Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 1

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 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Begin

Well, it just so happens I've been giving this some thought as well. I have proposed a table format for albums at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and there is some coloration discussion going on at Wikipedia:Taxobox. I would recommend using a shade of orange with this table (not the one automatically designated orange by the software, but maybe darkorange or something -- I don't like colors in the table, as it makes the markup much more complicated and difficult to edit, and is just as effective if only used in the headers). It might be worth it to try and coordinate albums, movies, plays and operas, comic strips and novels, paintings and sculptures, short stories, etc. I would recommend adding something like the "professional reviews" at the albums template, but not everyone agrees that that would be good. I would also suggest running time, shooting location and genre. Tuf-Kat 05:38, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, I suggest italicizing the movie titles. --Lexor 10:24, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind on the orange thing. Consensus is (and I agree with it) that it is more important for specific projects (like organisms) to be able to have different colors for different types (like plants and animals). Wouldn't really apply to movies (albums), though a different color for black comedy, romantic comedy, musicals, historical epics, etc might be interesting. Tuf-Kat 02:38, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Template:SampleWikiProject

How do I join?

How do I join the project?

I already have a few ideas. For one, I think that all movie pages ought to list the MPAA rating.

I've created a couple of pages on movies, Hilary and Jackie and Impromptu (1991), and I realized that there needs to be a consistent format to these pages; this prompted me to look for this WikiProject. Robert Happelberg 23:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the "participants" list.
I thought about including the MPAA rating, but then I realized that, because just about every nation has its own distinct ratings system, including them would be very US-centric. Wikipedia is, after all, a worldwide project. - Seth Ilys 23:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You're right. If we include MPAA ratings we might have to include the ratings of the movie by other countries. Robert Happelberg 17:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

System to apply format?

Any ideas on a systematic way to apply the project format to existing articles? Work our way through the List of movies pages, or what? --Catherine 22:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that since the project format is declared as "still evolving", we shouldn't be in a hurry to apply it to all existing movie articles. What I will do, however, is to apply the format to a couple of movie articles I'm thinking about creating. Robert Happelberg 17:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had simply noticed that the format has appeared on a few movie articles already; and no, I don't think it's ready to be applied in a widespread way. Just thought it might be a good idea to have a plan for applying it once it's finished -- if it's done haphazardly, there will be both duplicated work and missed entries. Even the List of movies pages are rather incomplete..... Catherine 01:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna hold off on creating movie articles, and see if I can make the List of Movies pages more complete. Where are those pages at, anyway? Is there a List of movies? Robert Happelberg 16:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (My last question was answered after I clicked Save Page).
Well, IMDB lists them, maybe we could put a list of all of the ratings at the bottom of the pages? -- A Link to the Past 00:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Country of release and language

I propose adding to the table the country of release and the language a film was made in -- we may eventually want to compile lists of movies by country or language.

I second this proposal. Robert Happelberg 16:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What about the Running time, the Rating and the Category? Tell me what u guys think about the All Over the Guy. --Yacht 10:11, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)~
Running time sounds reasonble; however, category is very subjective and subject to debate, not to mention unstandardized. Ratings vary from country to county; unless we want to list a dozen different ratings, I don't see why we'd want to include them. Country of first release should be listed beside the release date, IMHO. -- Seth Ilys 17:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I thought the producers would categorize their movies? I am not sure. what about just listing the rating from the first release country as a reference? --Yacht 17:36, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Note that the running time for films differs between cinemas and home entertainment formats, especially for longer films, because film runs at 24 frames per second in cinemas and VHS/DVD run at 25 frames per second.AncientHaemovore

Seksmisja

IMDB Page (external link)
Director: Juliusz Machulski
Writer: Juliusz Machulski,
Pavel Hajný,
Jolanta Hartwig
Starring: Jerzy Stuhr (Max),
Olgierd Łukaszewicz (Albert),
Bożena Stryjkówna (Lamia),
Wiesław Michnikowski (Her Excellency)
Music by: Henryk Kuźniak
Distributor: ?
Release Date: 1983 (Poland)
Color: Color
Sound: Sound
Runtime: 117 min.
Language: Polish
Genre: comedy, science fiction
Awards: Gdańsk

I've got some more ideas for the template:

  • first, the director should be listed first, ie before the writer - it's the director who usually regarded as author of a movie;
  • if the movie is a non-English one, the title on top of the table should be the original one; it would be similar ot the practice with country articles, where there's the English name in the article title but the local name on top of the table;
  • the genre of the movie should also be included in the table; if it can be classified in more than one genre, list them all
  • there should be some more technical details too - like is it color or black and white, is it mute or with sound? Or is it a cartoon?

So the table for a movie known in English as Sex Mission would like this:
--Kpalion 11:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But keep in mind that some films (notably those of Werner Herzog) are relased in multiple languages simultaneously. For example, Fitzcarraldo was shot in English language and also released in a German language dub, whereas Nosferatu was shot simultaneously in both languages.

