 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a little work on it (infobox, stub, categories), but it still needs expanding. Jauerback (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for Once?

Anyone care to pitch in or at least advise on what Once needs work on in order to get ready for GAC? In particular, the Reception and Box office sections need something, but I'm not sure what. BTW, this was one of the most positively reviewed films of the year and it's up for Grammys. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python's Life of Brian

Hi folks, I'm not a member of this project, but recently I decided to start cleaning up Monty Python's Life of Brian. One of the first things I noticed was a large section devoted to "Romani ite domum", which was a very small part of the film. However, I have since been reverted by several users and I have been told that I can not win. If I am to have any hope of getting the page to GA status, the section has to go because it is overdetailing of a single sketch (per WP:PLOT) and has no real world context (per WP:FICT) and apparantly the reason it HAS to be in the article is because of a merge proposal from a year ago. Anyway, if people would like to comment on this, please do so here. Thanks, Scorpion0422 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan Cumming‎: Mental breakdown?

In Alan Cumming‎: "In 1985, he married Hilary Lyon. However, they divorced in 1993" [Then suddenly, out of the blue --] "following his mental breakdown" -- "His mental breakdown" is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Is this vandalism or just crap editing or what? If the latter, could we please add a line or two on this elsewhere in the article. (And, you know, a cite - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources .) - 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for you, but I've removed the passage in question in its entirety per WP:BLP. It shouldn't be restored unless it can be cited reliably. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding an external link

Hello to the members of the project. I have a question regarding an external link that was added to several pages today. User:Animalz Records has added this link Blacklisted link removeUniversal Monsters Forum] to many horror picture related pages seen here [4]. The link looks a little iffy to me per WP:LINKS but I wanted other members of the project to take a look. This user seems to have added only two things to wikipedia. Ads for this editors record label on their userpage and this link. If you are okay with this link then I won't worry about it, but, if not then maybe someone with the ability to roll back a large number of entries might take care of this. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate link. A good way to tell is if a single link is being solicited across multiple pages that does not have the consensus of the WikiProject (such as IMDb, AMG, BOM, RT, etc). I keep a sort of a linkspam blacklist for such solicitations. I'll leave a message on the editor's talk page and start removing the link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Tom Tresser cleaned up most of the links. If anyone needs to track down linkspam in the future, you can go to Special:Linksearch and type the URL of the solicited website there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

I would like to hear editors' thoughts about what should and what should not go into the Marketing section of a film article. I think that such sections have been a relatively new phenomenon, as I believe that the trend started with Spider-Man 3, which originally accumulated rather indiscriminate detail about trailers and TV spots for that particular film. That section has been re-shaped since. So my question is, what aspects of a film's marketing warrants inclusion? For example, trailers and TV spots are commonplace. What about other aspects, like toys or memorabilia or contests? For example, Cloverfield has a contest going, but I removed the information from the article because it sounded too promotional. My current thought process has been to report on aspects of marketing that may be unique to the film (and hopefully independently reported by a reliable source) -- viral marketing, controversial products (like the Rise of the Silver Surfer coins), poor release campaign, etc. However, all of this is pretty much tacit knowledge. Does anyone think that a description of such a section would be warranted at WP:MOSFILM as an optional section (not at all required)? Here's a list of films that have some form of a Marketing section:

  1. Spider-Man 3#Marketing
  2. The Dark Knight (film)#Marketing
  3. The Fountain#Marketing
  4. Cloverfield#Marketing
  5. I Am Legend (film)#Marketing
  6. Fight Club (film)#Marketing
  7. Iron Man (film)#Marketing
  8. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)#Marketing
  9. The Simpsons Movie#Marketing

Feel free to review these sections and comment on what's seemed appropriate and what hasn't seemed appropriate. Also, if you have other examples to share, feel free to do so, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you forget Transformers, and Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End? They got a lot in the box office too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right -- Transformers (film)#Marketing and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End#Marketing. But my intention isn't to promote the blockbuster-esque films -- I think they just tend to get more coverage for their marketing because of what they are. However, I'm working on User:Erik/The Painted Veil#Marketing, which shows how marketing did not work out for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I always feel that when trailers or posters debut is trivial. But marketing is a major part of how a film is received, and I feel many of these sections are very well done. Alientraveller (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. An interesting question, to be sure. I know with TV articles, a merchandise-type section is commong, but that deals purely with products, etc resulting from the show such as books, toys, games, etc. For sections specifically on the marketing tactics on a movie, I don't think articles should be covering every last trailer and TV spot. That's just trivia data. I do agree, though, that unique or controversial market should be included, either in a section of its own or as a subsection of the production details. Looking at the examples you give, the Sweeny Todd should go (just a review of ads...not really notable and one I'd argue with since its pretty obvious to me that its a musical :P), Spider-Man 3 is a decent start, Dark Knight is doing good, The Fountain's graphic novel is good info but the rest needs to be axed (again, just yapping about trailers and what not), Cloverfield good and certainly one of the most notable marketing campaigns to date.
All that yapping aside, I think some guidelines are needed to keep a tight control on it to ensure every last movie page doesn't just get glutted with listings (and worse, links to) trailers and "trailer reviews" and the like. Collectonian (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How about merchandise? I think we can agree that it's not worth mentioning trailers and TV spots for the most part (with Cloverfield being an exception), but merchandise is a little trickier. It's not universal for all films -- you're likely not going to find action figures for No Country for Old Men (film) (though that'd be badass), but you'll find them for pretty much all the superhero films. I am thinking that if we have detailed coverage from secondary sources about a film's merchandise, that would be a threshold for inclusion. The other day, I was shopping for the holidays, and I saw calendars based on films and realized that I've never seen a citation that talks about calendars for films. I think appropriate examples may be something like Transformers in which it's reported that the toys for the film got a specific design, but I could be wrong. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Merchandise is very cool. Video games, novelizations, theme parks, all very encyclopedic, and sometimes films like X-Men 3 didn't get any toys out. And there's only one reason Hasbro are letting the film rights to their toys go... Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think merchandise should be mentioned, though not necessarily a detailed list. Like with Transformers, I think you are right and they made a new line of toys based on the movie, so that should be noted (though no need to list every toy in the line). Lunch boxes are common, especially older movies where the lunchbox may be a collector's item now, limited edition prints, etc. That kind of thing :) Merchandise would also be a nice place to put the DVD/VHS, etc info *grin* And, as Alientraveller kind of mentioned, it might even be notable when there is no merchandise (like X-Men 3...seriously??? be interesting to see if there are sources about why... )Collectonian (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, marketing does go hand-in-hand with the film's release schedule and its home videos, in it being how the product is presented to the public. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that video games based on films are generally encyclopedic -- there's a pretty big market out there, and most video games from the major consoles have plentiful coverage. For novelizations, though... I'm not really sure if they got as much attention. I think that it'd be OK to have an article about a novelization if it meets notability standards and all, but I've seen little interest in writing an entire article about a novelization. I've generally put information about the novelization in a "Further reading" section using the Cite book template. Sometimes there's some content about the novelization, like I included for Road to Perdition#Other media. I think the key here for most merchandise is to permit mention when there's substantial coverage. That's why I'm not so sure about action figures -- for something like Transformers and G.I. Joe is understandable due to the films being based on toy lines, but if this is not the case, how much mention do action figures and toys really warrant? I noticed that the Featured Articles for Superman and Batman have no mention about merchandise based on them. I think there's a line between the historical relevance of a film's marketing and reporting every product they make in conjunction with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should approach this the same way we approach the tag line. If it's important, put it in. Every film has a tag line. Every film has marketing. However, some tag lines are important. "In space no one can hear you scream." "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water." If the marketing is important, include it. It has to be covered in a reliable source, of course. It has to be original, or outside the box. On Transformers: They started as action figures. Then they became a TV show, and then the movie. A discussion of the action figures is actually a discussion of the films affect on the source material. That is important. It just so happens to be merchandise. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Recent film

As soon as Current Fiction was deleted, new templates were made for recent film and recent book. Both are now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Recent film and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Recent book. Collectonian (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing {{recent film}} has to do with {{current fiction}} is that the idea to create {{recent film}} came to me during the TFD for {{current fiction}}. The template {{recent film}} applies to all films, including documentaries. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet film directors' categories

Is there any reason why there are two categories for this - Category:Russian film directors and Category:Russian and Soviet film directors ? Should all entries in the former be moved to the latter with the former being deleted? Lugnuts (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How about having Category:Russian film directors and Category:Soviet film directors? There will be some overlap, but the Soviet Union and Russia aren't the same thing. If a director lived and worked in Russia during the Soviet Union, he can fall under both categories. If he lived and worked outside of Russia but still in the Soviet Union, the latter category would apply. If I misunderstood the background, excuse my ignorance and feel free to correct me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no I think you've got it spot on there. Russian/Soviet history isn't a topic I know a great deal about! Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The main thing which needs to be confronted is the attempt by many of Russian heritage or sympathies to deny there ever was a

Soviet Union or, at best, that uninfluenced "Russian culture" proliferated throughout the Soviet decades when, in fact, everyone, and especially those in film, worked for and were supervised by agents of the *Soviet* government. That the Russian language was usually promoted as a defacto official language throughout the Union's "autonomous Republics" does not alter the fact that there were for over 70 years wholly Soviet films and film personalities, along with a few who integrated from the preceding Russian Empire, and a somewhat larger number who transformed into the liberated Russian cinema when the USSR was disbanded. Revisionism is the greatest threat here: even for cases of overlappers (and there are an enormous number of people whose entire film career, and product, were wholly and even willing nationals of the Soviet Union), there is a distinct history for purely Russian (to the end of 1917 and not picked up again until 1992) films, directors, writers, producers, photographers, performers, etc., and a whole 'nother history with categories for the same types as "SOVIET film ........" Pretending none of the latter existed, or in so small a quantity as to not be "notable" by Wikipedian standards, is ridiculously anti-encyclopedic, anti-academic, anti-intellectual, and anti-reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.197.56 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate titles

Is there any guideline regarding actual titles vs. promotional ones? I notice that most articles that are affected by this (e.g., Goodfellas, Superman, X2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) give both versions in their opening lines. However, I have been involved in an edit war with an anonymous user who doesn't like the fact that Ghostbusters' on-screen title is in fact two words (and is listed as such on the IMDb). I haven't moved the article (since Ghostbusters is the most commonly used title) but I am following the style used in the examples given. Any thoughts? Chris 42 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you would go for what's on-screen (for example, Se7en, as opposed to Seven), and I would therefore tend to sway towards the two-word title for Ghost Busters. However, real-world context should also be taken into account, and Google hits for the one-word title (six million) outweigh by far those for the two-word (seven hundred thousand). Given that, I personally wouldn't be overly concerned about leaving it where it is, but definitely include Ghost Busters in the intro. Steve T • C 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. If the anon reverts again I'll direct him/her to this discussion. Chris 42 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Recent films

I created this category to go along with the {{recent film}} template. I think it will help editors find film articles they can work on that many websurfers may stumble upon. Many of the films currently in this category can be found at 2007 in film, but many wikilinks to that article are being removed by editors per discussions at WP:MOSNUM, which I mentioned earlier in the Year in film thread. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 27#Category:Recent films CfDed. Purely arbitrary and unnecessary category, and extremely inappropriate to create this category while the TfD is still under discussion. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. I created that category on December 23, 2007 at 15:14 UTC, one minute before I created the {{recent film}} template. The {{recent film}} template was nominated for deletion on December 23, 2007 at 18:55. The category existed before the template existed, and I certainly didn't create the category "while the TFD is still under discussion." Get your facts straight. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but both are still headed towards deletion and never should have been made. Collectonian (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I think you've already made your opinion known. Next time I'll be sure and get your permission first before I make a template. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a film

I'm not sure if Docudrama falls under this project, but I added the project tag to the talk page it could use some attention.... Dreadstar † 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mojo title

Is there not a version of Template:Mojo title which can be copied and pasted onto a film page, like there is for IMDb for example? 71.96.209.92 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there is -- {{mojo title}} with the parameters "id=IDNAME|title=TITLENAME" in it -- for example, {{mojo title|id=batmanbegins|title=Batman Begins}}. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote now for Golden Film's FAC

The article Golden Film is a featured article candidate now. You can vote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. Thank you for your help! – Ilse@ 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your efforts on the article and the FAC! I'll have a look shortly. Also, just to note, FAC is not a vote - it's a review and critique process. Keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And you are right, although de facto the system is similar to voting: popular topics gather supporters more easily. – Ilse@ 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

The article for one of the year's finest films, the Ken Loach Irish historical drama, The Wind That Shakes the Barley is currently in the midst of a mild edit war regarding the plot section. The few combatants are primarily non-film buffs who aren't familiar with WP:FilmPlot (and haven't heeded my prodding in that direction), think that spoilers must be avoided, and have trouble discerning NPOV. If anyone has the inclination, help is needed. --Melty girl (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Infobox re: Writers

See Template talk:Infobox Film#Writers to join in the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've shared my opinion there. While it's an interesting proposal, I'm not in full agreement with it because of the difficulties of keeping the infobox succinct. I hope others can pipe in if they have the opportunity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

UK cinema release dates

I have a 2-part question:

  • Is there a database or something anywhere that gives the theatrical release dates of films in the UK?
  • In the Internet Movie Database, if release dates for a film are missing for certain countries does that mean that they probably weren't given a theatrical release in that country? Or is it quite common for imdb not to be exhaustive when it comes to release dates? Anyone know?

