Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 8

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 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

Film festival infobox

I think we could use a film festival infobox- I created one at {{Film festival infobox}} and would appreciate y'all taking a look at it. I'm not terribly familiar with the coding, so I just copied and pasted the film infobox, and changed the titles involved. -Elizabennet 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you put it into a film festival article to show us what it looks like in action? Cop 633 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I just put it in the 8 Films to Die For article. -Elizabennet 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What about festivals that have hundreds of films? How would the use of the film field be specified/limited? I have posed other questions and suggestions about this on Template talk:Film festival infobox. — WiseKwai 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia on many film articles

Here is just some: Batman & Robin (1997 film), Borat, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Toy Story. For a more complete list: Category:Articles with large trivia sections. I've been doing my best to clean trivia whenever I can, but I could always use some help. Movies seems to be a main problem area for the category. RobJ1981 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the optimal amount of trivia per article? Also, if it gets to long, should it get its own article? Perhaps the film's references in popular culture could be added along with it (which are usually common in cult/popular films). What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, there would be none. Everything that's notable should be able to be incorporated into the article and everything trivial left out but that will never happen. Here's what Wikipedia has to say: Wikipedia:Trivia. Basically, get rid of all the ridiculous stuff, see everything in Robocop, and keep all the interesting stuff, see everything in Werner Herzog. Doctor Sunshine 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If a trivia section must exist, it should be small, not insanely long and/or cluttered with useless notes. Also: I looked at the Werner article: way too long of a trivia section. Having a tattoo shouldn't just be crammed into trivia, same goes for alot of that. 17 pieces of trivia is too big. Look at just about any featured article (and probably alot of good articles as well): trivia sections aren't that huge. If the article is going to improve, the trivia needs to be put into the article itself. Cluttered sections don't help. RobJ1981 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Example: in Frankenheimer's The Train there's a scene where the Burt Lancaster character is shot in the leg. From that point onward he always seen to be limping. That scene was written into the film because Lancaster hurt his knee playing golf (when not in front of a camera), so it provides an excuse for him to be limping in the latter part of the film. I would consider that non-trivial trivia, since it directly impacts the film, so I would include it in the film article. Had a young Tom Cruise been working in the commissary, and this had no effect on the film, I'd call that pointless trivia and would not include it in the article. Any reactions? Cryptonymius 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In and out universe perspectives

Does Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) apply in film articles' Plot sections? Hoverfish 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the text is in a section called "Plot" or "Synopsis", etc. covers the out-of-universe angle – although, I've started some with "In the film", "The story follows..." myself. The only exception I noticed that wasn't listed is that they can be of a fair length. I'd use existing WP:FA articles as a guide, Night of the Living Dead has a long summary. Doctor Sunshine 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I will look some up. Thanks! Hoverfish 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tears of the Black Tiger class rating, importance

I have put some work into expanding the article on Tears of the Black Tiger. I believe it to be worthy now of at least a B-class rating, but I can't make that determination independently. So please feel free to have a look. I would also rate the film's importance as high, given that it has a "holy grail" reputation among world film buffs, but I'm sure there are folks here who would love to argue that point. — WiseKwai 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines on the importance assessment are nowhere to be found, so unless we take some time to define them, there will be only arguments (as criteria?) Hoverfish 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The film article looks like a full B to me. I can't give opinion for higher assessment. Hoverfish 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's undemocratic, anyone can change it. Even doing it yourself shouldn't have raised any eyebrows, Wisekwai. I'd say it's pretty close to a GA. I rated it Mid-level importance because, frankly, I've never heard of it and there's no "Reception" section to go by. A very well done article, though. Doctor Sunshine 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. I appreciate the second looks. The reception section will come. Good point about that, though. I should probably start now on it. The film is finally getting a US theatrical release in Landmark theaters in January-February 2007. Go see it! It's a wonder to behold on the big screen. — WiseKwai 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And if you disagree feel free to change the importance yourself. As I haven't seen the film you're more qualified than I am. Doctor Sunshine 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Enough press existed a few years ago to drive me to search out the film, which I acquired on a VCD import from Malaysia. I'd say the film's "Importance" is largely to do with the fact that it is a Thai film, and one of a few films to stir up an international interest in the cinema of a nation which previously wasn't heard from much. This, and Nang Nak, basically made me aware that Thai cinema exists, and I guess the two of them serve different functions in introducing Thai cinema to the world... Nang Nak shows the big, commercially successful melodrama, and Tears shows the more self-consciously arty/post modern side of Thai-film. The film is notable because of the press it received, and its semi-successful "breakthrough" status. But honestly, if it had come out of a nation already prominent on the international film scene, it probably would have been deemed not notable. So, I reckon a "B" for importance is all it can aspire to, and it probably fits the category. zadignose 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class and WP:PR

I've nominated all out A-Class articles for peer review to better understand how we can turn them into featured articles. In case you do not know, A-Class articles are very close to featured articles and should be one of the main focuses for us. Drop by on the following articles and participate if you can:

Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The links to the peer review pages are found at the top of the talk pages. Cbrown1023 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Forgive me if this should be instead posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but I have noticed on some film articles – Serenity (film), The Lion King and one other film I won't mention here – the production section coming right after the intro, before the plot, which is contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines (which I understand are just guidelines, not rules). But to me, the production info is kind of a drag to get into after already reading a summary of facts about the film's origins in the intro. It seems more natural to me to get into the plot, then follow that up with the production, as if I'm watching the closing credits or viewing the DVD a second time with commentary.