If a film was shot simultaneously in more than one language, then all of them should be listed in the table. Examples: The Passion of the Christ - Aramaic, Latin; LOTR - English, Elvish; etc. --Kpalion 22:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Untitled
{{{Type}}}
Dark City
Image:Film reel and film.jpg
Released February 27, 1998 (USA)
Genre Science fiction
Runtime 100 minutes
Distributor New Line Cinema
Director Alex Proyas
Writers Alex Proyas, Lem Dobbs, David S. Goyer
Sound Dolby Digital / SDDS
Music Trevor Jones, Gary Numan
Budget $27,000,000
Total gross (USA) $14,378,331
Aspect ratio 2.35 : 1
Working titles Dark Empire, Dark World
Professional reviews
Roger Ebert 4 stars out of 5 link
? Chronology
?
(199?)		 ?
(199?)		 ?
(199?)

Hi, I was working on a similar table which I based off of the template used by the Wikiproject Albums. I have it here to the right of this. Maybe we should combine it with the current one (since my table contains some info missing from the current one)? Also, note that I left the Chronology section there even though the movie I used for it doesn't have any sequels or prequels; that is merely there in case it is needed for other films. -- LGagnon

A Few Ideas

I love the idea of standardizing the entries on individual films; I think some more work ought to be done in devising a format which might address the potential interests of all users while remaining as concise and NPOV as possible. A few ideas:

  • Rather than "Cultural Impact", why not "Reception"? Such a section could include figures on box office and attendance as well as press and popular reaction. Awards could be listed here, too. These entries should be as precise as possible; phrases like "widely considered" and "generally regarded" should be avoided, and individual reviewers could be cited. (Issues of cultural significance could be addressed in the criticism section described below.)
  • I would strongly urge a section devoted to (perhaps called) analysis/criticism. This needn't be unduly POV; cinema studies is a rapidly expanding field, and there is a wealth of published, reputable critical material to draw from. Very little of this work (in books, academic journals, etc.) is available on the Web, so a collection of links to critical articles at the end of an entry would inevitably overrely on just a few sources. This section would avoid "loved it/hated it" reviews and try to present a survey of established critical thought about the film. This could be a great resource for students as well as for the moviegoing public at large, and would be unique (as far as I'm aware) on the internet.
  • Synopses should include detailed information about the plot of the film (spoilers and all) in order to avoid resembling promotional literature and to give full context to the critical section. (See the reviews section of the British Film Institute's journal Sight and Sound for an example of well-done detailed film synopses.)
  • Techies out there might appreciate a section devoted to special effects/technical details for the film. Again, there's a wealth of such info, much of which can't necessarily be bullet-pointed in a table.
  • I like the idea to try to coordinate a format for these entries with those for novels, plays, etc., but such coordination should remain loose, in order to respect the individual characteristics of each form. I think it makes most sense to coordinate formats for narrative forms in general; I can't see much possible overlap between the format for discussing a (narrative) film and one for discussing, say, a painting.
  • Specifying country of origin is crucial. I guess the reasons are obvious.
  • Genre classification can be useful, but, as anyone who's tried to classify any large body of creative material knows, the closer you look at a system, the more arbitrary and less useful its classification scheme seems. In the end, either you end up with very simplified categories that don't tell you much of anything (e.g., drama, comedy, classic) about the films they attempt to classify; or extremely specific, overlapping categories that may be good for creating lists of similar films, or may be useful as descriptive terms, but may not necessarily work for comprehensively classifying a large set of films (e.g., 'women in prison' films, films noir, gay and lesbian films). If classifying by genre is a necessary evil, I would suggest trying to come up with a comprehensive list of genres before applying the system; trust me, this will save a lot of frustration later.

Reading over what I just wrote, it seems pretty dogmatic; this isn't what I intended. Please take what you find useful, and discard the rest. (I do urge you to consider a critical section, though!) Brian619 08:13, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

What about Wikiquote

I'm not sure how late I'm for the discussion, but incase someone is still listening, I'll like to address a crucial point, there has been no mention of a Wikiquote tag, I feel we need to stimulate more users to experience wikiquote so these tags are very important

{{wikiquote}} or {{wikiquotepar|TITLE}}

should be used.

A minor thing, when saying the date of the film we should begin using [[1976 in film|1976 film]] or simply [[1976 in film|1976]], Example: Taxi Driver is a 1976 film... (also see Taxi Driver at Wikiquote for a quick demo.)

I am willing to contribute to this project in all the ways I can, PEACE ~ RoboAction 07:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

I've never been a fan of displaying DVD covers as the corresponding image for films, as seems to be the general practice. The DVD covers, especially for older films, are usually modernized for reselling in newer markets and don't really contribute much to an understanding of the film itself. I much prefer to include important frames from the film (like in the 2001: A Space Odyssey article, which I think is quite good). Original movie posters can also work (again, like in the 2001 article). Any thoughts?