Thanks, --BelovedFreak 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! There is! Please see the website of the Film Distributers' Association. I've found it to be very reliable so far. As for the imdb, the information is user-submitted, as it is here. If there's information missing, it does not necessarily mean that the film did not have a release in that country; it merely means that if it did receive a release, no-one has yet submitted the information to them. Best regards, Steve T • C 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, I've had an IMDb login for years, but when I tried to submit filmography info sometime last year, it wouldn't let me -- I can't remember what it said, but basically I wasn't found trustworthy. I don't think it's as open in all aspects as people think it is. But I think industry users submit information all the time. Not saying it's totally reliable, but maybe more than we think. --Melty girl (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, Liquidfinale (Steve) - looks good. Do you know of anything pre-2004? As for imdb, I know parts of it like trivia sections & biographies seem to be user-submitted, but I didn't thin it all was. --BelovedFreak 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be wary of giving too much credence to the IMDb. It's a good place to start research, but a bad place to conclude it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that IMDb is OK for basic cast and crew information for contemporary or well-known films from the past. I think that when it comes to more obsolete films, the information may not be so accurate, not being as independently reviewed. In addition, I agree with Girolamo -- IMDb is useful to begin research. For example, I think that there can be information worth checking out at the trivia pages to incorporate into the article. For example, if a major actor was considered for the lead role of a film, but someone else got it, you could Google the keywords of the actor's name and the film title to track down a reliable source that reports that information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Son of the Shark

I need somebody to tag Son of the Shark as part of Wikiproject Films. Also, it needs a rating so that I might have a point to build up from. Thanks! --Sharkface217 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. We're happy to help, but don't be reticent to add the banner yourself! {{Film}} is what you're looking for - if you click the link, it includes instructions for how to set the parameters. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

World cinema Userbox

Some time ago I asked at the Userbox requests page if someone would create me a World cinema userbox. It met with zero response, so I've put a basic one together using "existing materials". I know it's hardly important, and it may be inappropriate to mention here, but I figured a number of members of this WikiProject are working on World cinema articles and may be sufficiently interested to have something like this on their own user pages.

I noticed there are existing userboxes for "silent movies" and even "South Korean films", which is pretty specific, but no World cinema, so it spurred me on to try and make one. It could do with some work, I think, and perhaps an image better suited to film (such as a clapper-board or film reel with the earth on it, or some such?). Plus the colour scheme is perhaps a little dull. Please feel free to make any amendments! Gram123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This user enjoys World cinema.




just language check. cheers, Shir-El too 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Movie article lead

There is an RfC Lead section dispute for the article on the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? Your input would be welcome! Dreadstar † 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline

I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --MASEM 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you highlight some of the key differences between your draft and what currently exists, for those that have not kept up with the perpetual discussions regarding the guideline? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It streamlines what notability for fiction is defined as, though still requiring real-world information, considers "depth of coverage" issues and undue weight issues, and allows for non-notable summary style sub-articles of the notable work; it also tries to de-emphasize the rush to delete non-notable material by stronger suggestion of editor cooperation, trimming, merging, or moving material to another wiki over outright sending of articles to AfD. --MASEM 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering if such clean-up steps really belong in a notability guideline. I don't disagree with the suggestions made in your draft, but there's an awful lot of after-the-fact steps. I understand that Wikipedia has had its share of extraneous and unsupported in-universe information for a while, but none of our major policies and guidelines take the step backward to explain how to clean up articles that do not satisfy the criteria of that specific policy or guideline. Would the clean-up steps not work better as an essay? I never had a major issue with WP:N in the first place, and modifying the guideline seems touchy. With an essay, there would be some ease in separating the straightforward notability guidelines for fictional topics and an explanation on how to clean up fictional topics that are on the fence or completely on the wrong side of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean: WP:NFF explains that films not yet in production don't warrant stand-alone articles. At WP:FUTFILM under "Process", we explain how to address notability and structure of such articles. Actually, I just linked WP:NFF to WP:FUTFILM to make a stronger connection, but I hope you get what I mean. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I see no problem with projects going further in depth than FICT for project specific guidelines, nor does FICT try to override and nullify any guidelines.
I'm not sure if it happens much with film articles, but there is a large problem with TV shows, video games, and works with large in-universe details that some editors have taken on themselves to remove/merge/request for deletion in mass scales that gets other editors involved in those projects upset because the information is being lost too quickly - and thus WP:FICT as it was was seen as a "bad guideline" that allowed for that. The addition of those steps is to help provide a better mitigation process for non-notable articles. --MASEM 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that; I've reviewed the ArbCom. The point I was trying to make, though, is that WP:FICT sets precedent that has not been followed everywhere. I daresay that the precedent is followed less for fictional topics than most other topics on Wikipedia, and such transgressions are not easily challenged. For example, people may be familiar with the name of a major character in a specific film (example: Tyler Durden), but it's not easy to determine whether a stand-alone article is appropriate if the film covers his characteristics in detail. I think that the expansion to the guideline seems to delve a little too much into the responsibility of clean-up for the boundaries of this notability guideline. The precedent is presented, but it seems a step too far to cover how to fix up existing articles that may not satisfy this precedent in the very same guideline. How one would set up an article about a TV episode would be different from an article about a comic book character. Basically, my thinking is to make the language more concise: "Articles with questionable notability should be brought up at the WikiProject(s) related to the topic to review how the content can be handled," or something to that degree. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. I want to set some level of requires for fictional mediums that we have yet to have a project/that we have envisioned, but I can see making the language simpler and deferring to WProjects for that. We were also considering a "fiction notice board" that would be a catchall as well. I'm make sure to point out this suggestion once more input comes in. --MASEM 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Erik (though he said it better than I did)...though might help if these comments were all centralized over in FICT's talk :) Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A noticeboard would be an excellent idea. I understand that WP:FICT has received a lot of grief and that the drafts are an attempted solution. I think that beyond the scope of the notability of a fictional topic, responsibility should be delegated to the respective WikiProjects, basically giving editors some control. (I think that the early difficulty with WP:FICT is that editors felt helpless, and we're coming up with alternative solutions a little late.) Of course, such clean-up steps under a particular WikiProject would need to work within the limitations of the notability guideline, but nesting articles under a particular fictional topic would ready it for collaboration and constructive criticism among those interested in that topic. It happens here at WikiProject Films -- though we don't worry so much about WP:N or WP:NF, we worry about WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. My only major concern is that there are steadfast attitudes that cannot put themselves above their topic of interest. I know that TTN pushed hard against some of these attitudes, and there was a lot of resulting dissent that probably was not necessary. I believe in leading my example, and I think that there are some WikiProjects that do this well (The Simpsons comes to mind). Hopefully, the noticeboard, the respective WikiProjects' responsibilities, and the availability of Wikias could introduce a more Wikipedian mindset. (And I apologize if my spiel has already been repeated in previous discussions!) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion--MGM cartoon characters infobox template

An editor, FuriousFreddy deleted the infobox from the article Droopy on the grounds that the template is intended for a film, singular. What we need is a MGM cartoon character infobox template, analogous to the one that already exists for Warner Bros. cartoon characters (trying to determine if there is indeed one, I couldn't even find the WB toon char. one in the lists of templates/infoboxes!). Certainly, the "career" of Tom and Jerry has been varied enough to justify one. I hope this is the correct place to post this suggestion. I asked Freddy to discuss his deletion, and he explained on that article's talk page, including in his post there a link to where the idea for an infobox for film series (an interesting-sounding idea, but not applicable to the situation at hand) could be suggested. It led me to this page, and I could find nothing in the contents box to indicate further information on making suggestions might be found on this page. I certainly do not have the time to examine the lengthy article line by line to find something, sorry. Ted Watson (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean {{WBToonChar}}? If so, I think the better question is why that template is reserved for WB characters - it would seem practical to simply use one template for all cartoon characters, period. Perhaps that template could be renamed to a more general title. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A very good point (and I was already well aware of the existence of the template you linked in; I meant that trying to confirm the lack of existence of a similar one for MGM toons should have but did not uncover the WB one in the lists of existing templates--which told me I had failed to accomplish my goal, but I can not imagine where else I could have looked). If this Talk page submission has not submitted that idea for consideration, how does one go about that (see above for why I don't know)? Ted Watson (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd mention it in the template talk space. If you don't get response after, say, a week, maybe be bold? Also, it might be worth trawling around the template categories and whatnot to see if there are any other similar templates. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As my second posting above says in no uncertain terms, I've "trawled around" for that purpose already, and could not find any indication of the existence of the WB toon characters' infobox template, which we both know does already exist, and that I could not conceive any place else to look. Nor do I have any idea of just what specific "template talk space" you are referring to, as there are a number of template-related pages, each of which has its own discussion board. Ted Watson (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actor Filmographies

Hi. In connection with Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I've been working on tabling filmographies, as outlined on the project page. If anyone is interested in spending a bit of more or less busy work time to help with these, please see the project talk page for an update on what is on the list for work. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The President's Daughters is up for deletion.

Title says it all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to mention every AFD for every film article. A good place to look for this listing is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. Maybe we could make this a part of WP:FILM somehow? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to it on the the project front page. Could maybe add to the side menu, along with the possible AfD links. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a great fit. Is the template easy to edit to implement this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, its just straight text. I was bold and popped it in there :) Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I will add it to the watchlist then, what's the name of the page? I'm tired now if I won't get answer by the time I wake up I will look for it myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
For the deletion sorting? Erik gave it a few responses above: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

  • Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
  • Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature Problem

Back in late 2005-early 2006, the term Film was stabilized as Wikipedian for both the medium and the product with which this WP is dealing, with "Cinema" referring to the place of exhibition only. Yet I am finding innumerable article names, category names, and text references all of recent vintage, which utilize "Cinema" for the film product, and also "Movie" or "Motion Pictures". Obviously, text is open to revisionism of terms which anyone can edit and revert, but how are improperly-worded article and category titles making "end runs" around the administrators and jumbling up the section, especially since these "end runs" can only be interpreted to represent either functional illiteracy about Film at Wikipedia, or deliberate, POV-based ignorings of the rules by those who create and save them to the site? Only certain people can fix these article titles and category names, and there is clear need to form a janitorial team to clean up the rampant revisionisms and a security system to prevent others from committing future breaches. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.52 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could cite some specific examples, we could address the issue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"international" receipts

It has been brought up here that it is inherently POV to use the term "international" when referring to box office receipts outside of the US and Canada. One editor seems to be against changing the use of the term, while a couple others think it makes sense for the term "international" to include all nations receipts. Has this project addressed this issue in the past? Murderbike (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One term that we try to avoid usage is "domestic" because this is the English Wikipedia. I imagine that the proper way to refer to nations is either individually or call them "other territories". For example, "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 in other territories." Hope that helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Other territories" sounds like "colonies". Keep common usage: "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 world wide." Lets be realists. Shir-El too 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
How is it possible to earn less money world wide than you earned in two countries? "World wide" includes the United States and Canada. Just say "other countries", as we don't specify box office takes in specific states or towns, but countries as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. 'International' is how the industry uses it, it's how all the wikipedia pages that use it apply it, and it's fairly obvious to any reader who actually reads the pages. 'Other countries' implies selective counting, 'International' is inclusive of all non-singularly identified countries. We're not listing every single nation, there's no way a table could support that with a reasonable page layout. The categories are fine as is. This belongs on BJAODN or one of the other top stupid argument lists. ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious at a quick glance that "international" means something other than its plain English meaning, which is "across all nations". Whether this is in fact how the film industry as a whole uses it, or for that matter even the American and Canadian film industry, is a matter that has not been settled -- burden of proof is on ThuranX. If it is so, then this non-intuitive usage should be explained in each article that uses it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BUrden is on those seeking change to find good reasons to ignore the actual, often cited information and vocabulary. I suggest that instead you all write up an article on the applied use of 'international' so the heading can be linked. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that "international" would not mean non-US markets, but rather non-domestic markets. So US receipts for Amelie would be part of that film's international receipts, for example. As far as I'm aware, that's usually the meaning of international: non-domestic areas. Worldwide would be the completely inclusive term for all markets. Just my 2 pence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong with the whole table. As an example I shall use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a joint UK and US production.