On the other hand, most film articles I've worked on have the cast section following directly after the plot, which is also counter to the style guide. But this, too, seems more natural. For the well-written plot outline that stays within the universe of the movie (not interrupting with parenthesized names of the actor), this structure is helpful to me, particularly on the cast sections that expand a bit on the backgrounds of each character. — WiseKwai 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Plot should definately be first for obvious reasons and those stated by you, then should be Production, and then cast. Cast is normally just a listing of the cast members, not an explanation. Cbrown1023 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cbrown1023. Hoverfish 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the best cast articles really offer in-depth information, and offer stuff the plot summary can't. Wiki-newbie 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give us an example of such a cast article? Hoverfish 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few examples of film articles with expanded cast details:
Not every film article lends itself to that type of treatment, and in most cases a simple cast listing is adequate. Then there are the FA-class articles Jaws (film) and Night of the Living Dead, which have no cast sections, and sprinkle the parenthesized names into the plot section. (That format is a pet peeve, but hey, if that's the accepted style for a FA-class article, then who I am to complain?) — WiseKwai 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

December Newsletter

The December newsletter will be released in the next week or two, so please add any relevant information, updates, or news that you want brought to all of the other WP:Films members. Also Cbrown1023 and myself would like to know what day the newsletter should be sent out to all of the members. Would you prefer the middle of the month or the end of the month? Please list your vote here, so we can continue to improve the newsletter to meet the WP's members' needs. --Nehrams2020 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle of the Month

End of the Month

  • Support --Nehrams2020 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for most months. Cbrown1023 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Supernumerary 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for most months. Hoverfish 07:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

December 21

Is that date good for everyone this month? I'm not gonna be at my computer from Dec 22 to Jan 2, so I wouldn't be able to deliver it if it was after then... There are a lot of crazy options I have to put in so it would be easiest of I did it since I already have them set up. However, if someone else thinks they can do it (I know you all can do it... I guess I mean want to do it), then you guys can send it out later. If I don't get any "no" responses to this, I'm gonna go ahead and do it on Dec 21. Cbrown1023 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I could help in delivering it also, if you want to split the list of members in half or something. Also, if it is desired for the newsletter to be delivered at the end of this month, I wouldn't mind sending it out. --Nehrams2020 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Top importance subpage

I suggest we start a project subpage where films considered Top importance can be listed and discussed/debated. When it becomes clear whether they qualify or not, they can be removed from the list. Hoverfish 08:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do, it should be in the Assessment Department's space. Cbrown1023 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed this! Congrats!! That's a great subpage! I will put it in my favorites and will be using it a lot. You should definitely include its presence in the Dec. Newsletter. Hoverfish 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It was created and described in last month's newsletter... I wasn't going to put it in there this month because there isn't anything much to report. I guess I'll remind everyone and tell them to go request an Assessment there. Cbrown1023 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Don't feel bad if you missed it in last month's newsletter, it was just a small link at the beginning and there was a lot to read! Cbrown1023 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied text

Who's Quentin? is one of the few notable films of Luxemburg that we have. Subsections Synopsis and Production seem to be a copy from the official website [1]. I did some general cleanup, removed the cleanup tag but some tag has to replace it. Hoverfish 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid has been nominated for GA status.

I'd just like to inform you that I have nominated I Not Stupid for GA status. You may wish to comment in its ongoing peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Here's a little project I'm having trouble with. We should be using the common film titles among English language countries. I've fixed a few here and there but I'm also getting some resistance, specifically here, Talk: Pulse (2001 film), and here, Talk:Tirez sur le pianiste. The policies I've been citing are WP:NC, and WP:CN and WP:UE. Should we rewrite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) to include foreign title usage? There there are some films like The Human Beast which I believe should actually be switched to La Bête humaine. However, a lot of films like La Peau douce (The Soft Skin) and Bara no soretsu (Funeral Parade of Roses) are more commonly referred to by their English title. Generally, Rotten Tomatoes, amazon.com and google helpful in terms of evidence but facts don't seem to be enough in some cases. Doctor Sunshine 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the last discussion there has been on this issue: [2]. I usually take it as it comes, but you may have a point we all need to discuss again. Hoverfish 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't even thing to check the archives. I really don't think people are reading the links I'd posted as policy clearly supports my position in both of the move request cases I've listed above. I'll see if I can't write up an addition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) at some point, unless someone wants to beat me to it. Doctor Sunshine 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I already re-organized the page and created a new section for you to write it. (so I haven't written it yet...) Cbrown1023 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw that, thanks for setting it up. I went head and wrote the addition. Comments appreciated. Doctor Sunshine 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: How do we determine "the title more commonly recognized by English readers"? Granted, the vast majority of cases will be clear cut and/or common sense, but what about those films where a decision either way could be seen as borderline? What criteria do you suggest we use? As far as I can see there is still no clear consensus on this issue; is it wise to be writing guidelines without proper discussion? PC78 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This isnt vastly scientific but I've been checking amazon.co.uk and amazon.com for titles used on DVD releases. Any that I've found released with English titles I have moved to that title. Mallanox 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New Cinema navigation box

I have created Template:Worldcinema. Please let me know if you approve.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Many films from countries in close proximity have a similar flavour to them. I'd break it up within that same template by continent or whatever you think best. Doctor Sunshine 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that instead of giving cinema by regions over the counties, you could give that to the left, vertical down, and each region would have to the right its countries. If you like I can help you with it. Hoverfish 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New template has been created which I think is good as it connects all areas of cinema even with the work we are doing by year and country (unsigned by E.S.Blofeld)

Hi fellows, trying to carry all threads about it here. Here's what Nehrams2020 has to say about it: The template looks great and it looks like a lot of work went into it. Is this template going to be put on all of the articles listed within the template? It appears that it is well-organized, I think it will serve its purpose well. - I agree. Any adjustments/refinements pending. One point however, before any edits: the articles of Cinema have already a navigation for their series (up right). I think we should not substitute it, but more opinions could clear it up better. Hoverfish 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. I think it could fit nicely at the bottom of those list pages perhaps, in the way some director templates are done. See, Akira Kurosawa. Doctor Sunshine 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This is good, but get rid of all the bold text - it looks ugly. Cop 633 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be some spacing between the flags and the text, it looks like it's all bunched together. --Nehrams2020 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I agree, but I don't like the flags at all, I think they should be removed. Cbrown1023 02:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the flags. I think they clutter the box and don't add anything of value.--Supernumerary 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Asian cinema could be further broken up to aid linking to the different articles:

I understand the desire to not duplicate the top-right navigational templates for the articles, such as Asian cinema, but those templates aren't on every page and list. I see them as summaries, like film infoboxes. This template gives readers more options.