Bungopolis 23:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it standard to get a cast photo next to the cast list?- B-101 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the DVD covers, I don't personally have a problem with DVD covers since that's what someone would probably see on a shelf or be able to identify with. If we can get the poster, that's cool but I don't think any less of DVD covers. Dismas 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro format

A recent discussion over the intro sentence of Spartacus (movie) has lead me here to discuss it. This project advocates "TITLE (YEAR) is a GENRE movie" but this no longer seems to be the general practice. Even the example, The Terminator no longer matches.

I propose the project change to "TITLE is a [[YEAR in film|YEAR]] GENRE movie" format. Cburnett 18:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Cburnett. Can you feel how the antagonism is turning into something constructive? :)
I also made a mention of this thing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style ("Lead section conventions for films"). Should get the ball rolling. Best, 62.148.218.217 21:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies is clearly in a dilapidated state (just compare it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums!), and the ”Structure” examples are patently inane, executed in a jokey manner. They cannot be taken for a guide. Then:

Format suggestion #2: TITLE (YEAR) is a film …

  • Parentheses are easier to scan through. They are a short-hand for ”, which was released in XXXX,”.
  • YEAR should link to a general year page. The more general the link, the better. This seems to be pretty much a standard practise. For example, go to 1998 and visit all the ”in topic” subpages. Pluck a few entries at random, and notice how practically all of them favor the general year:
  • Uniformity. Within WP, it is very common that films (books, music albums) mentioned in relation to the topic of the article are given in the format TITLE (YEAR). Why not use this at the beginning of the article as well? Outside of WP, the convention of TITLE (YEAR) is even more prominent; this is certainly the case with some of the best websites dedicated to film: Masters of Cinema and the articles on Senses of Cinema, for example.
  • Genre. It should not be mandatory to pigeonhole films into genres, at least not in the very first sentence. The question of genre can be brought up later in the lead section, but it needn’t be among the first things told about a given film. Furthermore, I think genres are more adequately dealt with categories.

After a decision has been reached, we should make the adjustments to Casablanca (movie) (the only film page that is also a featured article), and then update the project page with workable structure suggestions based on that film. 62.148.218.38 07:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linking to the "year" vs. "year in" has been a long debate. One side is "year in" is more relevant to what the year means (for example the release of a film has more ties with year in film rather than year in current events (which do not list films)); the other is opposed to "misrepresenting" the link. Both are somewhat on par with navigability but I strongly favor linking to the more relevant article: year in film.
Talking about airports or people is darn near a strawman argument for the discussion at hand: films and the year they were released.
Films use the "TITLE (YEAR)" format because most of the filmographies on WP are essentially copies from IMDB. It's tabular data and I convert it when I see it (e.g., Julia Stiles, Jake Gyllenhaal, Liam Neeson). I also consider using improper formatting of tabular data as the basis of guiding style of non-tabular data also as a strawman.
Also citing the use of "TITLE (YEAR)" in mid-sentence is a different ball of wax. Unlike mid-sentence use of "TITLE (YEAR)" is meant to disambiguate the title, but the use of the year in the intro paragraph is meant to describe the title. Two completely different purposes.
The bulk of films fit into a genre or multiple genres. If it doesn't then it's not necessary to "pigeonhole" hole it. Categories are a bad idea for primarily explaining genres or any details: it's at the bottom of the article. *I* don't want to have to look at the bottom for such data. Your argument is inconsistent here. If you're advocating the use of categories for descriptions, then resign the year of release to its membership of a category. Cburnett 07:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Set the straw man on fire, will you!
Links. I am just trying to establish that it is more prudent to favor the general over the specific. And like I said, "(year)" is clearly understandable shorthand, i.e. it is in itself descriptive.
"what the year means". In all instances, I think it should mean "this happened this year".
Tabular data. Oh, God, you did those too! Sorry, but they look really wonky and wrong. But let's not go into that now.
Genres. Well, you know, I just can't stand genres. Now, when you write "If you're advocating the use of categories for descriptions, then resign the year of release to its membership of a category." you're clearly playing the devil's advocate: the release year IS more important than the genre(s) the film belongs to!
I hope some other folks would join the discussion. 'Cos otherwise a stalemate is just a few moves away. 62.148.218.183 08:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stalement: yes. I'm curious, though, how you would present tabular data without using tables. Cburnett 00:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I realized that I really shouldn’t involve myself with Wikipedia. The format does not suit me, or the kind of writing I want to do. As simple as that.
Tables. Well, reduce the amount of data so that you don’t have to resort to a table in the first place! For example, the actor filmographies don’t need to mention the roles the actors played (the main article (actor or film) can hack that.). Plus, I believe the timeline should begin with their first efforts and move towards the latest stuff. That way, all the reader has to do is keep on pressing one buttom: the one that points down.
Parting words: May I suggest that you raise the bar of this project, and flesh out the style conventions with the aid of the other parcipants. That way, you can easily sent the curious to the project page for guidance.
And with that, I’m ending my two-week WP test period. So you needn't respond to this post.
Best, 62.148.218.41 10:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll restart part of the discussion, I think linking to YEAR instead of YEAR in film|YEAR would be better since that would be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, but it wouldn't be horrible if it went the other way. MechBrowman 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
'Year in' would be better to provide context. It is such a shame that so few people determine issues which effect how many users enjoy the wiki. It is also very disheartening that we can become obsessed with such minor issues rather than creating content. The JPS 18:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Director templates