  • I get the worldwide profits in US dollars, fair enough.
  • I then glance at the US/Canada column, again in US dollars. Nothing wrong with with that.
  • Then I see the column international. Huh? I already saw the worlwide profits. I haven't got a clue what this column is supposed to mean, but oh well.
  • I then see the UK column. Now this is weird. There's a dollar sign in front of the amount, yet the little note at the bottom says it's in British pounds, which have the symbol "£". Furthermore, it's not exactly easy to compare the different earnings in each country when they are in different currencies.
  • I finish off with the Australian column, the different currency throws me off again.

Here's my suggestion:

U.S. and box office gross figures are listed in U.S. dollars.
U.K box office gross figures are listed in U.K. pounds, Australian box office gross figures are listed in Australian dollars.
# Title Studio Box Office Gross
Worldwide United States and Canada[1] United Kingdom [2] Australia[3]
1 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Disney $961,002,663 $309,420,425 £81,415,664 $29,085,288
2 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Warner $938,450,062 $292,001,817 £101,360,911 $29,409,933
3 Spider-Man 3 Sony $890,871,626 $336,530,303 £67,049,819 $19,667,403
4 Shrek the Third DreamWorks $794,561,223 $321,012,359 £78,790,741 $28,500,981
5 Transformers Paramount $702,927,087 $319,071,806 £48,603,202 $23,885,803
6 Ratatouille Disney/Pixar $612,190,493 $206,435,493 £49,836,496 $13,240,587
7 The Simpsons Movie Fox $525,468,939 $183,121,527 £78,259,436 $26,511,779
8 300 Warner $456,068,181 $210,614,939 £27,994,700 $12,304,031
9 The Bourne Ultimatum Universal $441,802,915 $227,471,070 £48,142,337 $18,396,410
10 I Am Legend Warner $409,534,000 $228,055,662 £21,974,780 $8,499,825

A summary of my changes:

  • I deleted the "international" column. I don't see it as useful in anyway, it's just "profits outside US and Canada".
  • I changed the abbreviations (US;U.K.) to fuller names (United States; United Kingdom)
  • I changed the dollar sign to a pound sign in the UK column.
  • I linked the currencies to their articles, before only the Australian dollars had been linked and it looked kinda weird.

If anyone agrees with this, we can put it in the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense. I'd prefer the USA and UK abbr. again since the columns are wide otherwise, and how about linking the currencies in the top film's totals only?:
# Title Studio Box Office Gross
Worldwide USA/Canada[4] UK[5] Australia[6]
1 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Disney $961,002,663 $309,420,425 £81,415,664 $29,085,288
2 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Warner $938,450,062 $292,001,817 £101,360,911 $29,409,933
-- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t21:37z

Update on The Film Portal

Wow, Cirt, congratulations! You really did a great job putting it all together. We're all very proud to have such an excellent portal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Couldn't have done it with out all of the great Featured Content to utilize in the portal - so much of the thanks goes out to the WikiProject Films participants. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm a newbie: other than cudos what does this status entail? Thank you, Shir-El too 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much it, and it gets listed at Wikipedia:Featured portals. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

List of Western actors up for deletion

Apparently it's already been deleted once. Post comments for keeping/deletion Here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian task force

I would like to announce the creation of a new Australian cinema task force. All interested editors are encouraged to sign on as participants, and article tagging is currently underway!

Some editors may also have noticed that this task force was created without a request. This is because the "en." encyclopedia is already biased towards English-language cinema; I have no doubts therefore that the task force will do well. I will also likely be creating task forces for Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US in the coming months. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actor templates redux

Do we have any guidelines under WikiProject Films that state that it's inappropriate to create a template for actors? I keep seeing a new one every once in a while, the most recent being {{Bale}}. Such a template is a bad idea since it has usually included every role, minor to major, of an actor in an entire career. This is in opposition to a director template, in which there is only one (sometimes two), and the director is consistently one of the most important people involved with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated {{Johnny Depp films}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 15. Is there some kind of precedent we can build into MOSFILM regarding this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say just propose it at MOSFILM talk; I can't see it facing terribly much opposition. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The conversion of films materials is something that I've run across on a few pages, which requires a bit of work to revert to a filmography table. I'm not sure who started that precedent but it is something that has been brought up at the sister project Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I revert them as I find them. I'd actually be most grateful if anyone who finds these templates would notify me so I can salvage the material, which did take a bit of work to compile. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Project

A new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Terminator have started. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the WikiProject guide first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created the project as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. There's absolutely no good reason to run yourself into the ground with project admin overhead for the small quantity of articles the project would cover. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Terminator series have various articles, and it is a ground breaking film in film industry, in the history of film. The series is going on, many new suquels are coming. This project will help to co-ordinate all terminator related articles, articles on the characters in a good manner. The project will be dedicated for betterment of a specilized subject. Please add your membership (it would be good if you take the responsibility of project co-ordinator there) in the new project. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, he was just trying to be helpful in pointing out that the amount of work which goes into coordinating a Wikiproject can be overwhelming, especially if only a few people sign up for active participation. You'll be creating work for yourself, taking up time which could be more usefully directed towards making improvements to the articles. I wish you luck, however. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you have since edited your comment to ask Girolamo Savonarola to take on that responsibility. Seems a bit cheeky, but you might get lucky I suppose. Steve T • C 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. So if you don't think that the project will not be so helpful, you can delete it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am taking your arguments. Now how can I delete the project? By MfD? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No-one is being an arse about this; we're just trying to help. Should you wish to continue with the project, that's up to you, and I genuinely wish you luck. Steve T • C 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The project have been speedy deleted in request. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC re previous discussion about revealing unsubtitled English translation in Plot section

Pasted from Talk:Once (film):

A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section. Would it be inappropriate to include the phrase I love you into the plot because the phrase was spoken in Czech language and was not subtitled in English but a reliably sourced translation has been found. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic has been ongoing long before the above editor joined the conversation. Please refer to the long discussion above and to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F, where editors reached consensus that the information, if sourced, should be included in the article, but outside of the plot section, since the English translation was intentionally withheld in the film (other Czech dialogue was subtitled; this was not). The non-Czech character being spoken to and the non-Czech-speaking audience of this English language film would have received a completely different meaning of this scene and the movie itself, had the English translation (of "I love you") been provided. But it was withheld by the filmmakers and therefore should not be presented in the Plot section as if those words were given by the film. It is in the article, but in the Production section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think that it'd be inappropriate to detail the Czech phrase, which would require specialist knowledge to know. I've seen the film with English subtitles, and it does not translate the phrase. For whatever reason, it's not a detail intended to be readily acknowledged by audiences. I think its placement in the Production section, with the citation, is sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the article's talk page, I disagree that a clear concensus has been reached in the above mentioned discussion. Furthermore, I do not think it to be innapropriate to insert a unsubtitled phrase in a language other than English if a verifiable translation can be cited, which it was, so long as it is clearly stated that it was unsubtitled. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My issue with this is that there is an established division between the plot summary and real-world context across film articles. The plot summaries are primary sources -- the film themselves -- so a plain description is always used to avoid subjective and interpretative language. If scenes need to be analyzed, like with this certain phrase, then it can be done so in a real-world context section using independent coverage from reliable sources. The scene can certainly be explained briefly in relation to the phrase used in the real-world section, but I'm not sure if embedding secondary sources in the plot section is the best idea. Including one seems to take us down the road of analysis, which should be reserved for the other sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It was probably unsubtitled because it was an ad-lib on the part of the actor, who also tried out other ad libs in that moment, and the director didn't want the meaning of his film radically altered by that ad-lib. As it is, it's kind of like an Easter Egg for Czech speakers, which is fun. --Melty girl (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Easter Egg for Czechs. But the main point I was trying to defeat was your statement that if it's not presented on screen in English, it's not a part of the plot. I disagree that the plot is different for us than it is for Czechs. It can be verified, and, therefore, it is a part of the plot. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone knows the Czech language. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we can easily assume that people who come here will be versed in the English language. However, take a look at WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The sentence is indeed verifiable, but if we're looking at the primary source only, Czech language is the specialist knowledge needed to understand that. I think that implementing the secondary source in the article starts changing the section from a basic description of the film to what the film means. For what the film means, that content should be covered in real-world context sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is much more suggestive of explaining what the film means to say that a line of the film "must" be kept out due to "intended ambiguity" on the part of the filmmaker, which is what was suggested before, then to list it translated and verified, clearly state it is unsubtitled and not delve into what it could have meant. Hypothetically speaking, if, indeed, the film makers wanted to keep a secret or be creatively ambiguous, why wouldn't they have worked in their own version of the final scene from Lost in Translation rather than put something out there that can be understood by an estimated 12 million speakers worldwide? Of course, if that information is to be made available on Wikipedia, it has to be sourced and verified. However, from a point of view of a filmmaker trying to keep a secret, one would know very well that the secret couldn't be kept due to the number of people who both speak Czech and have internet access to parlay to the rest of us what was said. Hence, if a secret is known to not stay a secret, it ceases to be a secret. SWik78 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think leaving out the translation would be suggestive. Here's how it's broken down:
  1. Everyone can acknowledge in their viewing of the film that the Girl utters a Czech phrase to the Guy that she won't translate.
  2. Those who can speak Czech and watch the film know what she's saying on the account that they are familiar with the language.
I don't know anything about Lost in Translation, so I don't know what to make of that example. What I mean to say is that #1 is agreeable on a descriptive level for all filmgoers, even those who know the Czech language. #2 is not as applicable because of the specialist knowledge of the Czech language. A lot of things could be pointed out by independent sources in the plot section, such as the fact that the Guy's flat was the actor's flat. I know what you're trying to say, but I think the way to approach elements in the film that are not universally clear is to leave it to independent sources. This observation just isn't clear-cut for all viewers, IMO. There's no hiding that's being done because the plot summary is intended to complement the film article. The real-world context is the meat of the article -- it can exist with or without the plot section. It's just that the plot section is included to provide a stronger background to the entire context. Now, I think I've really argued my points (and have repeated some, sorry about that), and I hope others can weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being very honest and fair by saying what you just said so I will do the same and let someone else have a say on this. Thanks for the input. SWik78 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the article talk page. I'd like to request all interested parties to continue the conversation there. (Re-copy and paste as need be.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Juno: Canadian? American? Canadian/American?

