Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Cancelled films

What is WikiProject Films' policy on cancelled or unfinished films? I recently nominated Batman Triumphant as an AfD since it's already mentioned in its own section at Batman & Robin and doesn't seem to need its own article. People who have voted against deletion have said that it is notable enough, and I'm not sure how a Batman film that never took off from pre-production is more notable than any other projects that failed to take off. --Erik 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that is a case-by-case issue. In the case of Batman Triumphant, since no footage was shot, I hardly think its worthy of its own article. But with a film such as 1937's I, Claudius (an aborted Alexander Korda version of the Robert Graves novel with Charles Laughton and Merle Oberon), actual footage was shot, but the film was never finished. There is enough backstory behind that film to warrent a full article, which is NOT the case with the Batman film. --The Photoplayer 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A big task, anyone up for it?

I don't know the exact number, but it seems to be alot here: Category:Unassessed film articles. This needs massive work. I'm going to start going through some today, but the more help... the faster it will go. RobJ1981 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh good a comrade in arms! I've been working through them for the last few weeks and the following letters are done: A-E, J, O, Q, U-Z. The script that Shane wrote has been a great boon (I think there's a link to it above). Also the exact number of unassessed articles is as of now 6,941 or 57% of 12217 total film articles. --Supernumerary 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Please be sure to capitalize the class when you rate. Otherwise it will display on the discussion page that it is the class you rated it as, but it will still be left in the unassessed category. Oh and don't forget that sometime we'll have to go through and rank them all by importance.--Supernumerary 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just checked out a lot of the films that I've seen, added a rating and will be working on adding more information to them. As of right now, 6,440 (53%) of the 12,236 film articles are unassessed. Keep in mind that the T-section is probably the biggest because of all the films that being with The, so that letter will need the most work.--Cbrown1023 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found that the quickest way is to use the sections of films by quality, which takes you to the article page and not the talk page. This eliminates one click, which doesn't sound like much but after a couple hundred it accumulates. Also this script (developed by Shane) is an immense timesaver. Since I didn't know how to use it, I'll give the creator's directions. Copy everything from that file to User:your user name here/monobook.js (if this is the skin you are using or change it). You don't need the other java script files so don't copy them. Save and do a hard refresh. Happy tagging!--Supernumerary 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I also want to point something else out. I've noticed many times on the talk page of articles: there is several projects listed. One project has a class, and the other doesn't. To save time for other editors: RATE for all projects. If it's stub class for films, then it's stub for the others. Pretty simple. RobJ1981 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right that a film stub for WikiProject Films means that it's a stub for all other projects dealing with films (WikiHorror, Indian, Korean, French, etc), but certainly not for film and book articles or play and film articles, which often go into much more detail about the book or play.--Supernumerary 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is currently being worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Article Grading. Cbrown1023 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Future class

What's the purpose of the future class assessment? -Acjelen 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason for the class system is to show how much the article needs to be expanded. The future class means that it can't be expanded that much at this moment because of lack of information. Cbrown1023 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a project class. Not part of the 1.0 system. Shane (talk/contrib) 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

UnassessABLE film articles

What do we do about articles that cannot be assessed as Future, Stub, Start, B..., such as lists (List_of_Disney_direct-to-video_films), should they not be labeled as WikiProject Films? Cbrown1023 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC). The following pages fit into that category:

Why would project pages have to be assessed? Is the print/static version of WP going to include the list articles? -Acjelen 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to your question, but just becuase Wikipedia may be turn into a print encyclopedia, it is still Wikipedia and won't be like most encyclopedias while it is on the internet. However, my question was refering to the part of the assessment that states who much more information the article needs, not its importance. I was wondering about those pages because they are in the Category:Unassessed film articles. Cbrown1023 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought both ratings were just part of the 1.0 project. -Acjelen 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought they were used for that and were also used to assess work that needs to be done on the article. Of course, the list articles do not need to have work done, but should still be tagged with WikiProject Films and if they don't have an assessment they will show up in Category:Unassessed film articles (we are working on rating all the films in the Unassessed film articles category.) I just want to know what to assess them as, to just leave them unassessed, or to remove the {{FilmsWikiPrjoects}} tag. The only reason I ask is because I came across them while I was rating articles using the information from that category. Cbrown1023 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This was solved earlier with the introduction of {{List-Class}} to the template. Cbrown1023 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of importance on the template

When assessing articles, you add in Class = <whatever> and Importance = <whatever>. Now, that's all fine because, depending on what class you use, there is a label printed onto the template. But when you add in the importance, nothing appears to differ in the template. So, (yes, I am aware of the new template design), but is there any point in doing it until the new template comes into force? Iolakana•T 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance also does not show up on the statistics page. This needs to be looked into by someone who knows what they are doing (i.e. not me).--Supernumerary 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Some (many?) projects have actively chosen not to assess importance due to its vagueness. Importance to the project? To the encyclopedia? In general? There have been some recent proposals to change this to Priority and have it be based on the project's goals. I think that basically it's a holdover from the early drafts of the assessment process when it seemed more feasible. The other problem is that even editors within a project may disagree on an article's importance. Certainly in the Films project you can see the possibility that fans of Film X may assert that the article on the film is of top importance while non-fans may disagree. Or massively influential but generally unknown films may be given a low importance. And of course, the question is what you're evaluating importance as to begin with. Girolamo Savonarola 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The current template has no way to show it. So that's why the stats don't show up. I proposed a new template, (look on the main page) a while back and we are still looking into it. I strongly suggest that we do this before adding it to the current template. Shane (talk/contrib) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Genre Articles

What about genre articles (i.e. Comedy film or Drama film)? Should they get tagged with {{FilmsWikiProject}} also? Cbrown1023 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

solved in #New Class Rating Needed

And God Created Woman

The article at the above title concerned only the 1956 film. I created a stub about the 1988 film and turned And God Created Woman into a dab page. In dealing with the redirects, however, I had only enough patience to distinguish the two films in the Roger Vadim article and to eliminate the only double redirect. (I'm not heavily into films and came upon this situation only by accident, when a link took me to the 1956 film and that couldn't possibly be right.) Some FilmProject editor(s) could:

Good luck with the WikiProject! JamesMLane t c 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, try not to over-disambiguate. In this case, I don't think there's any doubt that the Vadim film is the "primary topic" and should be at And God Created Woman. Fixing this will require an administrator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My experience is that what's obviously primary to one person isn't always obvious to others, and that a dab page is the best solution if the question is at all close. That said, I don't have any strong feelings about this particular instance. Note, though, that neither work should be referred to as "the Vadim film". They're both Vadim films. JamesMLane t c 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Egg on my face! Well, I never saw the remake. What a hack Vadim must be, to get stuck doing remakes of classics. ;-) In this particular case I expect you're right. --Dhartung | Talk 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

New Class Rating Needed

We should have a non-article class rating, like what WikiProject Novels has (see page here) for pages like this and lists. Cbrown1023 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I found out there is one, but it needs to be linked to a Category page, you just type class=NA, but it doesn't put it into any category, it just leaves it in Unassessed. This syntax should work |NA=[[Category:Non-article film pages|{{PAGENAME}}]].
There's a Category:Non-article film pages for it. Cbrown1023 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I added it to the template and am using it in Non-article film pages that definately relate to WikiProject Films (not Characters or Novels based on books or something, lists of films). Cbrown1023 01:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

please check out

Talk:Mrs. Doubtfire 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud0011 (talk • contribs)

List of Film Articles that are Feature or A-Class Articles

It will be immensely useful for editors to be able to refer to Feature or A-class film articles. Could someone do something to enable this? I, for one, sure can't find a link on this Wikipage that takes me to a listing of film articles that are Feature articles. Of course, a Wikipage detailing the number of film articles that are Feature articles (and A-class articles, and so on) is available, but wouldn't it be more helpful if this table links to these film Feature articles? Splashprince 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a category for each assessment level. Articles are automatically added to their proper category after the class tag is added to the project banner on the article's talk page. See Category:FA-Class film articles and Category:A-Class film articles. I agree that it would be a good idea to add links to these categories somewhere on the main page. --Gpollock 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I put links to all the class categories at the bottom of the WPF pages in see also (here). Cbrown1023 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution
Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Note: I've renamed your template {{Film}}. There's at least 2 redirects to your template as far as I know, so if you intend to use my plugin please either configure it correctly, or wait until my next release (hopefully later today) in which I shall include a settings file for {{film}}.

Proposal for merging World cinema and Foreign film

I've looked at these two important articles, and they look very similar so I think a merge is warranted. But I'm not sure which article title should be used if a merge takes place. Any feedback appreciated here or on the relevant article's talk page. Madder 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would favour World Cinema. Foreign is subjective, although most of North America, Australasia and the British Isles all speak the same language, to each other they are "foreign". I think World Cinema, as in non-English language, is more accurate, especially in an English language encyclopaedia. Mallanox 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This has been solved and the merge of Foreign film into World cinema has occured. Cbrown1023 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cinema of Foo" to "Fooian cinema" discussion

Just FYI, this is going on over at Categories for discussion, in case you want to put in your nickel's worth. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Both are deleted, obviously (the red links). Cbrown1023 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Feet Movie Accuracy

I have never seen anywhere that Steve Irwin is the sea lion in this film... I would like to see a source or some claifacation to see the page:Happy Feet DPM 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to take that up, a better place most likely to be read by people who care about the article would be the article in question's talk page (Talk:Happy Feet). In relation to your question, it states on IMDb, but IMDb is not always correct just like Wikipedia is not. Cbrown1023 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, some actors choose to be un-credited in films. An example is Robin Williams in Everyone's Hero. Cbrown1023

"Universal films" to "Universal Pictures films" discussion

Please be aware of the discussion for renaming for reason explained in the nomination. Thanks. Mallanox 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Has been renamed. Cbrown1023 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem at Zombiegeddon page

The page is a mess, the main text is basically just a list of who is in it. I've added wikify and cleanup to it, and it always gets removed. Can someone keep an eye on it? Vandals keep removing the tags with no reason at all. RobJ1981 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New categories

Nintendude has been creating some categories without discussion, which isn't really alarming yet, but I'm not sure they're really useful or encyclopedic. For example, Cat:Films by rating, and creating an umbrella category for Cat:Film stubs by genre, which might be useful. Just a heads-up in case anyone feels strongly about either. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Films by rating isn't needed at all. I'm putting it in CFD, along with rated R movies. On the article for the movie, it usually says what it's rated.. doesn't it? Being redundant isn't needed. RobJ1981 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Television films

I created a new template at Template:Infobox Television Film. I felt it was needed because the television and film infoboxes didn't cover the merged category. Take a look at it, see if you have any suggestions or if you may want to add it to the links on the main article. Thanks. -Shannernanner 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardization

I'm trying to find where to discuss standardization of film articles. I'm pretty sure I'm posting in the wrong place, and would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.

To be specific, I have been working on the Three Kings article and am having trouble deciding how much info should be placed in the "Plot" section. Should it be a small summary? Should it be an exahustive scene-by-scene description? Have these issues already been discussed? Where should I go for this type of discussion?