And why is Cinema of Cuba in Europe? Check out North American cinema. It's grouped under there, which I'm not sure is exactly correct (Caribbean cinema? Latin American cinema?), but at least it's more in the ballpark than Europe! — WiseKwai 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Cuba and Mexico would make more sense in the South American section (culturally if not geographically). Even better, change 'South American' to 'Latin American'. Cop 633 14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Working per discussion, I have two more refined versions (With flags and Without flags) in my sandbox. Still working in splitting some regions (E.Asia, SE.Asia etc), but anyone is welcome to take a look and leave a comment. Hoverfish 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, with all the current noise on Turkey being or not being part of Europe (BBC has it always under Europe), I am really reluctant to decide if it should be under Europe or Asia. Istambul surely is on the European continent, but the rest seems to stick out a bit in Asia... Hoverfish 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
But I doubt it's Middle East. Actually Turks prefer it as "Anatolia" and Greeks "Minor Asia", but I don't know how many other countries (if any) would fall under this region/category. Hoverfish 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As for changing South to Latin America, the article South American cinema would have to be moved too (but I'll make a pipe to Latin temporarily). Hoverfish 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you could avoid the whole South/Latin issue by simply having a box called 'Americas', since having an entire 'North America' box for just USA and Canada seems wasteful. Cop 633 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad solution, though Latin America is not incorrect; which is cultural rather than strictly geographical. As for Cinema of Turkey I'm not sure what to do with it, either. However, the article about the Middle east places Turkey in that "is a historical and cultural region of Africa-Eurasia with no clear definition". So it's not incorrect either. — WiseKwai 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Will do. But what about the articles Cinema of... then? Hoverfish 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's better to keep them split for that reason, so that the Cinema of ... articles get a link. There's nothing wrong with grouping Cuba and Puerto Rico under Latin America, because there's a common cultural thread. — WiseKwai 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So here is the latest in flagless nagivation development (unfortunately with flags, there are break problems):

WiseKwai, you took Cinema of Soviet Union (1917-1991) away as double to which link? "Russia" links to Russian Empire (until 1917). And yet we don't have Eurasia for the Soviet Union. Also, if the Russian Federation continues to have cinema after 1991, there's no article I find. Hoverfish 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Cinema of the Soviet Union has returned. It's located in Europe. I can't seem to find a post-1991 Russian cinema article either, which is a pretty big gap to fill. Unfortunately, the only thing I know about Russian cinema is that it produced Night Watch (2004 film). — WiseKwai 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the first template but I won't object if you remove just the flags. I really don't think e.g Middle eastern cinema is dserving of a whole column of its own. What I do suggest is that you subspilt the Asia into boxes horizontally all the way across and reorganize the Asian films under the subregions in one Asia panel. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I started many of the cinema by continent articles, having nicked the template format from the European cinema article. I also did the main re-formatting on the World cinema article, including the perhaps rather ugly list format that makes up the body of that article. I like the look of the new template and think it is certainly a positive addition. My personal feeling would be to keep the flags, though you can't really make out the flags of the Indian sub-industries.
I experienced the same problems you guys are discussing here when trying to create these articles and templates - should certain countries be included under one "continent" or another? The best solution I could find for this was to use the same groupings that are used in the articles on continents (or some other defining regions) - e.g. using countries listed in the East Asia article for the East Asian cinema article. However, even this is fraught with problems, and I certainly didn't want to get into tug-of-wars about where a country "fits". When Turkey was moved to European cinema from Middle Eastern cinema I decided against shifting it back again. Incidentally, I had originally called "Middle Eastern cinema", "Southwest Asian cinema", but deferred to better logic.
As for formatting the box, I think that the sub-continent groupings of Asian cinema are useful due to 1) the geographical size of the continent and the quantity of countries therein with active film industries and 2) that cinema from one country has more in common with it's neighbours than with those in the other sub-continental groups. In my experience, Chinese, Korean and Japanese film have much more in common than any of them do with, say Indian or Thai films. I would certainly keep these groupings for the time being, and if possible display them in a horizontal arrangement.
As such, I would also bring up the possibility of splitting European cinema into sub-regions. Again, the number of countries included is high, and maybe there could be a breakdown to North/South or East/West.
Finally, I would suggest we ensure that all cinema-by-country articles are standardised by name. I see immediately that the Indian cinema sub-articles are titled differently from the majority. Instead of "Assamese cinema", shouldn't it be "Cinema of Assam"? And what about "Malayalam cinema", which is named after a language as opposed to a country or region? And Bollywood? Gram 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus comments