I'm a novice at determining the nationality of a film. I see all over the web that Juno is Canadian, but seems to have been funded by Americans. The director is Canadian, the writer is American. It seems to have been shot in Canada. Etc. How is the determination made whether it is Canadian, American, or a co-production? Where should I try to find the information. Variety wasn't helpful, and IMDb lists it as USA/Canada/Hungary! --Melty girl (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Canada/USA to me. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It also depends on your criteria. Nationality of director/writer/producers, where the money is coming from, where it's filmed, etc? There's no hard answer for this, but since we also don't require there to be a single country per film, there's no reason to be overly restrictive, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks y'all. Seems like Canadian/American is the proper adjective for the lead. --Melty girl (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template change request

There has been a request to change the {{Infobox Album}} that I think needs a bit of input before it's done. Your input at Template talk:Infobox Album would be appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this was meant for the Film project? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help in fixing an item

This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for Alison Steadman where you will see this {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of film templates

There's a discussion going on here about the deletion nomination of a number of film templates. I've added in my thoughts as well, since I personally find them useful. Esn (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on application of trivia guidelines

I was reading through the guidelines on trivia, and was wondering if I could get an experienced opinion. A few months I reverted some vandalism for EuroTrip, and found it on my watchlist a couple days ago. When I saw the trivia section, I tried to remove it, but it was reverted by an anon. I read through the policy here on trivia, and with the exception of the first two entries, nothing appears to hold any encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the entire trivia and errors section appears to be OR and unsourced. I spend my time with video games, and have dealt with trivia before there, and I was wondering if I could get some opinions on what to do. I was thinking of removing all but the first two, put those two in a "production" section (to discourage trivia in this amount from returning and encouraging more development of a section like that) with a fact tag. This is not really my area of expertise, but I can spot a bad article when I see one. Thanks.--CM (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it and the errors section. Both are unsourced, OR and have no place in the article. For the two good items, move in as you suggested and give a few weeks to be fixed. The anon user who put it back gave no justification and doesn't do much editing so they hopefully didn't realize it was inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Collectonian's suggestion above. This article could use some form of real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I took care of my original plan, but any help watching out for the inevitable revert by an anon would be helpful. Further problems exist, however; I have never seen this film, so I lack the ability to adequately summarize the overly long plot, and you already mentioned the lack of real-world content. Could I get some help with the formatting of the cast section? It appears to contain too many characters, but I am not familiar with how to properly structure it.--CM (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Knocked Up/Judd Apatow/Katherine Heigl

I'm sorry if this sort of thing doesn't belong here, but I've noticed something worrying about a small collection of articles all pertaining to the 2007 film Knocked Up. A single anonymous user has contributed a disproportionately high amount of content concerning supposed 'sexist'/'discriminatory' themes in Apatow's work; in Knocked Up particularly. The content is relatively well-written and well-sourced, although it seems that the sources are being misused: for example; as is clearly stated in the article, an "online survey of 927 individuals was performed by lifestyle publication Buzzsugar (a media product of Sugar Publishing) in which the majority (59%) of movie-goers agreed that Apatow's film was sexist or could be viewed as sexist (while 38% were not personally offended) and 37% of viewers saw the film as devoid of sexist aspects". I followed it up, and, well, frankly, the results are nothing like that.

Of course, I would like to Assume Good Faith. With 100% of his/her edits concerning this 'controversy', however, the user obviously wants to give this undue significance. The female characters in 'Knocked Up' were a bit uptight, but surely all this isn't as notable as these articles, as they are now, would have us believe. Knyght27 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the section is a back-and-forth between both sides about sexism or lack thereof, it should be re-titled to encompass both arguments. In addition, I notice bits of synthesis like the poll you mentioned, the unrelated aspect of Heigl being conservative, and the Queenan review that does not explicitly talk about sexism. I also see the same context copied over to Judd Apatow, and seeing the user's contributions, there may be undue weight as you say. The matter should be brought up at WP:BLP for Judd Apatow in particular -- actually, I'm going to remove it because it's film-centric, not director-centric. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards

The nominations are out, and can be found here, for those of you who are interested in adding the information to the relevant articles. I'll do a couple myself should I have the time this afternoon. Here's a quickie citation template to use:

  • <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.oscars.org/80academyawards/nominees/index.html | title=80th Academy Awards nominations | publisher=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]] | accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref>

All the best, Steve T • C 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the setup! In case some people haven't seen them, there are also nominations by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, which can be seen here. Here's the template for it:
  • <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html | title=Film Awards Nominees in 2008 | publisher=[[British Academy of Film and Television Arts]] | accessdate=2008-01-22 }}</ref>
I mentioned a while ago that we should focus on these nominees' articles due to the heightened visibility, and from what I've noticed, a good portion of them have pretty solid real-world context. Cheers to those who were able to contribute, and let's keep up the good work! I think some articles that could use more context are Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Michael Clayton, and Away from Her. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources! --Melty girl (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland, Reese Witherspoon FACs

The articles on Reese Witherspoon and, even more significantly, Judy Garland have been nominated for FAC; both are in need of more decisive reviews, particularly Judy Garland, which has been peculiarly ignored. Both reviews are in danger of being archived, and I think that many people in this WikiProject may be veyr appropriate reviewers. Please take a look if you can. For examples to compare with, you can find a list of other actor FA articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Featured_articles. --Melty girl (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dagon James

This article has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagon James. Pairadox (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC page?

I would like to suggest the creation of a subpage on this WikiProject that would display all film-related FAC processes. We already have an assessment subpage and a peer review subpage, and I feel that it would be beneficial to the community to have a subpage that shows active FAC processes. It could be modeled similarly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film in having a brief description (especially referring to MOSFILM and general FA criteria) and the simple list of FAC processes. I'm suggesting this because some FAC processes seem to have come and gone without much community awareness. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I support 100%, a lot of hard-working people have goals on getting the articles of movies they love so much featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of articles undergoing the FAC process are Transformers (film) and The Simpsons Movie. There could be more, but I'm not aware of them. Thus, centralizing them would be a good collaborative effort by everyone so the articles can be reviewed by multiple editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Featured article candidates, which has three FAC processes listed now. I'm not sure how to go about possible bot archiving, though, like the deletion listing page has. Any feedback would be appreciated. In addition, if this subpage is OK, where in the table could it be inserted? It doesn't fall under a department, so I guess general information? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but I must admit unfamiliarity in this area. We have the announcement board, which seems to have some impact, but a dedicated and watchable page would be another good step. By all means steam ahead! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Note
  • Feel free to let me know about successful results from film FACs, at Portal talk:Film. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a core list

The question of the importance parameter has been raised sporadically in the past. In lieu of this, a core list has been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Core. I'll let you read the page instead of rehashing the details, but if you'd like to help out, your comments and questions on the list's talk page are welcome! Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation: Review Department now up and running; A-Class reviews

Well, taking the ball from the FAC page, I've decided to consolidate all of the review processes into one page, so as to keep it simple. Following on the model of MilHist yet again, A-Class review has been brought on board as well. This will allow us to distinguish between the informal process of general article guidance (Peer review), formal content review (A-Class review), and final, tightly-polished review (Featured article candidate). All of the relevant reviews are transcluded, so there is no need for editors to wander amongst several locations - this is the one-stop shop for all editors interested in film to go! :) Your comments are always welcome. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help - Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Please can someone help me with this - see the talk page for more discussion about the issue. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible III needs your assistant.

Click here for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please don't reply to this section, instead reply where it's leading you to. The reason for that is because this discussion can get mixed up with all kinda movie discussion by the time it archives, it's easier for the future if people can can just look at the movie talk page to see why the article was cleaned up, instead of having to look for it on the highly active WikiProject.

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [5] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Is the news section of IGN's "Rotten Tomatoes" considered a reliable source for industry news? -- Vary | Talk 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how the information is reported. I'm wary of movie websites over actual newspaper coverage. They usually go two ways -- a report from an anonymous source, or information upfront from the filmmakers. If it's the former, it can't be dependable. If it's the latter, then it'd be appropriate. Of course, I'd favor newspaper coverage over movie websites whenever possible, but sometimes the websites get more information than newspapers. That's how I've seen it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned in particular about a copy of a film's production notes from a press kit, which was posted by a contributor there along with a stack of stills and other promotional materials.
Rotten Tomatoes actually one of a number of online sources that have published the same document; that's just the link that happens to be in use at the moment, so I guess I should have said "sites like Rotten Tomatoes", as it's not really that site in particular that's the issue. -- Vary | Talk 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Which article in particular is this relating to? Want someone to take a look at the source? Steve T • C 08:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. They're the production notes for Cloverfield, posted in this article. I think they'd fall more under the 'word from the producers' category Erik mentioned above? -- Vary | Talk 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be unlikely to dispute these production notes unless someone really wanted to believe that the notes are susceptible because they're being posted on a possibly questionable website. I'm in support of the notes -- I've actually cited them in my revision of Cloverfield (creature) due to the AFD apparently not being successful midway through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Must concur with Erik here. (Speaking of which, we're probably due for a discussion regarding guidelines for film character pages.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, that would probably involve those at WP:FICT, since it has a lot to do with the issue of notability. The guideline's been revised, so I don't know if that would be genuinely applicable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There's more to be said, but I want to wait for FICT to settle down, first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deindent. Thanks for the input, guys. One more question: there's also been a discussion on the source at the RS noticeboard, which started a little while after this thread. Only one uninvolved editor weighed in there. He's said the problem with the source was that Giles doesn't give an author's name ("Documents that have no author are puzzling to cite.") Is it unusual for marketing materials like these to have no author listed? I was under the impression that when there's no author available, we should use the publisher. (I asked the same questions there yesterday, but the only response I've gotten was from an involved party.) -- Vary | Talk 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, publisher is fine (just leave the author field blank). Another example would be official press releases, which Wikipedia also considers acceptable sources despite lacking a named author. Steve T • C 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks again, everyone. -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not thank him to fast. You do not have a legally fit publisher, and thus you cannot have it under Wikipedia Verifiability. There is no on document author or copyright, nor is there preventive measure to keep it from being forged. There is no information on the movie's main page, nor is their source of information except vague rumor for that which you are wanting to use the source to "prove". Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I must interject to mention that what Vary posted is not the case. Instead of getting the results she wanted at the proper forum, she came here, did not mention any background detail on the source. If anyone is interested and wishes to reevaluate, please go here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rotten_Tomatoes_Critic_Blogs. Ottava Rima (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Before you accuse me of forum shopping, Ottava, I invite you to take another look at the timestamps on the two discussions.[6][7] On the lack of 'background detail', I kept the comment bare-bones because I was making a point of keeping my question as neutral as possible: the point of getting a third view isn't to make your argument all over again to some new people, it's to get a few sets of fresh eyes to look at the issue themselves. What precisely in what I said above is 'not the case'?
As for your other concerns in your message to me above, I've already responded (and responded and responded) to those points. There is no point in me, personally, discussing the source's merits any further with you, which is why I brought the discussion up here, where there are likely to be people familiar with what content on Rotten Tomatoes is and is not acceptable as a source. -- Vary | Talk 14:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've responded. No one is denying that you responded. However, that forum is for third parties to respond and for the parties involve to mostly listen. Why else go into third party moderation on a verifiable source? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Theatre, Film and Drama backlog at GAC

There are currently 38 articles awaiting review at GAC relating to Theatre, Film and Drama; several of them have been waiting more than a month. Any help in reducing this backlog would be very helpful! María (habla conmigo) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kart Racer.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kart Racer.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The uploader has been blocked from Wikipedia.--Rockfang (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

World cinema templates standardised

I noted the following back in July:

A user pointed out to me that 2 templates exist, Template:East Asian Cinema and Template:East Asian cinema. The former had only 2 linking articles (under special:whatlinkshere/) and the latter had 12, so I took the easy route and amended the 2, meaning the template with "Cinema" with an uppercase C can now be deleted.

However, I took a look at the other similar templates and they're not standardised:

  • Template:Worldcinema - lowercase c, no space. This is the main World Cinema template containing links to all countries.
  • Template:World Cinema - Uppercase C. Contains links to 6 continental cinema "parent" articles and the 4 sub-continental Asia articles.

So are we happy with the format of these templates? Should they be standardised?

Gram123 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am happy with the templates. And, they should be standardized, both in design and naming conventions. I prefer the format that is used on the majority of the templates, such as Template:Southeast Asian cinema, with the light purple background. Lowercase c, with a space makes the most sense. Something additional to address would be a replacement for the film reel that was formerly in the templates, but went away with the deletion of the stock images. I had tried using a map image inside a clapperboard, similar to the flag icons that have been created, but I am displeased with the results and would urge a different direction, possibly finding another freely licensed film-related photo, like a camera lens or film reel. — WiseKwai 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I just remembered about this, and so have now made some amendments. I haven't touched Template:Worldcinema and Template:World Cinema, because I don't quite know what to do with those. However, I've standardised all of the other template titles, and fixed all redirects to each. So we now have:
  • Template:East Asian Cinema - this is an old duplicate, and is now due for speedy deletion.