Thanks in advance, and by the way, I would like to offer my full support to WikiProject Films. I would be happy help in any way I can. Feel free to recruit me for any tasks that would benefit the project. —Nate Scheffey 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a good place to post, the answers to most of your questions can be found on our style guidelines page. As for the plot summary, it should definately have one. But the size usually varies, you can have a short one ("Synopsis") or a long one ("Plot"). You can also have both, a "Synopsis" and a "Detailed Plot Summary". Cbrown1023 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New Script, automatically assessed as Stub-Class

This should help with the grading, the articles that use a {{stub}} are automatically assessed as stub, just like WP:BIOGRAPHY and WP:SONGS. Cbrown1023 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it saves time, but the article still remains in unassessed films category. Then you still have to add the class to the project tag, just to make it assessed. The template says "if you agree with the assessment, please remove the template". When I went to edit the talk page, the template isn't even listed. I noticed this at the talk page of Forces of Nature. I rated it like I normally do, and saved it. The template remains on the talk page.RobJ1981 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the automatic rating has another flaw in it. The Blues Brothers (film) is somewhat beyond a stub, yet it was listed as a stub by the automatic rating. I'm just going to assess like I always did, since the automatic assess doesn't seem helpful. RobJ1981 21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not working well, so I just removed it. If you can find some way for it to work so that it only automatically assesses unassessed articles then please add it correctly. Cbrown1023 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP! (all)

I was wondering if you could add some syntax into the template to automatically assess articles as stubs (if they do not yet have an assessment) on the assessement scale if they use a stub template... I've been trying to do it and can't seem to find a way, any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you populating your category in AWB with the articles in that stub category? --plange 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What? I was wondering if he could use something like the {{stubclass}} template for our project. I can't seem to get it to work, when I tried it, the template would not remove itself from the pages and it was added to articles that already had a rating. Cbrown1023 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The best way would be to add an auto=yes parameter, like in {{WPBiography}} and several other templates. Then load my plugin and load the "Film generic template.xml" file. Click auto-stub in template properties to tell the plugin that the template has an auto=yes parameter. Then to rate articles as stub class automatically, click auto-stub in the Configuration box. It will only add class=Stub and auto=yes to talk pages which don't already have a rating. --kingboyk 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent films and languages

I've found it a bit disconcerting to see silent films in, for example, Category:English-language films. Most silents were made with intertitles and vast numbers were released equally with intertitles in several languages. Of course these films had nationalities—a German silent is generally a very different matter than an American silent—but they didn't really have languages.

I'm not particularly interested in getting deep into this project—I have way too much else on my plate—but I'd suggest that this would be the best place to form a guideline for dealing with this, and hope someone does so. I won't be watchlisting this page, but if someone wants me, feel free to get hold of me. - Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that Category:Silent films could be added as a subcategory to Category:Films by language, as well as adding a disclaimer to the top of the latter page explaining to put all silent films there regardless of nationality. That's my crude stab at the problem. Of course, you could simply just say that no silent films should have a language category, only a nationality one. Girolamo Savonarola 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Signor Savonarola on this. An elegant solution - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I also support the above proposal unless someone comes up with even a better solution. I would compare silent films released with different language intertitles to Italian genre films of the 70's. These were released with different language dubs and no sound was recorded during filming. Prolog 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well - that's a very good solution. However, I think that maybe we should still fill out the language section in the infobox with the language that it was originally made in, eg. "English (original titles)" or something similar. Some silent comedic films relied a lot on witty and hard-to-translate intertitles, strange as that may seem. Also, you can sometimes make out what people are saying by their mouth movements (in fact there were some scandals when lip-reading moviegoers realized that an actor had actually said a swear word). Esn 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Silent films had language: titles, text, credits. Doczilla 04:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
These were usually shot multiple times with different languages for the international market. Girolamo Savonarola 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that "Silent" dictate the language. That way, the reader can infer that since it is a silent film, subtitles throughout are interchangable from country-to-country. The user can then look at the country that made it and assume that the native language of that country is the original language of the film. If it's the exception to the rule and it's not, simply mark it down when you are writing the article on the film (ie.: "although this was an American production, it was made for an Italian market and was orignally produced with Italian titles"). The Photoplayer 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, silent is the language. Cbrown1023 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

New Template Ratings

I added classes for Templates ( class=Template ), for Categories ( class=Cat ), and for Disambiguation pages ( class=Disambig ). I already added the Template-Class to pages that were in Category:Film templates using AWB. Any other help is greatly appreciated with adding these new tags to other pages. Cbrown1023 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look through my contribs and tag the disambig pages that I removed the Film tag from. --Supernumerary 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CfD debate re Monster movies

Apologies, this should have been put on here sooner. Just in case anyone has any feelings either way.Mallanox 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The voting has finished and the consensus was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A movie page in need of serious cleanup (or even a rewrite)

Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story is a huge mess. As I looked at the talk page, I noticed it's a former good article. Just take a look at the article, and you will see it's almost a complete article of bulleted lists (pop cultural references of many types, and trivia). I've only seen parts of the movie (on the edited version), so I'm no expert on the film. Any help is needed, the page needs alot of work. RobJ1981 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Can we use http://www.ugo.com/ as a source for reviews on actors, etc.? --plange 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you main like actors, that is a part of WP:BIOGRAPHY (and a possible future project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors). But if you mean their perfomance in various films that would be added to film articles then, it should be okay (I'm not really sure what you mean by reviews). Cbrown1023 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, what I was wondering is if in your experience as an editor for this project, if that source is considered reliable for articles written about films and the actors in them or is it just some blog maintained by a guy nuts about film. I guess I could as over at WP:RS. What I meant by reviews is their assessment on how the actor portrayed their character, etc. --plange 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation Request

I'd love some assistance with The Burmese Harp - the link points to both the film, and the musical instrument, and the film article (stub) reveals two different Japanese films with that title. How do we split this all up? --Davidals 08:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Figured it out...--Davidals 08:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pah-Peh-Rheo

Are you sure you want this article on your list? Although related to Donald Duck, the subject is a graphic novel...Septentrionalis 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it was added in error. Thank you for pointing that out, I removed it. Cbrown1023 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuberu bagu

I've been doing some major expansion of the old stub for Nuberu bagu (Japanese new wave cinema), and would like to invite some discussion. I've taken off the "stub" tag; it's now "unassessed." At this point it has been expanded & sectioned; with an intro, overview, history, sections for key filmmakers (and themes), and a chronological list of selected titles (organized by year, alpha by director within the year). It has been referenced; I will be adding further references over the next week or so.