I think it will be kind towards Ernst Stavro Blofeld's efforts, if some members care to leave a consensus comment 1) on the inclusion of graphic flags and maps and 2) on the horizontal or vertical arrangement of Asia. I also see the need for Middle East, since we have the article, but if we do not get any more of all these countries (Israel? Egypt? Jordan? others?), then it really hits the eye as incomplete in vertical division. Hoverfish 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No to the flags, but no problem with the arrangement on Asia. For the Middle East, there could be a category redirect for the missing countries, like Israel. That would help fill in some space. Or it could be left blank, which might encourage folks to start "Cinema of ..." articles. — WiseKwai 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As per Wisekwai. Hoverfish 16:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes to horizontal arrangement for Asia. Yes to national flags purely for aesthetic purposes, though images for sub-regions / languages are very hard to see. Gram 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I really like the flags I think they are really needed for aesthetic purposes and make the box look really good. I do like Hoverfish's adjustments to the Asian sub divisions which is needed however I think perhaps India needs a line of its own referred to in South Asia cinema . I have minimized the flags but if you do decide to remove the flags please keep the images by the world and continents and they do look good.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. The flags look a bit too cluttered and I think we can lose Asia and list all of the sub categories together in it's place for a consistent horizontal look. Doctor Sunshine 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Cinema of India is listed under South Asia but then CInema of India and then all of the sub Indian industries on one vertical panel of its own. This would look much better. The box is organized by countries. and this wouod look much clearerErnst Stavro Blofeld 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we do this vertical split in South Asia, it will look rather strange under 800x600 resolution. Hoverfish 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a small thing but I'd lose all the black lines and then just highlight the backgrounds of the region list with the title bar colour. It's easy enough to follow the titles across, as seen here. Also, I agree with combining the Americas, if only to keep the height down. Also in keeping with the Kurosawa template, try putting the world map image in the right-hand corner. Doctor Sunshine 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Asia worked better the way it was before - horizontal. The way it is now omits Cinema of Cambodia, and South Asia's too cluttered. If I may comment again on the flags and graphics: I know they look pretty, but I feel this needs to be kept simple. The flags and maps add too much clutter and don't give any more information about film than simple names. For sure the poster images on Indian cinema do not work. They are too small to be useful. And one of them is a fair-use image, a big no-no. Also, if possible, the whole thing should be smaller. Can the typeface be smaller? — WiseKwai 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant India with its own horizontal column as in the current main template. However I now think you should slice the SOuth Asia box horizontally in half. The upper with countries Bangladesh to Sri Lanka then underneath an Indian sub box containing all of the components of Indian cinema Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the navigation was much simpler and condenced before we started the vertical split on Asia. I am for moving back to that format. The way it is now, it's so bulky that it shouldn't go in article pages, or it will look heavy. It's useful if it stays simple and I am for going back one step. Hoverfish 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The new World Cinema box

So, as a result of all the above, we have ended up in this and substituted it as the template navigation. Thank you all for contributing with your opinions. Hoverfish 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e
World cinema
Lists of films • Years in film • By Country • By Genre • By Language
Cinema Topics
Americas
Asia
(list)

Afghanistan • Armenia • Bahrain • Bangladesh • Bhutan • Burma • Cambodia • China (Hong Kong) — India: Assamese • Bengali • Bollywood (Hindi) • Kannada • Kollywood (Tamil) • Malayalam • Marathi • Tollywood (Telugu)  — Indonesia • Iran • Iraq • Israel • Japan • Jordan • Kazakhstan • Korea • Kuwait • Kyrgyzstan • Laos • Lebanon • Macau • Malaysia • Mongolia • Nepal • Pakistan (Pashto) • Palestine • Philippines • Qatar • Saudi Arabia • Singapore • Sri Lanka • Syria • Taiwan • Tajikistan • Thailand • Turkmenistan • U.A.E. • Uzbekistan • Vietnam • Yemen 
Europe
(list)

Albania • Andorra • Austria • Azerbaijan • Belarus • Belgium • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Bulgaria • Croatia • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Faroe Islands • Finland • France • Georgia • Germany • Greece • Greenland • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Macedonia • Malta • Moldova • Monaco • Montenegro • Netherlands • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Russia • Serbia • Slovakia • Slovenia • Soviet Union • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • Ukraine • United Kingdom (Wales) • Yugoslavia
Oceania
Africa
(list)

Algeria • Angola • Benin • Botswana • Burkina Faso • Burundi • Cameroon • Cape Verde • Central African Republic • Chad • Congo • Egypt • Eritrea • Ethiopia • Gabon • Guinea • Guinea-Bissau • Kenya • Ivory Coast • Libya • Madagascar • Mali • Mauritania • Mauritius • Morocco • Mozambique • Niger • Nigeria • Rwanda • Senegal • Somalia • South Africa • Tanzania • Togo • Tunisia • Uganda • Zaire • Zambia • Zimbabwe
A few points:
  1. I noticed that Cinema of Cuba has become orphaned - the article still contains the North American cinema template, but it no longer appears on that template.
  2. Is it worth creating a parent article for the Americas, as per the Asian cinema article? Currently it is the only region without one.
  3. Should Bengali cinema be listed under India in the World Cinema box (and in the Asian cinema template)? Part of the Bengali cinema industry is based in Bangladesh.
  4. Looking at the Asian cinema section in the box, it is a little odd that these countries are mixed together (Turkey sitting in between Thailand and Vietnam stands out), especially as India has it's own separate sub-section. Can it be amended so that East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Middle East have the same kind of sub-sections as India?
  5. Cinema of Russia in the box is a redirect to Cinema of Russian Empire. Should be piped as per Cinema of U.K. piping to Cinema of the United Kingdom.
  6. The European Cinema template, is missing Cinema of Switzerland.
  7. Cinema of Turkey is included on both the Middle Eastern cinema and European cinema templates but only appears in the Middle East section here.
Gram 09:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed points 5 and 6, and also changed Assamese to Assam, as the article has now been moved. Gram 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Gram, for pitching in with your thoughts. Here's some of mine:
  • Breaking Asia up was tried. An example still exists here. The problem was the whole template became too deep.
  • Turkey is going to look odd no matter where it is. By nature of its location straddling two continents and cultures, it is difficult to put it somewhere that will make everyone comfortable. For what it's worth, I think it looks fine where it is, but perhaps the link could be duplicated under Europe. If a Cinema of Israel article is developed, it'll be the same dilemma.
  • I think the India sub-section is fine as well. It really encapsulates how huge and diverse that industry is. Bengali cinema fits there because many of the big players in the industry have been Indian. And Bangladesh has its own link in the template. Both industries are fairly covered in the article about Bengali cinema.
  • On Russian cinema, I wonder if a new Cinema of Russia article should be started to cover developments since the fall of the Soviet Union, or should the old Russian Empire article be moved and expanded to cover Russian Empire and new Russian cinema. Soviet cinema would be summarized and readers directed to the already substantial article with a main article link. — WiseKwai 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, points 3 & 4 fixed to comply with both the above opinions. Cinema of Israel should be developed, as they have quite some cinema. As for its placement in the Middle East, I don't think there will be any dilema. IMO culturally it belongs to the West, but geographically it's quite clearly there and part of the whole ordeal. Hoverfish 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) - On point 2, I don't think there is any sense in creating a cinema article for "Americas" (though black bold text makes it look like the active page). Hoverfish 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So, finally Middle East broke free to include Egypt. This also solves the Turkey and Israel inclusion hopefully. Hoverfish|Talk 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do limited release dates count?