Gram123 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how standardization could be a bad idea. Please do feel free to be bold and make the necessary changes (providing that everything stays fully functional and working). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

About two years ago, standardization was developed with film being the correct term for the product, and "cinema" used only to refer to the theaters. Now someone seems to have reverted the standard to using "cinema" for films/movies/motion pictures. With this evident lack of regard for work already done and standards already established, talking about "standardization" seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is too subject to the wills of different cliques, each vying for, and eventually achieving, dominance and not building on the work of predecessors but simply endlessly rewriting already-set material in new terms - cosmetic changes rather than substantive ones. Changing shape and color is not the same as growing; solve that Wiki dilemma before wasting time on temporary "standardizations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.198.54 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resevoir Dogs

Hey, I put Reservoir Dogs up for peer review and I would greatly appreciate any help I can get with this article, thanks in advance.--The Dominator (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about lists in various movie articles

Are parody lists necessary? I think they fall under fancruft and just plain clutter, and perhaps Wikipedia is not a directory. See Epic Movie and Date Movie as two examples. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the problem is that for articles like these, it's not easy to explain to new editors that just because some elements are obvious to them doesn't mean they're appropriate to point out indiscriminately. Parodies are tricky in this regard because a lot of their elements can make sense to us in the present that it does not warrant contemporary analysis, but it may not make sense when looked back 50 years from now, when pop culture has definitely moved on. Historical perspective is what matters on Wikipedia. Fifty years from now, the elements in a parody film cannot be verified by editors without secondary sources if they no longer live in the same environment as present viewers. I'd suggest removing the lists if you can. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If a reader can watch the film that contains the parody, and also watch the film that is being parodied, the information is verifiable. I suppose if you want to get technical, a citation that Darrell Hammond is parodying Jack Sparrow in Epic Movie would be appreciated, but if a reader has seen Pirates of the Caribbean, it's evident. I guess it depends on which of these two essays[8][9] an editor agrees with. --Pixelface (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a tendency to dislike these kind of "look at two sources and make the connection" (even though it can be pretty obvious). I try to look at Wikipedia articles from a historical perspective, and I'm not sure if people watching either film 50 years from now would be as culturally attuned. Thus, such "evident" similarities would not always remain that way. Another concern is that listing every parody would equate a blow-by-blow account for the film. If the whole film is built on parodying elements, then we're pretty much detailing the whole film in the article. I think that comedy and popular culture are topical challenges because what's funny to one person may not be funny to another, and we're bombarded with pop culture references every single day. I haven't really delved into these topics because there's not really a gold standard set for either one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that at least one film critic has made a similar connection, which can be cited if necessary. If a film is a parody film, I wouldn't call it fancruft. If you mention every parody in the Plot section, it might be a blow-by-blow account, but I don't see a problem with parodies in an alphabetical list. The articles Hot Shots! and Hot Shots! Part Deux have similar sections. --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No list is "necessary" (nor any article for that matter). --Pixelface (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Monster Movie

I'm currently massively expanding the wiki page for monster movies. So far I've made a histroy section then I'm going to make one one conventions and another on symbolism. However for the intro paragraph, currently there is a statement that says there isn't an actual critical classification of genre of that name... does anyone have a citation to support this OR says otherwise? Stabby Joe (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that monster movies were originally recognized as "creature features", as evidenced by the book Creature Features. They're not really called that nowadays, but "monster movie" may be an evolution of the term. With that said, I think the article seems to focus on oversized monsters for some reason -- there's a lot of classic monsters that could be mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Google Books shows that "monster movie" has very relevant hits. I'd rephrase the article accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well currently it is mentioned that when crtics classify films, they don't use monster in genre description however (cheers who the book link BTW) that does show critics DO call films by that name. How would one word that via intro? As for the oversized monsters, it would appear that term is given to films features those than lets say Dracula... which is mentioned still. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me what Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem is if it isn't a monster movie. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
More of a sci-fi action/horror considering the aliens are against eachother and the monsters (predator) are less conventional "monsters". The term appears to usually given to films with large monsters... but of course part of my point of my previous questions, questioned this. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

CORE: Last request

As mentioned above and in the announcements for over a week, a proposal to create a core list and scrap the importance parameter has been brought up. We are still without any comments, however, so if you have any opinions one way or another, please voice them within the next few days. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Review Request

I was wondering if somebody from this Wikiproject could give a rating for the article on Juno. I am will soon be offering a challenge of at the Awards Center for the improvement of this article with the eventual goal of helping to get this article to FA status. Knowing where this article stands currently would be incredibly helpful. Thanks --Sharkface217 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on the talk page banner, it looks like it's been assessed at Start, which seems appropriate as of the diff I just looked at. If you want further feedback, this WikiProject has a review department where you can add the film for a peer review. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction

In the film review, it is claimed that Dylan's father never applaudes. Actually, he does applaude for Akeelah in the final competition, and then "catches" himself, showing a bit of humanity that underlies his tough persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgillam (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to plot detail from Akeelah and the Bee. My suggestion is that such a nuance from the story should be excluded as a minor detail from the film. The Plot section should convey the general events of the film, such as the final competition and the protagonist's outcome in it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

External link review request

To the members of the project. Today User:Widgett began adding links such as this one [10] to film pages. It seems a little spammy to me. I also wonder about the promotional aspect since the reviews have more to do with the Criterion Collection's DVD of the film than the film itself. I wanted to have other eyes look at this before a final judgment is made so any help and direction that you can give will be appreciated. Here is a quick link to this editors contributions so you can see what films have had this link added. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the single-website behavior is soliciting in nature. There's many, many film reviews out there, ranging from those widely circulated in newspapers to those published on blogs. The reviews in question seem to be added indiscriminately under the impression that it's OK to have a link farm, rather than providing a very relevant link to a specific film. Considering the blanket solicitation, I doubt the relevance of each link has been explored by the editor. I've removed them for the most part. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Erik. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Film stubs

There are currently about 260 films in this category currently that need to be sub-categorized. Please take a couple of minutes to help empty this category! SkierRMH (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on quite a few of these - I'll try and clear some more before the category fills up again. Lugnuts (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Filmography content question

I've started to work on a few filmographies and nominating them at WP:FLC. Namely, Christopher Walken filmography, Woody Allen filmography, and Vittorio Storaro filmography. In the midst of these various nominations, one particular point of contention has been whether the gross of films is relevant to such a list. Specifically, if such data is relevant, if so, how best to present it, and if this applies to all filmographies or just some. So, they way I've been doing it so far is with a top-10 kind of list, based on date from Box Office Mojo. In the above examples, filmographies or an actor, director, and cinematographer respectively, I included the top-10 list similarly throughout, for the sake of consistency. I have also argued that the gross is both an indicator of the popularity of a film, as well as the type of film the person tends to work, and therefore a good measure of the person's career. I've also included gross averages and total gross of their entire body of work as well. However, various arguments have been made questioning the relevance to filmographies as a whole, as well as if they are relevant to only directors, only actors, and not cinematographers, etc. An alternative that I suggested, is to swap the top-10 list with an extra column in the main table providing the gross of all films, wherever the data is available. This too has been a point of contention, however, so we're stuck. So, I thought I'd bring the question here, to the experts so to speak. Any ideas? Drewcifer (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that there is mild misrepresentation when tying box office performance with an actor or a cinematographer. As opposed to the director, who is always significant in the production of a film, an actor's role in a film may vary from major to minor. For example, looking at Christopher Walken filmography, Walken was in Wedding Crashers, and while he had a supporting role, he wasn't in the lead. Thus, I believe it's not encyclopedic to mention such films because there is no evidence that Walken served as a basis for the high gross. If he didn't do that, then what is the point of mentioning that information? It seems akin to pointing out that he was in the well-received Pulp Fiction where nothing was actually attributed to him. I think that the bankability of an actor can be reflected, but prose needs to be drawn upon, rather than raw data. For example, Matt Damon and Will Smith were accredited with being very bankable. Damon showed this with his role as Jason Bourne, and Smith's film-carrying lead role in I Am Legend was a personal best for the actor. As for cinematographers, I think that the argument is somewhat weaker. I really don't find it commonplace to point out that a specific cinematographer was tied to the resulting gross of a film that he shot. Accolades are obviously acceptable -- just not box office performance. There's a lot of raw data for people involved in film. I think that to avoid being indiscriminate, prose should be a factor because it's independent acknowledge of something important in the raw data, like Roger Deakins working on so many Coen Brothers films. Hope you get what I mean by all this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed similar arguments at the FLC process... sorry to be regurgitating it. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I made my views on the matter clear in the Walken and Storaro FLCs, but it probably would be appropriate to bring this up here in order to be more germane to all filmographies and get more POVs from other editors who may not normally patrol FLC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I can certainly see this perspective on the issue, my argument has been this: the data presented isn't necessarily there to show how big of a box-office draw Actor A or Cinematographer B or Director C might be (though that may be a useful interpretation in some cases), but as a quantifiable way to understand the films they have worked on. We can learn alot about Storaro's work, for instance, based on the box-office draw of his films: he tends to work on films of a certain scale, or a certain caliber, etc. This fact is echoed by the totals/averages of the films. I see these tables acting in a similar capacity as chart positions in discographies: X people consumed this product, as opposed to this product. From the same data, we can also establish a hierarchy of sorts, even if we were unaware of each film in the first place. For Walken's filmography, there is obviously a difference between his work in Catch me if You Can and The Milagro Beanfield War. However, I freely acknowledge the weaknesses of the tables, namely that box office grosses change as inflation changes and interest in films change. It's not as solid of a quantifier as a chart position since we're dealing with a changing scale. Also, it can be mis-interpreted, granted. Which is why I'm happy to bring the issue here and get some more opinions on the matter. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We can learn alot about Storaro's work, for instance, based on the box-office draw of his films: he tends to work on films of a certain scale, or a certain caliber, etc. - If you were discussing the films' budgets (and somehow could account for inflation or the average cost of films in that year), then you might have an argument. But you're discussing the box office gross which is not correlative to anything involving Storaro. I would implore you to please not fetishize the grosses as if they actually validate the quality of the work done on-set. At best they demonstrate the effectiveness of the marketing department. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd say I'm fetishizing it. I'm trying to acknowledge it for what it is: an method of quantifying public opinion/reaction/consumption in the best way possible. It's definitely imperfect, but it's also has the potential to be useful and educational. Drewcifer (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
To bring an example of Storaro's into stark relief, I am fairly certain that despite being known as a "bomb", Ishtar's $12m take massively overshadowed whatever The Conformist made as a foreign film 17 years earlier. Nonetheless, the former is not a notable film wrt Storaro's career, while The Conformist is generally considered by cinematographers to be one of the most influential films in their field ever, and is usually cited as his masterwork. It's box office take, largely contingent on its circulation (or lack thereof) in theaters of the period, cannot in any reasonable measure be shown to correlate with its influence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Additionally, you didn't address my comment re budget vs. box office and which is more relevant to your claimed relevance arguments. I'd also say that the inclusion of statistics outside of the appropriate context essentially is a NOT statistics issue, amounting to indiscriminate information for the context of the article, which is to say, Storaro's career, not that of the producers he worked with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I brought the topic here so we can get some more opinions, not so we can keep repeating ourselves. But to respond nonetheless: Conformist is most definitely more influential than Ishtar, but there's no way of quantifying influence. But there is a way to quantify consumption. Movies are made to be consumed, therefore I think it's a relevant statistic. And budget has nothing to do with consumption either. Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But this is my point - just because there is a concrete quantifiable statistic doesn't mean that it's relevant. Indeed, extrapolating importance from box office is essentially OR. And my point about budget vs. box office take is that the latter has nothing to do with your hypothetical demonstration that he tends to work on films of a certain scale or a certain caliber - only the budget would show the scale, while awards would probably be a better measure or caliber (and just as quantifiable). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well it looks like my best efforts to get further conversation going have failed, so I guess I'm slightly overruled on the matter. So, to hopefully gain something useful from the discussion, what would anyone's recommendations be? Should box office gross be completely eliminated from all filmographies, or should they remain on some (ie actors, directors, producers, etc)? Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Independence Day (film).