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I will anyway. I was looking around at the movie articles, figuring out what makes one "good". I noticed several articles had templates that listed all the movies the director of that movie directed. Kubrick, Speilberg, Hitchcock and others all had this. I felt this made the articles even more cluttered (and many are very cluttered with templates and lists already) I don't see the need for any director to have a template like this. I have not seen any other type of artist with a template like this. Since the director's corresponding article contains a list of all of that director's movies, there doesn't seem to be any reason to have a template. MechBrowman 03:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's unnecessary. Anyone who wants to see what Speilberg's other films are can click on his name and find out, that's the advantage of WP. JW 23:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I noticed there is a vfd on the templates for Kubrick, Hitchock, and Speilberg posted on July 10th. Everyone should go voice thier opionon. MechBrowman 00:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There should be an extensive debate about these. The TFD slapped on Lynch roused those in favour of these templates. [1] We now have the problem that some directors have templates, others don't. The needs to be consistency. I'm strongly in favour of navagational templates for notable directors because of their chronological order (I've voted delete on other templates which achieve the same as a category would). I know people above have expressed a dislike, but there are many others who are in favour of them. How do we go about establishing a debate for a policy, or something? The JPS 15:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know, which is why I mentioned it here. Perhaps you could create one of those proposal pages. MechBrowman 23:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about who to go about a formal proposal, but here's a stab at a practise. Feel free to imropove it. I want to try to keep the main page as a summary of the page, with the talk page as a dialogue. The JPS 16:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

New here

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, but already I feel right at home. This evening I joined this fine project, but I think it could use a little reform. For one, I think we should make the project page a little more detailed and a little more like some of the other Wikipedia documentation, including explaining or links to explinations of formatting and use of Wikipedia in general (resemble things like Wikipedia:How to edit a page). I think the thing the project page needs most is structure — hey, maybe we can even use the 'subpage' feature of wikipedia (Example: Wikipedia:WikipProject Movies/Formatting). Another thing I think there is a lack of is specifics. I think we should have a list of film categories to add our movies to (the current ones are sparse and many movies are in no categories at all). Also, maybe we should recommend adding a list of reviews to the pages — I've done it to the last few I've updated. An example of a somewhat well structured WikiProject that I've come accross is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports. Anyways, if anybody is interested in any of these ideas, respond. I'll have this page on watch. --imaek 06:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update 07:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC): I created a temporary example of a template index similar to that of Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs. Here it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies/Templates --imaek 07:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Movie templates

I've been writing some new film articles and using the movie template but I'm not 100% happy with it. I know there's been some discussion on this, but it was months ago and I'm not sure if any consensus has been reached on which template to use. The templates at the moment seem to list things like distributor and budget that aren't necessarily appropriate. It can be difficult to find budget info for older films, and its often meaningless to compare the budget of a 1943 film to a 2003 one anyway. Also, distributor is a bit of a problem because most films have different distributors in different countries. I've noticed people have often taken the distributor info from a DVD or video copy, which is inaccurate as many films (including almost all older ones) will have different distributors from their original release. Is there any agreement on what template to use, or are there alternatives? JW 29 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)

I think something quite basic would be best. That's what I don't like about templates like that, they have this "one-size-fits-all" mentality (not that a template can have a mentality, but, well, you know). One thing I dislike about the album tempaltes is that many articles have a "?????" in some of the entries, which looks bad. I think if something isn't applicable or known it should be left out, which is difficult to do with templates. Any info not included in the template can be put elsewhere in the article.
I haven't been part of this wikiproject, but I'm thinking maybe I should join, as I do have some opinions on film articles. Mostly I just don't like the ones that are practically cut and paste jobs from IMDb. I've written a few that don't follow any real standardization, but I think they're pretty good in that they have some good information other than IMDb stats and plot synopsis. I think real articles on films should be encouraged. -R. fiend 01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ratings template

Template:Infobox Film rating Template:Infobox Film rating

How about creating an "Ratings" template? That way it does not have to be integral with the Template:Infobox Movie. Steven McCrary 21:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How about the rating template at right. It is at Template:Infobox Movie rating I have implemented it on Groundhog Day (film). Comments? Steven McCrary 13:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose for mentioning the film's rating? MechBrowman 14:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Information, that's all (not trying to be coy). For some people, ratings are controversial, for others not. For some people, ratings are very important; for others not. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
If the rating was contorversial than it should be mentioned within the article, and if you really want to put in ratings than why not mention them somewhere in the content of the article? I do not understand why you feel a template is needed for information that can be very arbitrary and even changes over time (and if different from country to country). MechBrowman 17:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
see comment below The JPS. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