The question is in regards to the occasional situation in which a film has premiered in limited release in the year prior to its wide release date. For example, Amazing Grace (2007 film) has already premiered in Canada in 2006 ahead of its wide USA release date in 2007, similar to how Gosford Park premiered in London in 2001 ahead of its wide USA release in 2002. However, the two articles are using two different conventions in specifying their year of release. The corresponding IMDb listings for Amazing Grace (2006) and Gosford Park (2001) favor earlier release dates, but I wanted to check here before proceeding. -- Corsair Armada 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support (limited release dates count for year of release)

I'd go by IMDb. Hoverfish 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, go by IMDB. Even a limited release film will be seen by thousands of people. Are we saying that Londoners 'don't count' and Americans do?!. Cop 633 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose that the release date of the film should be its first public screening, no matter how small. I think it is silly to call a film unreleased even if it has already been released in finished form in numerous film festivals. Many films never get widely released, so perhaps we shouldn't mention those films at all? The only other option is to apply two standards (or more), but how exactly do you make the cutoff point? I think this would result in chaos. So I think the release date should be the first public screening. NOT the first date of private screenings to filmmakers or certain members of the press, NOR the first date of "wide release" (whatever that is - a wide release in one country is a limited one in another) but the first time it is shown to the public. Once we get this issue settled, one way or the other, we should change the Style guidelines so that there's no question about what "release date" actually means. Esn 09:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with Esn. Although, obviously, in the rare case that an unreleased film is notable it should be list, see Cocksucker Blues. And if the film was not released for some time after completion that should be noted in the article, see Ivan the Terrible (Part 2). Also, it might be helpful to include "(festival)" or the festival's abbreviated title beside any festival release dates in the infobox.Doctor Sunshine 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend using IMDB as well since they are very accurate for most films. Just to make a point though, if a page is moved from one year to another, make sure that all of the pages that link to the article represent the correct year, and that all redirects are fixed when the page is moved. This could prevent confusion in the future and later people moving the page back to what it was again. --Nehrams2020 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    One more thing - I've personally seen many films (especially ones from non-English-speaking countries) for which IMDB did not have the accurate release date or even year. So if there's a more accurate release date somewhere than IMDB, be sure to put a link in "ext. links" section. All I'm saying is that IMDB isn't always accurate either (though it often is) so we should use as a source whichever website seems better informed. For the cases when I've seen IMDB to be wrong, it's almost always because they listed the date/year of release to be later than it actually was. Esn 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (limited release dates don't count)

NAMING CONVENTIONS CHECK

We're running into some trouble at the guideline and need to have some consensus so the current guidelines can stay. Please check them out and state whether you suport or oppose the changes by adding #~~~~ under the proper heading. Thanks, Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Supernumerary 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Shane (talk/contrib) 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Nehrams2020 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hoverfish 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Doctor Sunshine 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cop 633 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Looks good. Cop 633 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Mallanox 02:53, 20 December 2006 {UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • The naming conventions does not currently deal with films that have several English language titles, so I can neither support or oppose at this state. I have stated here why the guideline needs to clarify this matter. Prolog 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Prolog - this needs to be settled first. I also raised an issue on that talk page that wasn't quite answered about the two American animated Aladdin films from 1992. Esn 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New country navigation boxes

I have set up a new template. I don't want these country boxes to be too large so featured content of it must be kept to a strict criteria of super notability. E.g major international or cult films, and actors and directors world known or starred in over 30 films or something.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Later notice: The template, as seen here, has been modified to comply with following discussion points. However its inclusion or non inclusion in articles is still not clearly decided. Hoverfish 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e
Cinema of Argentina
Actors · Awards · Composers · Directors · Editors · Films A-Z · Cinematographers · Festivals · Producers · Screenwriters
Films by year:
1897–1929 · 1930s · 1940 · 1941 · 1942 · 1943 · 1944 · 1945 · 1946 · 1947 · 1948 · 1949 · 1950 · 1951 · 1952 · 1953 · 1954 · 1955 · 1956 · 1957 · 1958 · 1959 · 1960 · 1961 · 1962 · 1963 · 1964 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 1968 · 1969 · 1970 · 1971 · 1972 · 1973 · 1974 · 1975 · 1976 · 1977 · 1978 · 1979 · 1980 · 1981 · 1982 · 1983 · 1984 · 1985 · 1986 · 1987 · 1988 · 1989 · 1990 · 1991 · 1992 · 1993 · 1994 · 1995 · 1996 · 1997 · 1998 · 1999 · 2000 · 2001 · 2002 · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007