2008 Hollywood strike in "Cinema of the United States" template

I think 2008 Hollywood strike should be added to the template {{CinemaoftheUS}}. Please see the discussion at Template talk:CinemaoftheUS#Strike 2008. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:23, 09/30/2007

lists > categorization

The template {{americanfilmlist}} contains links to pages that are nothing but incomplete lists of American films for given years (1890—2008). As I mentioned before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 17#.7B.7BAmericanfilmlist.7D.7D), these lists will (a) probably be perpetually incomplete, (b) be better served by categorization, (c) are magnets for non-free media violations, and (d) so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (i) some of the articles listed within (ii) {{americanfilmlist}} itself (iii) various internal Wikipedia pages (talk, WP:, etc.)

I intend to create the categorizations pertinent to replacing these lists (i.e. Category:American films of 2001), and making them subcategories of the apropos film year category the articles may or may not already be in. I bring this up here for further discussion than there was before, before I boldly go. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


comment ABSOLUTELY NOT. Given time they will be filled in and completed and will be showing details which categories will never be able to achieve. Terrible idea. And are you kidding me that you don't think pages like American films of 1936, American films of 1960 etc aren't useful?; many of the lists are more complete than you are making out. These lists are supposed to serve a purpose which categories can never do. Given time they could even each be written into articles with text summarising the years in American film and then the detailed tabled lists underneath. Aside from the fact I've put in an enormous amount of effort in setting these pages up they are only incomplete because not one single person from WP:Films aside from Andrzejbanas, Rossrs and Nehrams with 2007 has bothered to even think about helping out. We made a WP:Film consensus about a year ago that to categorize as PD Thor has suggested would be gross over categorization -remember I initially started with this and people quickly made a decision it wasn't a good idea and lists would be the best alternative. All they need is people so make some sort of effort to chip in with them to get them completed. The fact is that if each of the "400" film members put in even ten minutes work on them each it would be done in a few days period ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

These tables give much more information than categories do. Categories only give you the films name. These tables give directors, actors and genres - along with a spot for notes. Thus a reader can go in many directions while perusing these as opposed to a category page. If a new consensus needs to be reached regarding these my vote is to keep them. MarnetteD | Talk 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The tables are a great idea. Sure, some of them are stuby and lack detail, but only for the reasons Blofeld has given above. They do serve a purpose and are handy for identifing important gaps in missing articles for films, directors and actors. Lugnuts (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above in support of these lists. Categorization isn't much more than a navigation tool in this regard, and I think these lists are already quite useful, and have the potential to be even more so. It seems to me that gradually they are being improved and added to, and they just need some more time and attention to begin to mature. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well. Granted, the lists aren't complete, but then, nothing on Wikipedia is ever technically completed. The lists grow as articles are created, and that takes time. Categories don't contain the details that a list can and should. I can, and will, certainly start checking to see if individual films are contained within these lists as I am working on filmographies for actors. It's a simple matter to take that one extra step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
<unindent> Agreement here as well. Categorization here would only be useful in a navigational sense and would give only the film names. These pages work not only for navigation, but also as a guide to what needs to be done (missing articles). There's also a good parallel to the similar work being done for other countries, which gives some consistency to the project as a whole. SkierRMH (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur that the tables would be more appropriate than categories. A) Wikipedia itself is perpetually incomplete, B) Tables, like others have said, can go in better depth than categories, C) Standards can be set for using non-free images, if at all -- there are lists that don't use any images, and D) The linking in this context seems appropriate, as these aren't articles that would necessarily be wiki-linked all over the board unlike a specific film or actor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or try to use only free images. For films pre 1960 the commons has many trailer shots which are free images. With film I do feel that limited images are very useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In broad agreement with everyone else here, though I would just like to say that I slightly resent your implied criticism of the rest of the project's members, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their own particular corners of this vast project. That few have chipped in on your particular area should not be grounds for such criticism, just the same as your lack of participation in other editors' areas should not grounds for criticising you. There's enough work to ensure that one can spend weeks on something project-related without ever encountering another member. All the best, and I wish you luck in your continued improvements. Steve T • C 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, vehemence, that was unexpected; I only had one comment/reply the previous time I brought this up. The chief problems with these pages are their insular nature and the prevelance of unnecessary decorative copyrighted images in them.

If this project ultimately has plans for integrating these pages into the whole of Wikipedia, I don't intend to piss in your Cheerios. Since this collection of pages are almost wholly insular, I thought they were the abandoned chaff from some previous project initiative. My only input on them would be to name them as lists as the majority on Wikipedia are; i.e. List of American films of 2001, w/o the "list of" differentiation it might be construed to be an encyclopedic article discussing the whole of American filmmaking of that year. Capiche?

Many of these list articles (how many, I didn't check) have a copyrighted image heading the list as representative of whichever film won the Academy Award for Best Picture; that is wholly unnecessary and failing of WP:NFCC#1, #3a, and #8. If the project is going to remove them, I'll leave them to your auspices, or if you're obliged, I'll remove them. Cheers. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah thats right, you're the loon who fussed about the Dances with Wolves image and ended up deleting it from the whole encyclopedia if I'm not mistaken. And now you want to "remove" the lot. You act as if there are twenty on each page. I personally think one single image of the Academy winning film or top grossing film of that year is useful, with film to disregard images completely seems implausible when film is about the visual. If possible I do think images can be replaced with free images if possible (earlier films more likely) e.g see American films of 1951 but remember each of the singular images have a detailed rationale for use. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Steve I always appreciate the work that others do across the project and didn't inend to imply as if nobody was doing anything. I am fully aware that many members of the film project are doing great things. What I was referring to was that despite a request on the monthly newsletter for people to add least help a bit nobody did anything. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
American films of 2001 is quite suitable particularly as I intend that we turn them into more than just lists eventually ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else have any further input on this subject? With regard to the use of copyrighted images in lists of films: I find them unnecessarily decorative, but if this project's consensus is for their retention, I'll bring the subject to WT:NFCC for their specific review. OTOH, If this project has no objections, I'd be happy to remove them from these lists myself.

And did anybody have any input on the subject of duly renaming these lists as such? blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs)'s ... reply gave no input regarding this on his or her (or the project's) behalf. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that images should be removed, as there isn't much context for why one over another (and picking the Best Picture winner is tantamount to endorsement of the award, thus POV). Deletion would be a bad idea, I think, as it leads to the proliferation of excessive categories for a given film, assuming international co-production, etc. We've been trying to keep the categories to simple non-intersections, not only for category proliferation control, but also because it has been promised (although without a specific date) that dynamic cat intersection is going to be added to the wiki software shortly. (ie, one would request Category:American films of 2001 by asking for the common articles which are in Category:American films and Category:2001 films.) Additionally, recategorization is a time-consuming process, especially with the number of articles our project covers, so changes to category schemes generally are encouraged to proceed slowly and with a great deal of prior discussion and deliberation. As for the renaming, what did you have in mind, again? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no no. I'm not advocating their deletion any more, I originally thought they were a forgotten niche project of this WikiProject, since the last time I brought it up only one person had anything to say about them. If you guys want 'em, I'm happy to leave you to them, no biggie! I'm just now suggesting renaming them as "List of..."; for example renaming American films of 1970 to List of American films of 1970. Since they really are more lists than prosed encyclopedic articles, it would seem more appropriate titling than current. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't have an objection to renaming. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any further support or opposition to my suggestions here (not the categorization, as before)? I'd rather not endure the in-wiki lashing of blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) w/o a wider discussion from the rest of this Project. I'm appreciative of Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs)'s support and his position in this WikiProject, but would rather not think to rely on any protection from him. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its fine as it is. As I said eventually they will become more than just lists ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Films series lists clean up

I am currently trying to clean up the film series lists. This is hard going do to a lot of items that are very confusing and whose pages are messes. I would like to get other filmians opinions on several things. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Films from television series episodes

Should these really be considered films if they are just compilations of episodes? The series Star Wars: Droids put out two such films, yet all they are is episodes cut together. The same is true for the Quatermass films. So, if there is little or no new content from the episodes, shouldn't these be considered episode compilations instead of films? Shouldn't there be significant new material for them to stand on their own? Also, this could open the door for every two or three part episode out there to be considered a stand alone film. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be considered episode compilations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we should have a new category, something along the lines of Television series edited into films. - LA @ 10:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional thoughts

As I think of more, they may be added. Currently I am wading through a lot of the Japanese films series added to the lists which may need to be combined into one long list each without all the sub-series. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Film related questions going unanswered...PLEASE look and reply

I am trying to clean up various film lists, but can't do that if the people who know the subjects are not going to answer a few questions. Please help me get these lists straightened out. - LA @ 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No replies:

One or two replies:

(I've listed this on the announcements in order to garnish further attention.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask for important quotes to be explained and possibly linked. I just looked up the Colombian film "María llena eres de gracia" ("Maria full of grace"). I believe the title refers to the bible or a prayer but this is not addressed in the article although I think it might be important to understanding references not only in the title but also in the whole film. --- 89.247.90.25 (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The title is explained in the very first paragraph. MovieMadness (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unknown title

Alright when I was a kid I saw a movie where a kid is playing with a toy on Earth but it breaks, so he gives it to his dad to fix, but the Earth is about to explode and he gets separated from his dad as he goes onto one space ship and his dad on another. Then at the end of the movie he finds his dad's ship and it has his fixed toy along with the DNA of every species on Planet Earth, and him and his girlfriend decide to make New Earth. This movie is most likely in the 1990s. Help endlessly appreciated. 76.16.188.239 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Titan A.E. - LA @ 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU! I have been trying to find this title for years! 76.16.188.239 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome. - LA @ 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Film - call for notice re: new Featured Content

I added the new Featured Content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/January 2008 Newsletter to Portal:Film. In the future I think that consulting the WP:FILMS newsletter will be a great way to quickly check the new featured content against what's currently in the portal - but if you notice anything that is missing, please don't hesitate to drop a note at Portal talk:Film, and I'll update the portal. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Taglines.

The article currently has 7 examples from films. Suggestions on reducing it to maybe just 5, and which ones? 5 of 7 are sci-fi, 1 is romance, and 1 is a plain thriller; so getting a better balance would be nice, keeping maybe just 2 sci-fi ones: Alien and Star Trek?

Please discuss at Talk:Tagline. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-17t21:02z

Comic Book Characters in film

I recently removed the WikiProject Films from the Batgirl article, although now, I'm not sure I should have. I can understand having it a part of the Batman article, considering Batman has numerous film adaptations, however, for other characters such as Batgirl, or Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze, who have only one feature film adaptation and who are supporting characters in said films- I'm not sure if they should be considered part of WikiProject Films. Any thoughts?Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

this question was also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ComicsBookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Killers from space

Since Killers from Space is now public domain, does this mean that the copyright notice on the images from the film can be changed to a public domain notice? Or am I mistaken?Black Dalek (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Community Comedies

From 1928 - 1930, pioneer New Zealand filmmaker Rudall Hayward toured the country making "Community Comedies" - basically remaking the same script in each town with a local cast and scenery - probably a good way of getting the entire population to visit the cinema! (See the last entry on [11] ). I was wondering if this was just a New Zealand phenomenon or whether it happened in other countries under some different name? (Most google hits for "Community Comedies" refer to New Zealand). Whichever, it is probably worthy of an article - not enough is known of the individual NZ films for an article each. dramatic (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

Could someone clarify the policy on external links in film articles for me, please?