I think that the ratings should be implemented in the main infobox_movie because having more than one template one above the other may not look so good when they don't have the same width. you see, after I've removed the (thumb) from the movie poster on groundhog day's article, the infobox became wider than the your template.. btw: see my suggestion about having the movie sequels in the infobox at the bottom of this article. --Amr Hassan 14:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I see you've fixed the width of the template to be as the infobox .. but how do you know that it's gonna fit all the other infoboxes on the other movie articles ?? and btw. I think that the 300px movie poster width is the most popular here .. --Amr Hassan 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
True enough, and that could be a problem. I like your suggestion about implementation as found in albums. Until the Infobox Movie is updated, I plan on using this one. Until then, I am resolved to keep all images to 210px. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I added another parameter to Infobox_Movie_rating that allows the user to vary the width on the article page. The examples at the right show the feature. Steven McCrary 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with MechBrowman that inclusion is superfluous. The template provides a link to the IMDB for a reason. For films where the ratings are controversial, they should be discussed properly, within context, in the article. The JPS 17:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Putting the rating(s) in a template provides a standard location for that information. To me, not providing a rating summary is a significant piece of missing information that helps to summarize the movie's content. Following the IMDB logic to extreme would mean elimination of most (if not all) of the information in the Infobox_Movie template. Which eventually leads to why put any information here that is on IMDb (or any other movie web site), a discussion already occuring elsewhere on this page. The controversies and changes in ratings can still be brought up in the article. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion of actors, writers, producers and directors enables wikilinks to (potential) articles about those individuals, something which the IMDB cannot provide. Ratings do not summarize a movie's content. Why did they obtain that rating? Strong violence or graphic sex scenes, or both, or something else...? Comlpeting Infobox_Movie can be tedious enough without having to add superfluous info. The JPS 18:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
  1. I see the benefit of actors, writers, ..., etc. Good point. But what about the duplicity (with what is on IMDb) of information regarding budget of a film? run time? Should they should be moved to the article?
  2. Do not understand the comment, "ratings do not summarize a movie's content." It certainly suggests the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content, etc. Aren't those summaries? I believe it is important information about the movie, and is important to Wikipedia's audience.
Steven McCrary 19:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of budgets and run times being included either. (Running times have far too many variants anyway). If a film's budget is relevant, then it should be discussed in context (i.e. the most expensive film since x until y in 19zz). It's a field I usually leave blank when I'm adding this template to film articles, unless it can be found very easily.
Ratings are too reductive to be useful for an encyclopedia. They may be useful for parents, etc, trying to decide if a film is suitable (wikipedia is not a video guide) for family consumption. For an encyclopedia, however, the range of elements which could inflict a high rating means that on their own they are pretty much useless. They may "suggest the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content", but not accurately report it, within context. A film does dot need to be explicit in all areas to receive a 18, or R, or whatever... sex, violence, drug use... which is it? They tell us very little. The JPS 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent points, well stated! I agree they are reductive, and without the reasoning they mean nothing (note I did include the "for" parameter in the Infobox_Movies_rating), and agreed that Wikipedia is not a video guide. Thanks for the perspective.
The best example that comes to my mind is the rating given to the movie A Clockwork Orange. The movie originally appeared in 1971 with an "X" rating. I was a child then (12), but still remember the hooplah associated with that rating. In college, I read the book, as you know, a masterpiece of literature, nevertheless a brutal tale. Only recently did I rent and watch the video, now with an "R" rating. The point is that those ratings communicated content of that movie. I am not sure that words could adequately describe the brutality of that movie (or of those individuals). But a rating does, in my view, along with the reason. I think people understand thresholds of values and a rating systems communicates those thresholds in a manner words do not.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince you of my viewpoint, only communicate it.
Steven McCrary 21:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with a ratings template is that that are likely to be presented with American ratings only. They won't relate to readers in other countries that use different ratings, based on different criteria. Having them in the article where they can be explained is a great idea, but just having a rating in the infobox serves little purpose, I think. Rossrs 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be in the main movie template, it's easier to find if you wanted to know that info. --Revolución (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why movie ratings have to be kept separate from the main {{Infobox Movie}} template. this template is where the reader goes to get a quick rundown of the film's basic facts, such as starring cast members, runtime, budget, etc. Why should film ratings get their own template? — EagleOne\Talk 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles - Call to Action

There are literally hundreds of articles that are at Title (movie) or Title (YEAR movie). These all need to be moved to Title (film) and Title (YEAR film), don't they? Is there any effort at all to do this? john k 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the call to action part - if this does, indeed, need to be done, it's either a) going to require a huge amount of effort; or b) something that somebody should design a bot to do. john k 01:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is "film" better than "movie"? I would sort of think so, but it seems movie is more prevalent (from my own limited experience). I'd be happy with either, but I think you're right in that they need to be standardized. I would think a bot would be the way to go, but as I know nothing about making bots I cannot help in this respect, however. -R. fiend 01:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither do I...I think "film" is better, given that we use film in every context except the article titles. But it'll be a huge amount of work. john k 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Movies without Infoboxes

Does anyone else here think that there should be a Category for movie articles without Infoboxes? -- A Link to the Past 00:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

What about IMDB...?