Each template should be drawn up for every country highlighting only the MAJOR portions of the cinema of each country. The top panel connects in the world cinema and the respective region in this South America.E.g Template:CinemaofIran should summarise the Cinema of Iran industry but also connect to Middle-East cinema instead of South America. The world template has set out the boundaries of world film. Now these templates need to be established for understanding the national picture of each country and should be used on main articles for that country at the foot of the page. This way we not only have instant access to all components of cinema realted to the country but also reveals the major chracters or films related to it. If you reading an article for example on an Argentine film director, this template at the bottom of the page is very useful to connecting to further related learning. Then when I have added all the notable films and actors and directors of each country I will a. be able to root out the super films and characters to go in the navigation, b. have completed the categorized lists c.compiled an extrenely useful chronology of films in each country by year as in List of Argentine films again rooting out the most notable films. This whole process should be replicated as I work through adding the lists of all of the WikiProject Missing Film articles by country.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's going to be too many people for a template format. Except for countries with very small film industries there's going to be way too many names. Keep in mind cinema's over a hundred years old now and still going. Just take a look at the current list of auteurs and keep in mind that's maybe the top 1% of the most notable directors. Actually, what might work is the major film studios and festivals, more institutional listings rather than people. Doctor Sunshine 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the box for each country would be a summary of the SUPER actors and characters of each country. E.g the box for the United States would have only a handful of super actors e.g Tom Cruise Julia Roberts directors Spielberg etc. If you look at my Argentina box all of the actors and characters and films are accessed by the side panel. The feature content on them are intended to be the main names in the cinema of that country. They would have to meet the strictest criteria for the larger film prodcing countries . The templates wouldn't be allowed to grow too big Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little okay with your other template creations, but I have to put my foot down on these ones and show my POV. Many people hate footer templates (actor, director, film series...) anway. This template is HUGE and, even if you only put the notable things, it is still going to be huge. If you are going to create them, just keep them in our space and put them in like notable items in the film industry per conuntry. Plus, you could be linking one thing to another think that has no similarities. Plus there would be POV issues on saying who/what is most notable. Cbrown1023 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
another option would be to just put it on the Cinema in page. Cbrown1023 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that such BIG templates should be put only in the general articles. Not in films or biographies. Hoverfish 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only see this working for countries with tiny film industries. For all others, I think this is way too POV. Who decides which films and filmmakers are notable and which aren't? How would you choose, say, the ten most notable French films?! You'll just get people adding and adding and adding until the template becomes the size of a house. Or else it will descend into edit wars as people bicker over whether Manon des Sources belongs in the box or not. How would you avoid that? Cop 633 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confused now as to how it is intended for this template to be used and what the World Cinema template is for. A good "Cinema of ..." article is going to have the notable actors, directors, films, festivals, awards, links to lists, etc., anyway. This box would duplicate all that. Even for small industries, I can see it getting huge. If it were put on articles about films, it would overpower many of them, as there are quite a bit of stubs that haven't yet been expanded. There are many film and director articles with navboxes already, and adding this one is going be mean more congestion. I appreciate your work, Stavro, but I'm not sure this is a productive direction to be heading in. — WiseKwai 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would duplicate lots in a well written article. Additionally the world navigation duplicates the local cinema template on the top right. I also appreciate Stavro's enthusiasm and progress but I have to admit he moves too fast sometimes. From what I see above (consensus-wise) I would say we slow down a bit on this last template. Hoverfish 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, although some work was done to limit the template to cinema topics of a country, there remains the question of whether instead we use Gram123's template (on the upper right of the articles) to include the topics. Hoverfish 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall there being a question of changing Gram's boxes. I think they should remain in their present form and continue to serve their present useful purpose of providing a quick summary of the regional scenes. The skinny country nav box at the bottom helps folks see more about a country's scene without having to navigate categories. Then, there's whole wide world in the big box for folks that want to know more. — WiseKwai 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's a fair answer. No the box, if included will not link to categories. This is E.S.Blofeld's way of linking temporarily to something until the right articles have been found or created. Actors will link to an article or list of the countie's actors etc. I have a generic form of the template in my sandbox which displays in its discussion page. Hoverfish Talk 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, all that was considering it would go only in the Cinema of (Country), but here are examples [3] of how it has been used in some biographies. I would say it's relevant in the articles and, since the linked categories have been populated, it's also useful without needing to have lists too. Also if county-templates are used in many articles, the generic template I made is not practical. Hoverfish Talk 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cinema country templates

How about the country template is just minimised completely by country to just include the main topics rather than articles e.g actors, films festivals directors , cinematographers , editors horizontally in one skinny box. I agree that in aeell written cinema articles the main articles featured in the box will already be linked and the box would be too big for most general articles. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Films Project Council

I proposed this back a while, but I think we should have a council. We are so huge compared to most projects because we carry so many articles that we need a group of "elected" members with a chairmanship on things that matter to us. For example, the council would be able to set the polices on the rating system for movies, and form commissions for article ratings to and from certain "classes". (i.e. Group 3 could be the people who review GA-class articles to A-class articles, but have zero influence to the peer review system.) Anyway, that's about it. Shane (talk/contrib) 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Policies on rating systems are tricky. There are many who want it to stay subjective and debatable. I am for some clear guidelines, but not policies. Hoverfish 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not so much for the lower articles then, but the articles residing at GA level. A group of people that can predictably "vote" (concenus style) to see if the article has reached A-Class. Because to get FA class, it has to go through the normal WP:FAC process. Shane (talk/contrib) 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And to add more... me... for example... doesn't contribute a lot to the articles. People who like to write are in a different view because they might be inclined to say "Of course this is an A-Class article." With 13k something articles we need this type of check to make sure only the best get bumped to A-Class and fail WP:FAC because it should not have been A-Class in the first place. This group can also be the group that improves or promotes good health to these small number A-Class articles to help them get to WP:FAC status. Shane (talk/contrib) 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good, I've already done that a couple of times. I've looked through Cat:GA-Class film articles and bumped up high-quality articles to A-Class. But, couldn't it just be brought up on this page? Cbrown1023 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes on "Cinema of (Country)" series

I was placing {{Film|class=}} in general film articles of the new navigation. I came across WikiProject Chinese cinema for Cinema of China and of Hong Kong and WikiProject Persian Cinema for the Cinema of Iran. These templates don't have a rating. Should I also place the generic Film template there?