Variations on the following links were deleted from a number of pages:

I reverted them all at first as I thought it was just vandalism (the descriptions just said things like "linkspam"). They were all then reverted back with reference to WP:EL, which I had checked in the first place. They are either reviews of the film serial or, in Images case, a short series of pages about serials in general with a few highlighted examples. For current and future reference, are these valid links? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The first two links are not at all appropriate per the criteria, since they really seem like personal websites. We try to avoid link farms on articles, and there's a few staple ELs that we include for cast/crew information, reviews, box office information, etc. We discuss doing such widespread implementation of these links. Thus, additional review websites, especially those that seem to lack credibility, shouldn't be excluded. The Images one seems more credible, and it should be reviewed for its background and ultimately incorporated into the article. I think the rule of thumb is to avoid external links that apparently lack credibility or cannot be incorporated. For example, we wouldn't implement Ebert reviews in the EL section all over the place, since we should be able to cite the review and include it in Critical reaction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose that there is any merit in including at least one of these links anyway, on the basis of Ignoring all rules? With the articles on film serials, there are several books on the subject to provide information and references. Some of them have brief comments on quality or popularity. However, I cannot find any book or website, other than the top two links here, that actually reviews the serials. I am not sure if reviews are really necessary to make the articles better but, if so, the personal websites are apparently the best versions available. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If the websites mention books to provide information and references, you could set up a section like at Fight Club (film)#Further reading instead of directly mentioning the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the website links would really be for the reviews themselves. I have a list of books I intend to add to Serial (film) when I have time as they are all general, rather than referring to any specific serial. None of them have reviews, however. The websites above, especially Serial Experience, are the only substantial reviews of individual serials besides IMDB User Comments and occasional message board/usenet posts (which are even less reliable as links than the websites). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I would advise you to do further research in the print media archives. Many of these were popular in their day and must have had some coverage in the press, though it may require some considerable work to track down. Scarcity of known sources is not a pretext for dropping WP:RS standards, however. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinmay purohit filmography

Could you please take a look at Chinmay purohit filmography? Is he a notable director? I couldn't find any reliable sources for him. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

An RfC has been filed at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York over the length of the plot. The plot section is too long, this is agreed upon. However, an editor came in and decided to solve the problem by deleting it all together instead of just editing it down. I undid, told him that was not the appropriate way to fix it, noted the word count guidelines and suggested it be edited it down. He filed an RfC. So anyone else wish to tackle this, offer suggestions for a reasonable length plot section on a 3 hour movie with a complex plot, and help to cut down the plot to a more sensible size? Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on complicated three-way merge

I have suggested merging anthology film, hyperlink cinema and composite film. All three are about very very closely related narrative structures, so close in fact that I see this more of a case where various experts try to impose their own terminology, then a case of significant differences in the topics. The latter article has been constructed by fairly motivated newbie Annamotopoeia (talk · contribs) so it would probably be nice if someone knowledgeable about screenplay structures and film theory could guide her through the process. I have left a message on her talk page explaining the proposed merge but this is not really my field so help would really be appreciated. Thanks. Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthology films are essentially short film collections, often connected conceptually, but not narratively. There's a long history of them, so I'd advocate leaving it alone. However, hyperlink cinema and composite films are essentially both the same thing as ensemble films, which seems the most generic and common way of describing that sort of film. While there may be some slight differences claimed between these terms, it would seem better to address them as merged sections in a single article instead of splitting the hairs into articles for each. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

POV issues on Crossroads

Could somebody take a look at Crossroads (2002 film), there are HUGE POV issues, with the movie being passed off as "the greatest teen movie ever made"! indopug (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've made a fairly radical reversion to several months back, mainly because of the massive quantities of tainted citations which do not say what they are claimed to. See my comments on the talk page before doing any further work. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DoubleJay Creative

I created a page for DJC, a production/visual media company based in Knoxville with satellite offices in LA and international experience. They were nominated for an Emmy last year and are in the process of producing a documentary with Peter Hillary. I wasn't even finished writing it when it was deleted-- I've been all through the notoriety standards and the requirements and it seems to me that the article should fit. (And the mod that originally deleted it was, shall we say, less than helpful.)

I'm sorry if this isn't the place for it. I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to do. Could you please tell me what is wrong with this and what I need to change to make it acceptable? There will be more information on projects and personnel if it gets undeleted and I figure out what what I'm doing. Thank you. Dingstersdie (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the entire article content you just posted here to User:Steve/Sandbox while we discuss it. It was clogging the page up a bit. All the best, Steve T • C 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: No problem-- as I said, I don't really know the procedure here, I'd just like some feedback and help. Thanks, Dingstersdie (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, have you had a chance to review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? I think it's more an organization-related question than a film-related question. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination backlog

There's still a significant backlog of film articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwandersTalk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rage (virus) - should probably be deleted

I'm not an experienced deletion proposer, and I don't have much time right now, but those in the know will probably want to nominate the new page Rage (virus) for deletion. I've already tagged the article for having analysis with no citations. --Melty girl (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have already taken care of. Simple redirect is what is needed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, after I posted, Girolamo took care of it, though he didn't note it here. It's good to know about that option. --Melty girl (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The page has twice been revived (I reverted once). I don't have time to police this issue; can others please take care of this terrible page? --Melty girl (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider it done. Too late; someone else got there first. :) But I'll watchlist it for future recreation. Steve T • C 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! --Melty girl (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary section discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

A Minor Quandary: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Primary Source -- This discussion should be of great interest to WP:FILMS project members. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

does this project include non-film film industry articles?

WAs looking around for templates to place on ACTRA and SOCAN, also noticed in the process there's no Director's Guild of Canada or similar listings (presumably that's also a trade union). Are such industry-related articles part of this project, or is there another maybe they should be part of?Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all film-related articles are within our scope (with the exception of bios, which are for Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers). You can also tag them with |Filmmaking-task-force=yes if they are about the industry. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival

Is anyone interested in attending with a press pass to cover for Wikinews? Over 16 with an edit history contact me. --David Shankbone 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Remakes part of a series?

Should remakes and updates be considered part of the series or not? - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

no. they aren't in series. at most they should be considered addendums. EraserGirl (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say no, but then I thought of Batman Begins. I think that it should depend on the nature of the franchise. For example, the original film could be made by a certain set of individuals, and the remake is made by a completely different set of individuals, then I'd hesitate to suggest the notion of a "film series" there. However, for a film like Batman Begins, the film rights have been under Warner Bros. all this time. Are there any questionable examples you can share? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I will get a list together in a bit, it may be lengthy. The lists of film series are such a mess right now, I want to scream. - LA @ 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My initial impression is that a remake can constitute a legitimate entry but only if it is clearly established as continuing the series. As for examples, I think the various "Zorro" and "Tarzan" series could lead to hiccups and remakes that were acceptable as part of a series. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC).


How to get more film GAs!

Just a suggestion, but there should be a section on the project page listing film articles which are currently on hold for GA status. This might help the project get more GAs, since we'd know which articles are (literally) the closest to making it. Here is a current list:

These will only be on hold for seven days, so it seems like they should be on some sort of higher priority for the project. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In only a cursory look, these film articles have an inconsistency in date format and in creating citations to reference sources with simple errors as in listing the author name first, no punctuation or variable punctuation, mainly due to the use of the !@#$$F templates. GA reviewers pick up on this immediately. Here's an example of the problem (read the chanes in the edit mode):
  • Original version: [7]
  • Revision: [8] Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
  1. ^ "2007 Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage: [U.S. & Canada: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2007&p=.htm].
  2. ^ "2007 UK Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage: [1].
  3. ^ "Australia: Movie Marshal Total 2007" (top 100), webpage: [2].
  4. ^ http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2007&p=.htm 2007 Domestic Grosses (top 100) U.S. & Canada].
  5. ^ 2007 UK Domestic Grosses (top 100)
  6. ^ Australia: Movie Marshal Total 2007" (top 100)
  7. ^ McClintock, Pamela; McNary, Dave. "Will 'Compass' find audiences?", Variety, 2007-12-06. Retrieved on 2007-12-08. 
  8. ^ McClintock, Pamela and McNary, Dave. "Will 'Compass' find audiences?" Variety, December 6, 2007. Retrieved: December 8, 2007.

New Films

How does one create an article for a new movie that is sure to be a big hit without someone else making that page first? Are people assigned to different films? Creamy3 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See the WP:FUTFILMS department. Films shouldn't have an article unless they are filming, but the info avaliable is often put into the articles of their source material. Anyone is able to create or un-redirect an article if it meets the criteria. Alientraveller (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would worry less about creating an article about an upcoming film, as they are usually created pretty quickly. A better focus would be to expand stubby articles about upcoming films, especially ones that may be of interest to you. There's not really a great deal of bragging rights in article creation if the content is minimal. But do check out WP:FUTFILMS if you have an interest in working on articles about upcoming films! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Rwanda

If somebody with more film article writing experience is looking for a project, the Synopsis section of this article is embarrassing. I was going to try to just remove some POV wording, but I think it needs a complete rewrite. Murderbike (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is in need of a rewrite. I will mark it for additional work by editors. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Project coordinator elections

So we're getting close to the end of the first six-month coordinator term, and it probably would be a good moment now to go over the elections and request each of your input about the process.

1. Do the members consider the regularly scheduled elections useful? If so, is the current six-month term considered satisfactory?
2. Do the members consider the current election process useful? If not, what changes would you like to see?
3. Does the project require more Coordinators in order to be run more smoothly, or are people satisfied with the current number of Coordinators?
4. Are any of our members who are not currently incumbents interested in running for a Coordinator position?
5. Is the current description of Coordinator responsibilities adequate, or does it need more clarification?
6. Are there any other changes or suggestions regarding the Coordinators or their election?

The more comments, the better we can assess the process, so we very much want to hear from all of you! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance the last election can be linked to? It'd help to review what has gone before. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well caught! September-October 2007 elections. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

Hello to the members of the project. Today I noticed that User:Humbleradio has been adding links like this one [12] to some film pages. It does not look like this site meets WP:LINKS guidelines but I wanted to get input from other members of the film project before removing them so that a consensus may be reached first. Thank you in advance for taking a look at this and adding your input. MarnetteD | Talk 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed his blog, which was also at three other film articles, and have left a message on his user talk page about such links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt action. MarnetteD | Talk 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) In the future, you're welcome to take action yourself. You can find the templates here. I keep the link on my user page for situations like these. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ads

I was wondering if anyone here was interested in a WP:BANNER ad for this wikiproject. I'd be happy to make one because I have tons of fonts from movies (the Matrix, Van Helsing, Fight Club, etc.) on my computer. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly would it be placed? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who has {{Wikipedia ads}} on their user/user talk page can have it come up randomly. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

links to trailers

I was wondering if it was normal or ok to link to trailers for movie articles? Someone suggested that it wasn't normal practice but I wanted someone else's opinion on if there are exceptions. The specific movie I'm talking about is Mockingbird Don't Sing. I think this article in particular would benefit greatly with a link to the trailer simply because it is such a rare and unique film. On a side note, I also wanted to hear more about what makes a movie notable enough for their own article since this article was also nominated for deletion. For An Angel (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of films @ AFD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Ensuring your privacy

Hello, everyone, I hope you can all take a moment to read this. Recently, there has been a situation in which several Wikipedia editors have been harassed by a party who seeks to uncover their identities for exploitation. I am not going to name any names involved with this, but I would like to ask all editors who want to protect their identity to review their contributions. Make sure that the information is removed, and contact an admin by e-mail to see about modifying page histories to exclude the information from the public eye. I suggest avoiding listing anything beyond your first name (if at all), your specific location, your e-mail address, links to personal websites, et cetera. I invite everyone to review the privacy policy and also understand that they have the right to vanish. Many of us are here on Wikipedia to contribute and have fun in the process, but unfortunately we must remember that there are parties who oppose the goal of Wikipedia and will try to disrupt it. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions, either here or by e-mail, for any clarification of this matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, is this really necessery? I believe most serious editors are careful about their privacy, don't you? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that it is necessary. This isn't the first time it's happened within WikiProject Films, and it has definitely happened outside of it. There are forums of people who like to rail against Wikipedia and editors, especially admins. Just look up Wikipedia Watch or Wikipedia Review. Editors like H have had to depart. I've dealt with the situation myself, and I've had to take measures to ensure that anything incriminating in my contributions was removed. I'm sure most of us are careful, but I think it would help to make sure that nothing too personal is out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of conjunctions in titles

There is an open request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) that discusses whether or not all conjunctions in the title of a published work should be lowercased, regardless of their length. As this obviously concerns film-related articles, input from members of this WikiProject would be much appreciated. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Films based on actual events

For info, the category Category:Films based on actual events is up for discussion at CFD. You can find the link here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment at Homerun (film)'s ongoing peer review.