Essentially, I see this project as competing head-on with IMDB ([2]). Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I just wanted to make sure that that is what is really happening. If so, this is a big task - not an impossible one but a big one. Comments anyone? Manning 00:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Further thoughts - IMDB has several advantages over MediaWiki in this area.

  1. Automatic back-linking: If I say Actor X is in Movie Y, then the page for Actor X automatically backlinks, and is automatically date-ordered.
  2. Date engine - all movie entries are date stamped, and all links are automatically sorted in this fashion.
  3. Fixed parameters - IMDB has a fixed range of parameters (Trivia, Plot Summary, Goofs, Awards, etc). We would need to manually maintain all of this.

Essentially, I can't see us competing with IMDB using Wikipedia. However, I CAN see us having MediaWiki modified to a fixed framework (and have the autobacklinking and date ordering included) and then creating a sister project called "WikiMovies"... Now that's a really big call, but it would achieve big things. We would need Jimbo's input of course. Manning 00:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a competition? IMDB has its own benefits, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the film articles should deal with what the movie is, how and why it was produced, criticism and its influence or innovations if any. I think there should be more concern about making Wikipedia movie articles less like IMDB. MechBrowman 03:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
If the objective is to NOT be like IMDB, then that is great too, but it needs to be well-defined. My assessment that this seems like a competition against IMDB is based on what I have read thus far and I'm happy to be wrong. I think you are correct in identifying that there is a need for greater clarity as to precisely what is trying to be achieved. Manning 04:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think the similarities to IMDB are because many of the film articles took the information directly from IMDB. I think a problem that WikiProject Films faces is that there are few resources readily available for many movies. I went to the Main branch of the Philadelphia Public Library and they didn't even have a single book devoted to D.W. Griffith! MechBrowman 20:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Wikipedia Films project has a distinct role to play beyond IMDb, and other web sites. The purpose here is to document significant historical events. IMDb does not do much of that, especially with new films. I see Wikipedia's NPOV as a very important role in documenting our knowledge, one that is distinct from IMDb. My $0.02. Steven McCrary 18:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a wiki-based IMDB-like project. Currently IMDB is owned by Amazon and its licensing allows using its data only for personal use. It'd be nice to have a competing project that is user-powered and its data open for others to build upon. FarmerBob 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New template {{Future film}} for tagging upcoming films

Adding the tag automatically adds the article to Category:Upcoming films, which is a subcategory of Category:Future products. Note that Category:Future films would propably be more in line with Category:Future products, Category:Future games and Category:Future events. --The Merciful 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Horror film and Pulp fiction are currently listed on WP:IDRIVE. To be improved, the articles need your support.--Fenice 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Henry Fonda - Featured Article Candidate

Henry Fonda is being voted on for on WP:FAC. Show your support! -- A Link to the Past 12:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Movie sequels in the infobox ..

Hi everyone .. i've recently joined wikipedia and i've been working on movies article on my own ever since . i've just found out about this project now and i signed my name to the participants and i'm enthusiastic to work :D. i have an idea .. why not add a table in the Template:Infobox_movie with the movie sequels ? --Amr Hassan 05:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome. While it sounds good on paper, consider that some movies have very many sequels. Sequels would suit the article better rather than on the infobox. -- A Link to the Past 23:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like there is on the Infobox_album.. check this for an example Meteora. there's the current album.. the last one .. and the next one.. we could do this in the movie infobox.. the last one.. this one .. and the next one if there is.. --Amr Hassan 06:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Infobox album is also very small and fits that infromation, Infobox film is large already and has a great deal of information. The information is better suited in the article like A Link to the Past said, or in the case of popular movie series like Star Wars a seperate template located at the bottom of the page. MechBrowman 17:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking the same - have a 'Prequel' field and a 'Sequel' field which link to the relevant films. This would allow users to quickly browse through the series of films without trying to hunt out the links in the text. It would also indicate when a film does not have a prequel/sequel, as you would put None or something in the field. It would also help to put the year the prequel/sequel was made/released in brackets after the film's name. We would need to discuss whether Star Wars I or Star Wars IV was first etc. But I think the advantages outweigh any disadvantages of it taking up too much space. Marky1981 16:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Godfather

We here at WikiProject:Featured Article Drive are working on making The Godfather a featured article. Help out! -- A Link to the Past 16:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lists of works

I thought that the following link may be of interest to people involved in the Films Wikiproject: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). I was thinking especially of the discussion on the associated talk page about the order in which an actor's films are listed. Dismas 09:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I seem to be duplicating some efforts at Wikipedia:Filmographies then. But perhaps that could help for the Manual of Style as well. RADICALBENDER★ 18:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Shortening plot summaries

I've noticed that many movie articles give the entire plot of a movie, be it condensed or super freaking long. Basically, I'm suggesting that we both shorten the summaries and not tell the whole plot of a movie.