In the meantime, any organizational suggestions would be good - it has gone from a very small to a rather large article, and I would like for it to be top-notch, but not cumbersome or unwieldy. I've also listed it with WikiProjectJapan - I want any cultural references and allusions within the article to be accurate, and I think there are still some weak spots.

Overall, I think I'm going to niche-ify and focus of Japanese film; getting things improved and expanded as needed, and seeing if we can get a few additional high-quality J-film articles. --Davidals 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Maybe you should consider applying for peer review with a view to getting it to WP:FA. Is there a reason for not wikilinking the key films? Even if this would turn out as a lot of red links, the articles should definitely be created, if the films are key AdamSmithee 08:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I will work towards that - you are the second peoson to suggest wikilinking them. The vast majority would be red links, but gradually I want to create articles for them, and I know a few other people will probably add to them as well. --Davidals 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards in {{Infobox Film}}

It seems a bit pointless having an "Awards" field in the infobox. Almost no-one's using it. For films with a lot of wins, it's impossible to fit them in tidily. Awards, and nominations, for that matter, need to be listed in the article body anyway. Can't we just lose the awards bit of the infobox altogether? TheMadBaron 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It also gets into the thorny issue of which awards and nominations are notable enough anyway, and if the notability standard changes based on the size, type, and nationality of the film. Best to leave it to the article. Girolamo Savonarola 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. It does not fully explain what belongs there either, do we want just the wins or the nominations and the wins or do we want the name of the field they won (like "best picture") or just the award (like "oscar") it is best to leave it out of the infobox for tidy-ness reasons. The only reason some people may argue for it is that some people only look at the infobox when they look at the article... Cbrown1023 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Also agree. If the awards won are notable enough, they'll probably be mentionned in the body of the article anyways. --Gpollock 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's unnecessary, not even used and the award info is hard to import in it. Prolog 01:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought that field was removed months ago, for the reasons listed above. There's no way to fit an useful awards section in the infobox. - Bobet 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted, it is still there. Cbrown1023 13:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think Awards is practically useless in the infobox. Better to see to it that they are mentioned in the articles. Hoverfish 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is over, the Awards field was removed. Cbrown1023 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

amg_id in {{Infobox Film}}

I checked, and we're both sort of right. It was removed, but someone put it back with no discussion in June. Let's just get rid of it since no one likes it. And while we're at it, to save the job queue, let's remove the amg_id too at the same time. I've no idea who put it in there or why, since amg doesn't provide any information that isn't already on imdb. I can also find precious little discussion about anyone agreeing to put it there. - Bobet 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the awards point, but strongly disagree on the amg_id point. Though I've never once used the amg_id tag, I think it should still be there. There should be some redundancy. We can't rely on a single source site.RichMac 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
AMG should not be there, it hardly gives any information and if it does, it is the same as IMDb. What we should probably have is the official site instead of AMG. The official site is "official" and IMDb is a very trusted source. Cbrown1023 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we shouldn't rely on a single source, but the infobox is hardly a replacement for a references/sources/whatever section. If you use amg as a reference, put it in the references section. I'm just saying it's not useful in the infobox. - Bobet 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be best discussed seperately.; it seems to be a lot more contentious, and I'd like to move on with the awards issue, which we seem to be agreed on. Having said that, for what it's worth, I think that RichMac and Cbrown are both right, and both wrong. IMDb shouldn't be in the infobox either. There should be redundancy, and we shouldn't be promoting IMDb over any other site, but there should be a links section for all films, with IMDb, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, and an official site, if available. (One problem with having an official site in the infobox is that most films were made before the advent of the internet.) I'll use the AMG field as long as it's there, but I can't see that either link in the infobox is neccesary or desirable. TheMadBaron 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When asked if things in the Infobox should be linked as well as things in the article (it is supposed to be no, because of redundancy) the consensus was yes. They stated this because the infobox "floats" over the rest of the article and should be treated separately. This means that it should include certain external links. Since IMDb and the Official Site are most travelled to and most respected they should be represented in the Infobox. Also, all fields in the infobox (except for title) are optional. So if a movie does not have an offical site (because it was made before the internet), then the field just wouldn't matter. Cbrown1023 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be in agreement, so I'm being bold and removing the two fields (amg_id and awards). Cbrown1023 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I copy here my request from the relevant Infobox Film discussion
The AMG that was just removed from the template was and is a very useful link, especially for one trying to fill in missing film infoboxes (like me). The information is given in a very orderly way that is easy to work with, whereas in IMDB one has to look around to find all the names, dates, etc, and often misses information that AMG has. IMDB is surely more interesting for its viewers' comments etc, but the quality of AMG is also very high. I please ask that the template is restored as previously, for reasons of high-practicality, if not for public choice. I have read the above discussion, and had I found it earlier, I would have surely posted my opinion earlier. Also I don't see such a broad consensus above that justifies the removal.
I prefer TheMadBaron's suggestion in this discussion, so long as it is applied wherever the amg has already been entered and doesn't exist elswhere (obvious)in the article. Hoverfish 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You've posted a very good argument. I slightly agree with you, as I really don't care either way (anymore)... But on your point of it only occuring in the infobox, I disagree. It should be in the external links and the infobox per other discussions. Cbrown1023 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Girolamo Savonarola 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A question: Why should AMG be in there and not more well known sites like Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, MetaCritic, etc? But on your point of it only occuring in the infobox, I disagree. Cbrown1023 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If it is me you are asking, I probably phrased it loosely. I didn't say it should only exist in the infobox. I agree if it goes. I was only refering to films where it has only been entered in the infobox and not under External Links. Also what I quoted was writen before I read this pages discussions. Please, read section "Work on List by years underway" on a somewhat related matter. If there is a more appropriate place to post it, or some other users I should contact, I would be glad to know. Hoverfish 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There seams to be no reason to break a working template. AMG for some movies makes it much easier to find information more than you could with IMDb. If you want to fill in the Information on the infobox its easier going to amg since everything is there for you. Especially old movies that quite often (for some odd reason) dont have such info easily accessable; if not at all. There does not seam to be any consensus on removing it either and since so many pages use it (here is a small list of some of the ones that have it) why should it be removed? -- UKPhoenix79 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Since user UKPhoenix79 went ahead and repaired the template, before noticing the discussion, let me add that it should be mainly considered for practicality rather than principal. It's a tool for members or other users contributing in adding infoboxes to films. I wanted to suggest, if technically possible, that under the infobox another template box is created with links to the 3 or four most useful databases, critiques or whatever, IF the information already existing in so many templates can be automatically transfered to the new box. Hoverfish 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really get the point of this argument. If a film doesn't have an infobox, you'd have to find the amg link by yourself anyway. And if it does, you wouldn't need the amg link for anything, since the infobox was already there (if the argument is: "what if it's only missing one bit of information?", then the answer is: "that's just as easy to find on imdb"). If you used amg as a reference, put it in the references section, the infobox is not a substitute for that. The point here is that putting the amg link into the infobox is totally superficial, since the articles themselves are meant for readers, and putting links to every imdb copy in the infobox isn't helpful to them. - Bobet 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and there definately shouldn't be a new template, that would probably look badly and is un-needed... that is what the external links section is for. Cbrown1023 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope its ok but I took the initiative to relist amg -- UKPhoenix79 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox in general