Some of you may remember me as the one who wrote a GA about the Singaporean movie I Not Stupid. I have written an article about another Singaporean movie, Homerun (film), and will soon nominate it for GA. The article is currently on peer review; any and all feedback on how I can improve it is appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Before there was Wikipedia

...I wonder if any real encyclopedias, American or foriegn, ever had articles on individual motion pictures?

I know Mickey Mouse was on Britannica in the 1930s, and even there are articles on the film industry in countless others. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about actual encyclopedias, but there's definitely been a lot of movie guides out there. Considering how numerous films can be, though, I would imagine that such guides focus on influential or popular films since the beginning of cinema. What kind of content are you looking for regarding films? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles about any movie—which should resemble those on this site. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Google Books shows a few results. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Erik, the examples you have linked to are generally considered "specialized" encyclopedias, and in this case, are "film encyclopedias." I believe that the original question may have related to a "general" source reference work. I will take a look sometime in the future to see if that was the case, but I am only venturing a guess that there would be few articles or reviews in a generalized work. Where "paper" encyclopedias often would provide a yearly supplement, the impact of a significant motion picture such as Mr. Deeds Goes to Town may have warranted a mention. Typically the "annuals" would use newspaper-style articles to document fast-breaking events, trends or activities. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
You're right, I misread what he was trying to ask. Sadly, I have not looked in an actual encyclopedia for a number of years and did not expressly seek out film articles in it, so I can't say. In addition, though, I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia tends to discourage citing other encyclopedias, considering them tertiary sources. I don't recall seeing other encyclopedias normally cited in Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In one sense, you are right as the general editor or supervising editor of an encyclopedia would not be an acceptable source. However, contemporary encylopedias now provide author declarations for articles and therefore, the source citation would be acceptable, such as: Norman, Jane. "In the Heat of the Night." World Book Encyclopedia Supplement, Danforth, CN: World Book inc., 1994 edition. FWIW, the entire citation is spurious and just cranked together as an example. Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

So where is the discussion?

The article was recently tagged, and if an article is tagged as merging, there should be a discussion somewhere, am I right? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be. Sorry about that. As the one who did the tagging, it was because the other project in question, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music, has been tagged as inactive. It would logically be merged into either this project or the Music Project. The disadvantage, at least in my eyes, of proposing a merge with the Music project is the comparative state of, dare I say, disorganization of that topic, and the fact that film music per se tends to often be from entirely disparate music genres, sometimes even in the same film, which is itself a bit confusing. Also, that project doesn't yet have assessments, and I'm not sure it even wants them. However, I did neglect to provide any discussion of the topic, and apologize for same. If you all feel that it would be better to be merged into the Music Project, though, I will be more than happy to remove or replace the tag. John Carter (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Screenwriters

Regarding the practically abandoned Screenwriters Project: I am trying to figure how best to jumpstart this project. I do NOT believe it should be eliminated or merged. The topic is of a focused enough nature, that the parent Films project cannot provide the necessary specialized attention. The impression the Project main page gives is that of fan page for certain current popular television writers. I would like to pay as much attention to all eras and fields. I am well versed in the subject matter but I am not yet experienced enough with Wikipedia to run the project properly alone. Can we get ANYONE interestd at all in Project management? EraserGirl (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Screenwriters

As for the Screenwriters Project List of screenwriters: Upon examination I have decided this list if subjective, irrelevant, misleading and possibly sexist and should be deleted. The categories American Screenwriters, Screenwriters etc...produce lists that are much more quantitative and accurate. EraserGirl (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP Screenwriters is eminently in need of merging, but I would agree that WP Films is not the place for it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers would be the place, and technically, they already have scope over all of the screenwriter pages anyway; the natural thing would be to make the Screenwriters part into a task force of Actors and Filmmakers (which itself is actually a task force/work group of WP Biography). The purpose of a project is not only to gather editors with a common interest, but to handle necessary administrative details such as style guidelines and other standardization. There's nothing to suggest that the current guidelines at WP Bio and the film-specific ones at WP Actors and Filmmakers are inadequate for screenwriting, while there is little case to be made that screenwriters require a wholly separate set of style guidelines for their bios.
In short, I recommend simply moving the group to WP Actors and Filmmakers as a task force, and deprecating superfluous WikiProject structure (ie, the project banner). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like what is most likely needed. EraserGirl (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I had put a PROD on List of screenwriters and was waiting for feedback from anyone who objected to its deletion. It had also been seconded. But now someone completely removed the PROD and hasn't explained why very well. Do I put it back or change it to something else? EraserGirl (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, once the template is removed (in an act of non-vandalism), it can't be re-added. You would have to go to AFD. If you want to do that, I would highly recommend outlining a strong argument. Try to anticipate what other editors may say, and try to respond to their arguments preemptively. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's just peachy. This wouldn't be so bloody annoying if there were at least a few other people remotely interested in keeping the screenwriters/project task force alive. I have in mind a more specialized form of grouping for screenwriters, but it would be nice it had input from other interested parties before trotting it out. EraserGirl (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What you want to do is coordinate with the WP Biography project so that the Screenwriters group can be integrated into the main WP Bio banner as a task force parameter. Then you just have to swap templates on all of the talk pages. This prevents articles from looking like they've been abandoned by the group - it's merely a relocation to a more appropriate place. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Information

Hi guys, I was wondering if anybody has any information on how The Late Show did at the box office. Also any information on the films Trailer Trash and 25/8 would be great. Thanks everyone. Creamy3 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC on animated cartoon

A request for comment has been made concerning the article animated cartoon, specifically its factual accuracy, tone, point of view, scope, and its existence as an article instead of a redirect to animation. Please visit Talk:Animated cartoon to participate in the discussion. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1985 Sundance Film Festival

I received notification on my talk page that Category:1985 Sundance Film Festival has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. I've got some reading up on the policies relating to categories, but I'd love it if some of the regulars from WP:Film stopped in to give their two cents. The highlight of the nomination for me, and the reason I'd like input from this community is what the nom said: "this nomination is intended to serve as a test nomination for the other similar Sundance by year categories". —A 04:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:European cinema

I was thinking about adjusting the large side plate Template:European cinema to collapse into a small box where you click on it to widen. I;ve seen it done to the Buddhism template. Its rather domineering to the articles I think . E.g see Template:Tibetan Buddhism What do you think? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like a good idea to me. Lugnuts (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It's clumsy as it is. Timbouctou (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(I left comments on my talk page, since you messaged me a similar note there.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird issue at Talk:List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks

Since the above article is part of this WikiProject, I thought I would make mention here that some weird error or setting exists on the talk page which has rendered it impossible for anyone to post new comments there. Any attempt seems to trigger a spam filter related to a hyperlink -- even when no hyperlink is in the posting. Can anyone figure out what's up? Maybe there's some weird protection on it. I've never seen this before (and no, I'm definitely not on any blacklists.) 23skidoo (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I broke the blacklisted link and now everything works fine. IrishGuy talk 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

The article for Don Murphy, producer for Natural Born Killers, Bully and Transformers among others, has been speedy deleted. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy. Prolog (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I recommend reading the page for just the entertainment value alone. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

"Writer" section in Infobox Film

Mentioned this a while back in Template Talk:Infobox Film, but didn't get much of a response, so I thought I'd throw it out there again.

Why is "Writer" the only option for screenwritersin Template:Infobox Film? It seems like this is inadequate for many movies. Most articles have dealt with this by using parentheticals, but this seems a rather sloppy way of handling it. At minimum it seems like we should have the following options:

  • writer (resolves to Written by, as it does now)
  • screenplay (=Screenplay by)
  • story (=Story by)

And there should probably be something along the lines of:

  • source (=Based on)

This would be for films based on novels, plays, television series, etc. Although I wonder if there should be a separate line for the source's original author. (Otherwise it would presumably be broken into two lines.)

This could apply to hundreds of films easily and would not break existing infoboxes using the old format. (In fact, the "writer" field should be preserved either way as a simple option for films that do not have separate story/screenplay credits.) An example of the suggested format is given below using the Star Trek: First Contact credits:

Currently:

| writer = '''TV series "[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]"'''<br>[[Gene Roddenberry]]<br>'''Story'''<br>[[Rick Berman]]<br>[[Brannon Braga]]<br>[[Ronald D. Moore]]<br>'''Screenplay'''<br>[[Brannon Braga]]<br>[[Ronald D. Moore]]

Would become:

| screenplay = [[Brannon Braga]]<br>[[Ronald D. Moore]]
| story = [[Rick Berman]]<br>[[Brannon Braga]]<br>[[Ronald D. Moore]]
| source = ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]''<br>Created by [[Gene Roddenberry]]

Just to give a few examples of films that have (or should have, based on the film's credits) separate story/screenplay credits:

Batman, Batman Begins, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, Batman Forever, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman, Batman Returns, *batteries not included, Benny & Joon, A Bug's Life, Cars, Chicken Run, Clue, Cool Runnings, The Dark Knight, Edward Scissorhands, Encino Man, Finding Nemo, Flushed Away, Forbidden Planet, The Fugitive, Galaxy Quest, The Goonies, The Greatest Show on Earth, Groundhog Day, Hook, Hulk, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Innerspace, Labyrinth, Mad City, Men in Black II, Mission: Impossible, Monsters, Inc., Mr. Deeds, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, A Prairie Home Companion, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ratatouille, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek Nemesis, The Sugarland Express, Superman, Superman II, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, The Terminal, Titan A.E., Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Twilight Zone: The Movie, A Very Brady Sequel, X-Men, X2, Yellow Submarine, and Ziegfeld Girl.

I'm sure there are many, many more. The inconsistent listings on these show the need for a separate story credit. (I guess the "Screenplay" credit could be left alone as the primary writing credit, although I personally would prefer less ambiguity.) Several of these movies are listed with the screenplay/story credits combined with no clear distinction between the two. The others are inconsistently listed.

Seems a whole lot cleaner to me. Thoughts? --21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to suggest, but I think it adds too much unnecessary detail to a mere infobox. It's detail creep, in my opinion. I've never found the writer/originating author formatting to be appropriate, especially considering just knowing the author's name doesn't give you information about the source material for the film. I've preferred to take an alternate approach, though -- to mention the author and the source material in the lead section instead of in the infobox. In addition, like I've mentioned before, credits for the screenplay and story can be redundant. We really do need to limit the infobox, not because it should generally be concise, but because the longer the infobox, the more it can screw up images or the wrapping of bulleted formatting. I've seen "Written" as more abstract than being someone who actually picked up a pencil and wrote down a script -- one or more people wrote up, in the general sense, the basis of this film. I think it's more concise to combine names for the sake of being concise, and to elaborate in the article body, in the Production section (or its Writing subsection, if there is one), or even the lead section. I understand your attempt to be specific, but considering the systemic change this would require for every film article on Wikipedia and that there is room in the rest of the article to elaborate, such an undertaking seems overly drastic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to address one part of this:
considering the systemic change this would require for every film article on Wikipedia
This isn't really true. The method that I've recommended wouldn't break any existing articles; it would only create a standardized method for handling this issue. There would be no reason to alter the many, many films that don't have separate story credits, and it wouldn't hurt the articles that had not yet adapted to the new system.
Really, this change would require (and I use that word loosely here) almost the same amount of changes that would be required by removing the current notices about screenplay/teleplay/story and combining the existing credits, since only a few of the ones mentioned above are formatted as you suggest. If we were to back off from changes because of issues like this, we wouldn't have film infoboxes in the first place.--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather reluctant to support this, only because the infobox is getting rather bloated and overgrown as it is. Furthermore, the story/screenplay distinction is primarily one with regards to WGA scripts, and as has been well-documented (and can be gleaned from our article regarding the matter), often has no real correlation to the amount or type of work done. Therefore, it may actually be more accurate to simply list all of the names together in many cases. If anything, I would suggest that the source author(s) be removed from the infobox and only discussed within the body of the article, as they have no direct involvement in the film itself (at least in that capacity). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the story/screenplay distinction is too pedantic for the infobox, but I do think separating the 'source' from the screenplay would be useful, as it is often misleading to call the author of a novel or play the "writer" of a film. Cop 663 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)