Also on the naming of the articles, Cinema of Quebec (for example) was moved to Quebec cinema to comply with the name used in Quebec for it. I asked the opinion of the user who had moved it on moving it back. But there are several other countries who are named "(Country) cinema". Same with Cinema of Mexico. Should they all be renamed? I ask because I wouldn't like to get twice into fixing all the many links. Hoverfish 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Cinema of Colombia redirects to List of Colombian films. There should be an article there instead. Hoverfish 15:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And for Mexican cinema neither North nor South America film templates have Mexico. I suggest the South is renamed Latin and all Central American countries placed there too. Hoverfish 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another idea, now that we have the world navigation, would be to remove regional navigation from each country... Hoverfish 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the regional boxes. I think they are still useful in offering a quick view of the regional scenes. I see them as smaller summaries, like an infobox. Readers will get a bigger picture with the world box at the bottom of the page. — WiseKwai 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They look good too. Only in stubs they stick with the world navigation. Could this be a motivation to expand them? I know you don't need it, but maybe for others. Excellent work you do on the Cinema series, by the way! Hoverfish 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the North American cinema template from Cinema of Cuba, as it no longer contained countries such as Cuba and Mexico, just USA and Canada. I've added Cuba to the South American cinema template for the time being, and put that in the Cinema of Cuba article instead. Although this is geographically inaccurate, Cuba seems better off grouped with the other Latin American cinema articles. The same should be done for Mexico.
I therefore concur with the idea of changing the South American cinema article and the associated template to Latin American cinema and a Latin cinema template. However, this will require some re-writing on the affected articles.
Gram 12:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to move to Latin American cinema and also I propose we merge the List of Central American films with the List of South American films and move it to "List of Latin American films". Hoverfish Talk 18:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved Mexico and Puerto Rico to the South American Cinema template; renamed it Template:Latin American Cinema; replaced the North American Cinema template in the Cinema of Mexico and Cinema of Puerto Rico articles with the new Latin tmplt; moved South American cinema article to Latin American cinema & re-wrote the intro to detail the relevant countries (included and potential); amended the Latin America link in the WorldCinema template; and finally, stopped redirects by changing all links to the old South American cinema article to the new Latin American cinema article.
For me, what stands out now is the unlinked items in the WorldCinema tmplt - namely red links to "By Country" and "Technology" and the link-less "Americas" in the left-hand column. I'm also not particularly fond of having "India (below)" listed in Asia - it seems uneccessary as it's pretty clear we're including India in the Asia section. Finally, I notice Turkey remains on both the EuropeanCinema template and the Middle Eastern Cinema template, yet it only appears once in our WorldCinema box (which, of course, it should). I would rather this was on just one of those templates, even if the opposite article requires a note to that effect. I'll message the guy who put Turkey into the European template for his input (he's Turkish...) and if anyone else here has any input please let me know here. Gram 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
One more point - I've just noticed that out of the 4 articles listed under "Middle East", none of them actually include the Middle Eastern Cinema template. Turkey currently includes the EuropeanCinema template, and the other 3 contain none...
By Language actually links to By Country! Hm. The reason is that By Language doesn't exist. We do need some cleanup here. Hoverfish Talk 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I sent the missing links to the appropriate categories. The By Language has some language lists and some country lists. I don't know what should be done here. To create duplicate lists is silly. Hoverfish Talk 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "European cinema" article was changed back in May '06 to Cinema of Europe, presumably as a result of us standardising the cinema by country articles. I notice that the new Cinema of the Americas takes the same format. However, all other continental / regional articles are named the other way round - Asian cinema, African cinema, Middle Eastern cinema etc. I totally agree with this format for The Americas, as otherwise it would be called "The Americas cinema" or "American cinema" which are obviously flawed. Is it therefore worth moving all the other continental / regional articles to match this? Is "Cinema of Southeast Asia" a worse title than "Southeast Asian cinema"? The only one I would be unsure of is moving "World cinema" to "Cinema of the World", cos frankly it sounds wrong, and the two have slightly different connotations. Gram 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Moved Cinema of Europe to European Cinema. Gram123 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Importance scale

There is currently discussion going on at Talk:Spider-Man 3#Rating (and down to "Importance scale") about how to set the importance scale for this future film. Has anyone at WikiProject Films encountered this issue, and how has it been handled? Please review our discussion and share any pertinent information to help resolve the issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, no replies so far. But I think we may well add 'TBC' as a template for Future Film's importance. Wiki-newbie 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The importance scale is used for the sole reason on this question, "How significance is the item pertaining to the project in question." Now the FBI Wikiproject I am involved with, the main FBI article is TOP importance and so is "Ten Most Wanted", but these are things the public usually hears about often. Some of the articles in the project are "Low" because they are about FBI agents that have some notability, but are considered quite low on public interest. At least this is how I see the rating system for "Importance". So I would keep "Unknown" for now, because the movie has yet to be released and we have no idea on the impact of the movie to the public. Shane (talk/contrib) 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that by definition an unreleased film shouldn't have an importance rating, as it hasn't actually been seen by the public. Girolamo Savonarola 12:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What does it indicate to mark a film article's importance scale with "Future"? The mark basically extends the "This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale" layout across the whole WikiProject Films template. Is there a preference to have no importance marked whatsoever or to have it marked "Future" until the release, or is there not really a preference between the two? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think for future releases to just leave importance out (unknown) is the right thing. Hoverfish Talk 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone move Alfred Green to Alfred E. Green

(this could have been a request on WP:AFC but that process is too heavyweight for such a simple request)

Someone created a stub under Alfred Green for the HWOF-honored director Alfred E. Green. References to him are more numerous under the latter version of his name, so could someone please move the article (I believe the move creates a redirect for the original name). Thanks. 64.126.32.51 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff. Congrats AdamSmithee 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Film Certificates

Template:Infobox Film Certificates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Hanukkah!:

Merry Christmas!
NonFreeImageRemoved.svgImage:Kwanzaa.jpg

Happy Kwanzaa!]]