Support

  1. A Link to the Past (talk) 21:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Object

  1. ---- Astrokey44|talk 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  1. I support condensing the superlong summaries that discuss every minor subplot and provide obsessive levels of detail. I believe our aim should be to be thorough and complete, so I object to the suggestion of not telling the entire main plot (unless you're also suggesting trimming off the needless subplots and sticking just to the main plot). I think we should convey the main storyline briefly with a beginning, middle and end. Perhaps the main problem is to establish a definition of the word "summary" for the purpose of discussing a film. My interpretation of a good summary is one that does not exhaustively discuss every trivial point but covers every important one. Brief and concise, but clear and comprehensive. Rossrs 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


I agree with what Rossrs says. To me it seems that many people are eager to contribute to Wikipedia but have nothing more to add than superfluous plot summaries for film articles. The result is sort of like when kids resort to retelling the entire story when they are suppost to be writting a review. We can watch the film, we don't need to read the entire thing. Some examples are in the articles for Tarantino's films: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill; summaries which I feel need to be cut in half with a chainsaw. For a more ideal length look to Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Casablanca (film). --Cammoore 08:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont think theres anything wrong with telling the entire plot to a movie. An encyclopedia article on a movie should not be like a film review where they try not to reveal spoilers. We have the spoiler template so everything significant should be covered. I think that more significant films like the ones Camoore just mentioned deserve longer plot summaries because of their influence/notability. Perhaps some of the minor films could have the plot shortened. ---- Astrokey44|talk 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IMDB bot?

Has anyone thought of creating a bot that scours IMDB for movies that don't yet have articles on Wikipedia, extracts any available information from the database, and creates an article out of it? This seems very necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-27 17:27

  • Mmm, I'm not too sure it is that necessary. We're trying to be an encyclopedia, not an IMDB clone (though by the state of the majority of film articles you'll be forgiven for thinking otherwise!). We need articles (i.e. critical reaction, importance, etc.)! The JPS 18:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Such detail comes after we've started stubs for all the important films, which I am positive we are not even close to finishing. The bot-generated stubs wouldn't look like IMDB. It would pick out the director name, the top actors, the tag line, and any other important info, and rewrite it all in sentence form, such as " _____ is a 19__ film directed by ____. The film starred _____ and _____. The film was set in ______. Its budget was _____." Very simple but very necessary start. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 04:57
      • Would it also put them into the correct category, and sort them correctly? The JPS 10:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • And also add the correct stub notice? Add wikilinks? Disambiguate them? If it will do all those things I won't be as bothered. Otherwise the time spent tidying up these stubs could be spent improving existing articles on 'important' films. If someone hasn't already bothered to add it to the wiki, then the film is likely to be pretty obscure and irrelevant. The JPS 10:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Note that IMDB's policies http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?usedatasoftware don't allow bots or screenscraping. They do, however, have all their data available for download. But, they explicitly forbid building any kind of "online/offline database of movie information (except for individual personal use)". I am not sure how that applies to parts of their database that are essentially a collection of facts.FarmerBob 05:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I'm working on the article for Good Night and Good Luck, and I'm wondering whether a film's tagline should be in the template? Sort of like the "motto" on templates for countries and states? --Revolución (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A tagline should definietly not be in the template, taglines I feel are even more unnessecary than film ratings. Taglines are mostly made by the marketing department of some distribution company and are not very important at all. Taglines should only be in the main article. I think the only times a tagline should be mentioned if it actually had some cultural effect that got people to see the movie or became a popular phrase. MechBrowman 02:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Annie Hall - help!!!

Hi folks, Could you please take a look at Annie Hall. You'll soon spot the section I mean. It has been added by a new user (who does not yet understand the wiki philosophy). I'm going to need help cleaning that up, and making sure it stays cleaned up. You might like to check out my talk page too, to see the rather hostile messages he's left there. The JPS 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Screenplays

For what it's worth, as a reader I'd like to see external links to screenplays when available. Squib 22:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree that it does seem like a good idea, I'm sure there is a policy on wikipedia about linking to copyright violations? I added an external link to a site with a video clip - the edit was reverted, so lesson learnt.
I am aware that I respond negatively to many suggestions. Sorry!!! :D
The JPS 23:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that it would invariably be a copyright violation. I tend to doubt that, but I certainly wouldn't assume it across the board. Again, the suggestion is to link "when available." There could be other reasons not to do it, such as not enough interest or can't be bothered (my excuse). I'd find it useful is all, so maybe others would too. Squib 18:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This is true, but I would think that it is fair to assume that in the vast majority of cases it would be a copyvio. I'd be bothered enough to add such links, but not so that someone else can come along and remove them two months later because of a policy we hadn't discussed. If "when available" takes copyright into consideration, then I support. The JPS 19:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This Project

Does this project encompass the need Wikipedia has for the more technical side of filmmaking? There are no articles on HMI lights, many of the honorary societies (I just added the ACE and MPSE), or the basics of cinematography. If not, is there another wikiproject or none? Thanks! Kushboy 06:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutly no knowledge of your examples, but my feeling is that they would be welcome on wikipedia. I now want to know about them! Do HMI lights produce a distinctive effect - and is there a fair-use image that could be used to illustrate it? This project focusses upon articles about films themselves, but is, I believe, the closest project to what you're talking about. (The wiki is full of surprises, though.) Well done on your two recent additions. The JPS 09:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's so much going on with the lights and all. I could take pictures of them myself to show what they do. Should I/we propose a descendant project? I haven't worked much with Wikiprojects. Kushboy 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cast listings: who's in, and who's out?