As Hoverfish said at Template talk:Infobox Film, we should look at the other language's film infoboxes and "try to be as consistent as possible". Cbrown1023 11:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDb

They are talking about including this at Template talk:Infobox Film#Awards & AMG in infobox. Cbrown1023 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But here is a comment: See {{Infobox Television}}, {{Male adult bio}}, and {{Female adult bio}}. They all include links to IMDb. Cbrown1023 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox film script?

does anyone have any scripts kicking around that will grab infobox content automatically? I've been adding infoboxes manually for a little while now and it's quite tedious, I could possibly write a script, but I'm not that experienced and it would take a lot of figuring. RichMac 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you try substituting it ({{subst:Infobox film}}), which should give this...
Nevermind, that doesn't work, it just gives the syntax like how to make it (not what you want). Cbrown1023 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You could base it on {{Biography}}, which is substituted. Cbrown1023 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking we should do that and we should do that for our style guidelines. Cbrown1023 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I was essentially thinking of something that would grab info off imdb and fill in the blanks, as of now its a pretty tedious copy and paste process.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMac (talk • contribs)
Oh, that is pretty much impossible, if it was possible it would be hard to do. Just looking at plain text source of their page give you a headache. If you want to see the source code for yourself, go to any IMDb title page. Then, on your top bar, where File is, go over to View. Then look at its sub-options and somewhere there it will say Source or View Source and look their. This will normally open a Notepad document with the code. Cbrown1023 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not at all impossible. There are many DVD databases etc. that snatch the film info directly from IMDb source html. Maybe there is an open-source PHP code for this already? Then we would just need a script that creates a ready, wikified infobox using that info. This second script would be very easy to make. Of course, there are some problems such as original title vs. English-language title and the length of the "starring" section. Prolog 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've found a few PHP scripts that might do the trick, I don't have a HTTP server to try them out, and my PHP skills are severily lacking. It can be done though, if anyone makes any progress please let me know. I'll try to do the same by posting back here.RichMac 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The length of the "starring" section could be controlled by a script that states to only include like the first few or something. Cbrown1023 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is that some of IMDb's cast lists are in alphabetical order, or in the order of appearance, thus making it impossible for the script to find the "real stars". But the number of cast entries could still be a parameter, as in something like this: 
createInfobox(imdbID, numberOfActors);
Person using such script should always check the validity of the info anyway. Prolog 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please also remember that imdb's terms of use state that "You may not use data mining, robots, screen scraping, or similar data gathering and extraction tools on this site, except with our express written consent as noted below." - Bobet 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have a work script based on imdbphp. It still has several fields that are left out, but it does do the bulk of the work and just requires some user intervention. Also imdbphp doesn't seem to have variables for editing, music, et cetera. IMDBphp is a GNU program. I guess the next step is seeing if imdb will allow such a script. Anyone with a little more experience in this regard, and/or some php skills? RichMac 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the fields for editor, composer et cetera, the script is fairly functional, a few minor edits have to be made, but it brings down the user workload dramatically, I've used it to edit a dozen articles in a fraction of the time it would take me to make said edits manually. Emailed IMDB about allowing this script RichMac 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Romantic comedies: Sub cats needed

The Romantic comedy category is very large and I would like to subdivide it. I've tried to think of ways to do it without ending up with hugely long names such as Category:Musical romantic comedy. I've thought about doing it by decade or by language. I wondered if anyone else has any ideas? Mallanox 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with by decade. It is the same as the {{comedy-film-stub}}s and {{drama-film-stub}}s way of sub-dividing. Thanks for future and current help. Cbrown1023 01:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indian Cinema restructure

I just wanted to note that WikiProject Indian Cinema seems to have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Cinema, as a workgroup of WP India. I had originally suggested bringing WP Indian Cinema into WP Films as a work group/task force, but got absolutely no response from anyone. So I was a little surprised when this move happened without (as far as I can see) any discussion either at WP India or Indian Cinema.

Regardless, I think now is a good time to ask the question - should a regional subject work group (in this case cinema) belong to the WikiProject for that region, or should it belong to the WikiProject for that subject? I believe in the latter, as also seen in the Indian military history task force placement. If that is the case, then the Indian cinema work group should be located here at WP Films.