Thanks to some exceedingly lame edit wars over on the various Star Wars articles, I think 'tis time to reach some community -- by which I mean Wikipedia-wide, rather than the five Star Wars fanboys who edit the articles there -- consensus on who should be included in cast listings for all films with Wikipedia articles.

Most important, in my mind, is that we use objective criteria, so people don't start complaining about "Oh, but you should have included John Doe, because his character is soooooooo cuuuuuuuuuute" or "But Bill Smith is t3h pWnz0r, he should be included too!" or that kind of crap.

My first inclination is to say we include the cast as listed on IMDb -- "Cast overview, first billed only."

However, I'm aware that this may create some issues. For example, taking the original Star Wars, IMDb lists the cast as:

Mark Hamill .... Luke Skywalker Harrison Ford .... Han Solo Carrie Fisher .... Princess Leia Organa Peter Cushing .... Grand Moff Tarkin Alec Guinness .... Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi Anthony Daniels .... C-3PO Kenny Baker .... R2-D2 Peter Mayhew .... Chewbacca David Prowse .... Darth Vader James Earl Jones .... Darth Vader (voice) Phil Brown .... Uncle Owen Shelagh Fraser .... Aunt Beru Jack Purvis .... Chief Jawa Alex McCrindle .... General Dodonna Eddie Byrne .... General Willard

Now, I think most anyone who has seen this film will agree that Owen and Beru, along with the Chief Jawa and General Willard, are minor at best, and that Wedge, who is missing entirely here, is fairly important (being Luke's wingman and all).

So with that huge flaw pointed out in my only useful suggestion thus far, does anyone have a better objective suggestion for how we might go about listing movie casts?--chris.lawson 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with you. IMDb is great but it takes its cast lists from the movie itself (usually), so sometimes the cast is "in order of appearance" and sometimes alphabetical, but mostly it's correct. My opinion is we don't need the full cast list anymore than we need the full crew list, just the main ones. In theory I'd stop at 10 but it depends on the movie. For some 10 would be too many, but for others, too few, such as those with ensemble or "all star" casts where there are a lot of people with roles that are similar in size or importance. (such as Memphis Belle, Magnolia, Boogie Nights. Genuine "all star" films would be ones where the casting itself was a gimmick. Think the Airport films, The Towering Inferno etc. Notable cameos of course should be mentioned. Marlon Brando in Superman, some film with Bette Davis where she is onscreen for about 5 minutes (can't think of the title) should be mentioned simply because of the stature of the person. Someone who shuffles pointlessly across the screen and glances briefly at the camera should not be mentioned, unless that person went on to become Marilyn Monroe or Tom Cruise (or someone genuinely famous). A lot of POV is going to come into it, like everything. With the Star Wars example above, I'd stop the list at James Earl Jones. As we link most film related articles to IMDb I see even less justification for blindly duplicating their cast lists. Rossrs 09:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the issue of objectivity. It seems very clumsy to have to develop a consensus for how the cast should be listed for each of the thousands of films with Wikipedia articles. A generalised guideline would be much better.--chris.lawson 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's going to be very hard to come up with a standard approach for a medium that is so diverse, but maybe a guideline could say something like "cast lists should be limited to only the principal and supporting players, and listed in order of importance in the film. For most films it should not be necessary to list more than (10?) names, however some discretion should be allowed for ensemble casts where a larger number of performers play characters of relatively equal importance. In some cases it may be appropriate to mention the presence of a notable performer in the cast, for example early in their career or cameo appearances." I think that no matter how a guideline is written individual contributors are going to view it subjectively, and that's when individual articles need to be looked at.Rossrs 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable film articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

Will try to add more as I find them. Rossrs 12:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions so far- this reads like a list of some of my favourite films! I would give Metropolis B-class because it still needs some references, the others A-class (ready for publication), are these assessments fair? I'm sure this project must have dozens more A-class....! Thanks, Walkerma 22:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Renaming requests

As I'm doing random DABbing, I'm also sorting articles to conform to naming conventions. Are there any admins here who could sort the following... The JPS 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation project

The following is a list of film related disambiguation tasks.

Wikicity

Why make a WikiProject when you can make a Wikicity? What's the difference between the two? Or is there already a wikicity on filmmaking? What other projects/cities/programs related to wikipedia are dedicated to film/filmmaking/video/television? I'm trying to find the grand daddy of all film-related articles; and that doesn't seem to be possible. The only "umbrella" article or page I can think of is wikipedia.org itself! There are probaby other film-related projects out there that I'm not even aware of.