Whatever happens, however, I'd like to see a consensus emerging from discussion rather than unilateral moving of a wikiproject into a work group without any consultation. Should no consensus emerge, then I suggest reverting the move and re-establishing WP Indian Cinema until a consensus is found. I look forward to everyone's comments! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Projects should either be totally seperate or under WP:FILMS as that is the umbrella category for all of them. Cbrown1023 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, I personally think that these WikiProjects should only have existed as work groups to begin with, so as to maintain consistency across film articles, but I also respect that they should not be forcibly made to do so without the usual transparent/open/consensus method native to Wikipedia. Girolamo Savonarola 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The region would have local knowledge of the project. Bollywood or Indian cinema has many unique qualities that editors working on India-related content would be better suited for the job. The project would still work under WP:FILM guidelines and standards. I will wait to see what User:Zora feels about this. I feel the same should be done with Indian military history project. But that's a seperate discussion. Same could be told of all the other projects, History, Geography etc. India project will be left with no workgroups/taskforces. :) I have moved many other projects as work-groups as per WP:BOLD. :) Your comment was the first one I got about the moves. All my actions can reverted anyway. Cheers, Ganeshk (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that one should be bold, but moving whole projects without ANY discussion is, IMHO, pushing it a bit much. The advantage to keeping work groups within the subject that they cover is in order to have consistency within the subject's articles and allow for a less systematic bias to the composition of the project members, which also makes the articles more easily accessible to those with an interest in the field at large. There is no reason why the workgroups could not be also considered work groups of the India project and be linked to from their sidebar, but I believe that the actual location of the work groups needs to be where those interested in the subject itself will most easily be able to oversee it.
As I said above, I had already proposed a merge of the project with WP Films, but did not act on it because there was no response from the WikiProject community. Frankly, I do not believe that an individual has the right to move an active WikiProject without full consultation of the project. Were the project inactive it would be more understandable. I appreciate your candor regarding the matter, but I don't think that any one person, myself included, should make these decisions. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see it this way, Indian cinema could still exist as a workgroup under India and be linked from WP:Films's navigation bar. ;) Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a link to this discussion at WT:INWNB, WT:IND and WT:INCINE. Hope you won't mind. I want all parties involved to comment on this. Really appreciate you discussing this too. I will agree with whatever the consensus is. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, sounds good then! :) I've also brought it up at WP:COUNCIL, because this is really a general issue with work group structuring, so I figured that other WikiProject leaders probably will have their own perspectives as well. Girolamo Savonarola 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, what a mess. I suppose, having been one of the people who originally came up with the task force idea, that I should not be surprised that this seems to be coming back to haunt me. ;-)

More generally, I think there are three major problems with Ganeshk's approach here:

  1. Merging an active project without its consent is, of course, extremely impolite. Task forces are an organizational structure; they should not be used to beat projects out of existence.
  2. As a general rule, topical projects (particularly those that span historical topics) tend to have more in common than geographic ones. For example, two editors working on Chinese warfare (the Chinese task force of WP:MILHIST) and Mughal warfare (the Indian task force), respectively, would likely find much more of a common interest than the editor working on Mughal warfare would with an editor working on Bollywood actresses. Task forces work much better when they are subtle divisions of a project that is more-or-less homogenous in its interests, rather than when they form true sub-projects whose members don't really cross paths in article editing.
  3. A further concern with national projects is that they are necessarily tied to modern national boundaries, which are often not appropriate as a place to divide topics. For example, the military history of Bangladesh falls under the Indian task force of WP:MILHIST; does it logically fall under the India project itself? Topics intrinsically tied to the geography (cities, locations, etc.) may work well as subgroups of projects organized on national lines; topics dealing with historical or cultural phenomena that cross modern boundaries usually won't.

Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill - and if the decision is to make it a task force under WP:FILM, as a member, I'll be happy to help set up that structure, just let me know. --plange 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we have to be hierarchical? Can Indian cinema be part of only ONE taskforce, or can we belong to two? I think input from people working in other areas and regions of film would be helpful, BUT ... we also need the special expertise of people who speak the languages involved and have been watching the movies since they were children. Even though I started the Indian cinema project, I don't qualify as an expert according to either of those two standards, and I am always grateful for the cooperation of so many Indian editors. I'd like them to be able to find us through the India project, as well as being able to bring the Indian cinema articles into compliance with the wider cinema guidelines. Zora 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zora. Even with Indian military history task force, though its created under WPMILHIST, its also listed as a child project for Wikiproject:Indian history. That way it gets visibility by both groups. Does it matter which space we create it in? Just list it under both projects as a child project/ workforce? -- Lost(talk) 08:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter (but, still, any moves shouldn't be done without discussion with the actual project members) aside from the potential issue in point #3 above. I doubt it will be a practical concern with India and cinema, but there are certainly cases where picking a particular national project to place a task force under could have messy issues with the scope. Kirill Lokshin 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree the moves shouldnt be done without discussion. However now that Zora (the initiator and major contributor to WP:INCINE) has given her view, should we just let the projects be and also list it as a child project under the films project, or something more drastic is needed? -- Lost(talk) 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion has been to locate the actual task force within WP Films but have WP India still link to it and claim it as a co-project. This is already done in the case of Indian military history. However, I firmly believe that the task force needs to be located address-wise within the subject project. Would this be acceptable to Zora? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a solution. This is where we disagree. It does not matter where the project is located. What matters is whose navigation bar is displayed on the task-force page? I feel it should the Indian project's navigation bar since that will attract Indian members to the Cinema project and Indian cinema members to other India-related workgroups. For an example, A person hailing from Andhra Pradesh insterested in Indian cinema will probably be interested in Geography too. By using Films navigation bar, that member will get cut off from other India-related projects.
Krill, Please assume WP:AGF and not use statements like "extremely impolite". Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Characterizing your actions as extremely impolite—and I firmly believe that they are—is in no way a violation of AGF. I have not assigned any bad intent to them, merely pointed out that they are not a well-chosen course of action. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see where this will stop then. Shall we also create isolated task forces for Indian literature, Indian painting, Indian music, etc? And do the same for every single other country's WikiProject? Why stop at the arts? At what point does this actually prove counter-productive towards the goal of the subject's WikiProject of acting as a central point of coordination and organization for editors? You can consolidate all Indian articles around local task forces if you will, but what it winds up doing is creating a decentralization of articles around common subject WikiProjects. As a film editor, I have no interest in nationalism, and I have written or edited articles on films and filmmaking across all continents. What my interest is in is film, and that is what film articles are about. Their country of origin provides setting and context for the article, but what we are talking about in these articles are films, not countries.
I also see no precedent for willfully segregating subjects along national lines through dispersion into separate WikiProject task forces. No other country's WikiProject (to my knowledge) has done this. What it does is de-stablize editors working on a common subject in favor of aggregating editors based on geography. I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be cross-over, but it seems a clear conclusion to me. What are your thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I entirely agree. (And this does not even begin to get into the variety of cases where segregation along modern national/political lines will prove incredibly divisive to the community.) There is no particular reason to believe that an editor working on Indian films would be more interested in, say, Indian politics than in, say, Chinese films.
More to the point, the project navigation bars were intended for just that—navigation—rather than a crude way of marking territory. I am profoundly disturbed that certain editors seem to want to provoke conflict between WikiProjects (for rather petty reasons, no less!) instead of working collaboratively to actually improve the encyclopedia in the most effective way possible. Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ganesh, you seem to want the India bar there to get recruits. I'm not sure that you'd WANT some of the editors the film articles attract. We get obsessed fans, editors who write like gossip columnists, and editors who write in garbled Hinglish. In a discussion of expert retention, someone divided WP articles into core and fluff articles. Core articles require some expertise. Fluff articles may require only having seen a movie. Film fans work on fluff and don't necessarily know anything about core subjects. I was going to suggest that we have both bars up but hey, that India bar is humongous! If you produced a short template, only an inch or so long, that said something like "Interested in working on other articles about India? Come to XXXXX," then we could add that. Girolamo, I don't think I've seen the film bar, but if it's long, then I'd suggest a similar one inch "check out the larger project" link. I'm not sure that I want Bollywood "annexed" into a larger project with which, at the moment, we have next to no communication. Two SHORT links would channel editors in two directions, and not overwhelm our project page. Zora 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, Zora; I think the goal here is to facilitate communication between the projects. As far as the fluff/core divide goes, I think that's less a measure of film and more of popularity - high-traffic articles tend to get more frivolous edits, and that goes for all types of articles. Like most other WikiProjects, WP Films also contains a sizeable number of featured articles within its scope. It would be nice to add more Bollywood films to this list - as well as all other regions of world cinema - so as to make it a more equitable distribution of films instead of one mainly biased towards Hollywood. That is probably also a result of systematic bias both in respect of the massive permeation of Hollywood film and the fact that this is an English-language Wikipedia. I hope that your contributors from WikiProject Indian cinema will be interested in helping to counter this bias and make the encyclopedia's information on those films more comprehensive and balanced. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I like this idea too. Two short boxes will do the job. I will revert my move now. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted my move and have added a small box to direct users to the larger India project. Please check and comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! (There's still some confusion with the listed project banners on that page, though, as it's not clear whether, or how, the main India one should be used versus the separate project one.) Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It will work like how Indian miliary works. All Indian military history are tagged both with {{WPMILHIST|Indian-task-force=yes}} and {{WP India|history=yes}}. The same way all Indian cinema articles can be tagged with {{Film|indian=yes}} and {{WP India|cinema=yes}}. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that part of it; my question was about the (continued) use of {{Wikiproject Indian cinema}}, which is currently listed on the project page as the main banner to use. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion with Zora sometime back about merging that banner with the Indian banner. She objected to it. So we just trimmed it and let it stay. It is not used for assessment purposes, it has a message and link to the project. So right now, both banners will be tagged on talk pages. With Films, it will be 3. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Meh. It may be worthwhile to consider a setup like Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty has with WP:WPBIO (i.e. these template setups). Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea. You mean like how "need-infobox" parameter generates a new box if set to "yes", we could do the same thing happen with cinema is set to "yes". We could then remove the Indian cinema template. Right? - Ganeshk (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Something like that. (The British royalty example actually turns the regular biography template into a different merged template that references both projects, but I don't know how amenable people would be to a setup like that.) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. That is some pretty coool coding. Thanks for the pointer. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, all the templates mentioned are too dang big! The India project template now on the INCINE main page is an improvement, but it's still too big! When we started the Indian cinema project, we had a small template. "Click here to find out more about the project." Or something like that. Then the template grew. And multiplied. Template creep!

Personally, I'd want the INCINE main page and all the article discussion pages to have a one-sentence banner running all the way across the top, that says something like, "Interested in working on other film articles? Visit the main film project. Interested in working on other articles about India? Visit the main India project." None of this horrid jumble of multiple templates. Put the film project first.

However, there are more people than just me involved in the Indian cinema project. Few of them are as vocal, but I think they should be consulted. Do a mockup template and post it on the INCINE discussion page and see what responses we get. Zora 06:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorised Films

Would anyone here be interested in helping to maintain an "Uncategorised films" category? There are a large number of them in the Uncategorised articles category. If so, please reply here and I will create it. Aelfthrytha 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definately be willing to help maintain the category and I'm sure some others will. If you do create it, then we could put a link to it on the main page (in one of the Activities in Progress section), which would give it a better probability of being maintained (just like our Article Grading section). Cbrown1023 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: the novels wikiproject has done the same thing and it seems to be working for them. Her Pegship 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on sorting out cats on articles that have already been (in some cases just about!) categorised. I'd love to help with uncatted film articles. Mallanox 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

request for copy-edit of email to imdb: infobox script

If anyone would care to give this a copy-edit. As of now it's pretty amigious and I don't think I'm getting my point across very well. Note: the script I've setup grabs imdb pages, main and cast and creates an filed in infobox, it doesn't post to wikipedia and any of that will have to be manual. Also, it is based on phpimdb RichMac 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Licensing Department - Request for consent for data gathering

I was hoping to obtain consent for parsing of data from IMDb for Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). It should be noted that I am a Wikipedia user and not writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Much of the basic information on Wikipedia's film articles are gathered through IMDb. Currently this is an entirely manual process: Check IMDb, post director, check IMDb, post writer, et cetera. I would like to have a script gather this basic information and present it in wiki-format. Such a script would be entirely user-initiated and thus wouldn't be a massive data-mining operation. In some regards it may cut down on traffic due to repeated returns for bits of information. Please feel free to email me with any comments or questions you might have.

Anyone? Any comments or revisions? ... As you can see from my contributions they're usually technical, not writing... RichMac 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're asking for. Do they require you to register before scraping? I know that a number of auto-scraping projects over the years have run into problems because of the lack of structured data and frequent changes to the HTML on IMDB pages. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
as per discussion above:

"Please also remember that imdb's terms of use state that "You may not use data mining, robots, screen scraping, or similar data gathering and extraction tools on this site, except with our express written consent as noted below." - Bobet 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC) " RichMac 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I made this edit directly to the email above to correct some grammar and capitalization. Although, looking at IMDb's Can I use IMDb data in my software? it might be hard to get a permission. Prolog 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've sent off a message requesting consent to use such a script RichMac 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kroger Babb

Hi there! I'm looking for any help I can get in cleaning this up for a possible FA run, and, although this is about a film producer and not a film proper, I'm hoping a couple people might be able to take a glance at it and see if there's anything they can help me with in terms of changes or anything. Worth a shot, I suppose. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Batman actors

This category is in sad shape. There appears to be a lot of vandalism from User:198.189.198.2 dating back to Dec 15, 2005. Betty White? Tallulah Bankhead? Please...

Also, many of the actors who portrayed specific roles, e.g. Danny DeVito as the Penguin, have suffered because subcats were deleted instead of merged. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect that the Superman-related actors have also been unceremoniously dumped as well. CovenantD 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Work on List by years underway

I am currently doing a lot of hours in the List of films by year, checking out which films mentioned under "top grossing" belong to which year, adding them there (if they are missing), making a comprehensive list of each year's film. In other words, from 1940 till 1970, the sections "Other films" have become "Films released in 19--". Also I have placed this list under Awards and before Births and Deaths, wherever it wasn't already. On my way I have fixed many links and pipes and have marked films that are "only mentioned in the article". I am going backwards to the 1930's, until where it was done as this (comprehensive lists for each year). Also I upload a few missing images to infoboxes. As in the years from 1970 on, it is consistent that births and deaths are always over the list of films. I wouldn't like to create problems by changing the order, unless I have full agreement with all involved, practicality discussed, etc. My aim is to bring to the List by years a consistent, "ergonomic" form, so that I can then start crossing entries with the List by name (alphabetic) and add missing entries to and from both. I am aware that in the last decade, tables are used for the particular lists (awards, top grossing) and I have no plans to "homogenize" anything there. I don't ask for consistency in anything else than for a comprehensive list in each year and if possible its position in the article. Hoverfish 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form

Does anybody else think this level of categorization is maybe not such a good idea? CovenantD 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too and thought about bringing it to the groups attention. I think we should have cats for winners only. Mallanox 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We can make an exception... for the most well-known awards, like the Academy Awards (see Cat:Academy Award nominees). Nominees are also okay, but like for that category, it should just be under Cat:Hugo awards and then two sub-cats, Cat:Hugo Award nominees and Cat:Hugo Award winners. Cbrown1023 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Way too much trivia in movie articles

I've noticed Category:Articles with large trivia sections has many film articles in it. While trivia isn't totally against policies at Wikipedia, they certainly shouldn't be so large. Put the important information in the article itself, not in a trivia section. If it's just a small unimportant note, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little note to a movie that might interest you. RobJ1981 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The reason behind the overly large trivia sections for most film articles is because users normally just copy it form IMDb, wikify it and post it all in a ==Trivia== section. We need to work on that. Cbrown1023 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is considered plagiarism on Wikipedia, if I recall correctly. These facts should be double checked (many times they're WRONG) and then incorporated into the background/history portion of the article. The Photoplayer 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, that is why some editors just delete the whole section when they come across it. Also, IMDb is sort-of a wiki like us (their users can edit/add info), which is why they're wrong a lot also. We also mustn't foget that it should be in prose... I've added these items to {{WikiProject Films tasks}} and to the style guidelines. Cbrown1023 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox image size

Is there a general consensus as to the size of images in the infobox? I've just started adding new images and the contrasts in sizes are a little unappealing. RichMac 20:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to automatically re-size images to the right size. What you are describing should only be occuring if the images you are putting in are too small... can you give examples to better understand your question? Cbrown1023 20:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps my eyes are playing tricks on me. What dimensions does that re-size to? RichMac 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out Template talk:Infobox Film#image size too big for some posters and the template states in the syntax 200px. Cbrown1023 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out in that discussion, there's an image_size parameter in the infobox (I seem to have missed that being added too). I don't really know why it's there, since it will probably lead to people adding bigger images to their favorite films. - Bobet 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's very useful for tall posters to prevent the image from taking too much place. See The 10th Victim. Prolog 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

cat year nav

I'm developing a template called {{cat year nav}} that has most or all of the functionality of the dedicated yearly navigation templates. I've already replaced {{cvg year nav}} with it. If it is suitable for your project, I encourage you to use it (or tell me what it needs so I can fix it up). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you CyberSkull, I will do the replacement when I get the nerve to go through all the list again. Hoverfish 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, now I copied it in my sandbox and see that it's not the year nav in each year's right table, but the one in "year films", I am not on this task. Sorry for the hasty message. Hoverfish 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cat for deletion

Hi all, just to bring [[1]] to your attention. A category has been created for Chick flicks, I have proposed its deletion but as ever I leave it to the community to decide. Mallanox 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting has ceased... result was delete. Cbrown1023 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)