Whatever you celebrate, Happy It! Cbrown1023 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Starting our Categorization Department

Cbrown gave me the idea to get the Films Categorization Department going and I can't be stoped now. But I can be persuaded to do it with others, so I hope all interested parties will rush to participate. Things I have in mind: 1. Giving an idea to new members on how to go about categorizing. 2. Having a to-do work-list, where members can state what they are working on currently. 3. Having a place where we decide on categorizing matters. 4. Offering links to helpful general articles, like Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories and to some specific ones, like Cinematic genre. Hoverfish Talk 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I created some subcats to Category:Lists of films and populated them. I plan to keep doing this until we have some order in this category. Hoverfish Talk 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the main thing that needs to be done is to evaluate the current structure and then come up with an organizational plan that keeps things as efficient and intuitive as possible. I'm looking at working on this through WP Filmmaking as well, so it would be good to coordinate our efforts. What I'm saying is - if we can create a very clear hierarchy structure, we shouldn't be afraid to massively reorganize and (in some cases) start from scratch. WP MILHIST's work - as always - is a comprehensive and inspiring example of one project's approach to this. I don't see why we couldn't do something similar. Once it's planned out and implemented, then the only remaining regular task will be sporadic oversight to make certain that articles aren't placed too generally. In any case, count me in. Girolamo Savonarola 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be very interested in assisting with this. I have overhauled several genre categories though haven't really had any feedback about it. Category:Science fiction films is an example of the pattern I've been working to. Mallanox 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Multi-WikiProject Collaboration

After a talk with Girolamo Savonarola, we think that the Film article definately needs some working on. It is, after all, the basis for both of our projects (Filmmaking and Films). We agree that the best way to fix this is to hold a collaboration amongst both projects much like our current collaboration, with hope of turning it into a featured article. Any comments and suggestions are, of course, greatly appreciated. Please note that this will probably not occur until after the start of the new year, but all replies before that time are very helpful. Cbrown1023 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated for collaboration. Feel free to vote for it!--Supernumerary 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Category:American films

I beleive that every American film should be categorized as American films but as there are so many tens of thousands how about the category is split by decade.

E.g my The Lawless Nineties would become Category:American films of the 1930s.

Category:American films would be neatly organized by decade rather than the giant giant main category. It could look like this:

  • Category:American films of the 1890s
  • Category:American films of the 1900s.
  • Category:American films of the 1910s.
  • Category:American films of the 1920s.
  • Category:American films of the 1930s.
  • Category:American films of the 1940s.
  • Category:American films of the 1950s.

What does everybodt think? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said in your talk page, I think this should wait for the blessings of the new categorization department. Hoverfish Talk 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
NO OF THE, please! If we do do it... I think the MoS is to put 1890s American Films... (etc.). It should also defiantely be for WP:FILMS/CAT to do and agree on. Cbrown1023 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles "List of ### films" vs. Categories "### films"

Do we actually need both List of Spanish films and the Category Spanish films (esp. when the former is empty)? Lars T. 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lars T. Your question belongs to a wider frame of work that we are just now starting in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization. I am sure as soon as the project department gets populated, we will deal with this issue till we come to some guidelines. Lists are meant to provide extra information on its entries, or a non alphabetical sorting that would be messy to try to achieve by categories. Some lists of the county series are indeed very incomplete. However a more general work on them is going on and we may soon have some progress. However if a list only repeats the contents of a category (or part of them), it should be tagged for expansion (or something) needed. Hoverfish Talk 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Filmography RFC

I've created an RFC to work out the details involved in making useful filmography sections. Check it out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography. - Peregrinefisher 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Catgegory: Release Date?

Is there anything like a category for film release dates? It would be nice to be able to see, for example, all films that were released on Labour Day Weekend, and compare them with films released for Christmas. samwaltz 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories come as close as year and are not going to extend further down. There are some lists by (N.American) release dates in the later Years in film (2004 in film), if it helps. Please, see also the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization. We're just starting it, but soon we may have some clear categorization guidelines for films. Hoverfish Talk 11:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If you compile a list for films released on Labour Day or Christmas, it might stand a chance. What do other members say about this? Hoverfish Talk 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea... Cbrown1023 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation of "placeholder" pages

Hi folks! Once again I'm putting in my 2 cents; feel free to take it or leave it. I came across Category:Needed film articles and I see that it consists entirely of talk pages for articles which don't exist. In the interest of keeping database clutter down, may I suggest we not create these? My reasons:

1. The List of films without article is sufficient for anyone to check what needs creating, without proliferating little placeholders that may or may not ever get filled in, or that may need deleting later on (see #3).

2. Anyone who comes along wanting to contribute may get confused or bogged down in all the lists, categories, and instructions and become intimidated about the process. Remember, many of us are old hands here, but we don't want to discourage newcomers!

3. I keep coming across talk pages with the "needed" tag, where the article already exists under the correct title; I have already redirected Talk:Koyanaskatsi, Talk:Eating Out (movie), and a couple others. Please, if you are creating these talk pages (or any other film article), double-check your sources to get the title and caps right, use the "search" button instead of "go" to see if there are variations, and brush up on your film naming conventions. It will save everyone a lot of cleanup in the long run. Thanks!! Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have AWB, Pegship? If so, please make a round in cat needed articles and remove the Film template. This was Cbrown mostly and TheMadBaron. In a previous discussion we've already persuaded them to quit and I think they did. Hoverfish Talk 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I see one more step necessary: remove Class=Needed from film style guidelines entirely. Hoverfish Talk 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have AWB (I'm mostly using an 8-year-old iMac :)) but I'll be happy to do it by hand...then they will have to be deleted by someone who's an admin. I can do the nomination too if you like. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, our new honorable admin Cbrown, who is the proud user of an AWB (and is actually the one who placed most of them), could be persuaded to do the cleanup. Right now he's on a short break, but he keeps an eye via satelite. If he minds to give us a brief affirmative, it would spare us some manual labour. Hoverfish Talk 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete them all, but don't remove the banner, class or it from the template. This way, they'll all be on that one category to help me delete them all. :) Cbrown1023 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: All deleted. Cbrown1023 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Long synopses -- again

I took part in a discussion of long synopses a while ago, and everyone seemed to be in agreement that many synopses were too long, ungainly, and unreadable. But nothing happened, yes?

I write what I think are short, snappy, readable synopses. Then someone comes along and replaces them with 1000+ words of unparagraphed prose giving every scene in detail. I protest; the other editor points to all other film articles and says, "See, that's the way it's done. That's the standard here."

What we're fighting, I think, is an urge to ego-gratification. "I'm important; what I write is read by millions of people!" Writing film synopses seems to many people an easy way to get the ego-boo. It doesn't require any research, any reading. You just watch the film, write down everything, and bingo! you're a star. The more you write, the more impressive your contribution. An attack on your synopsis is an attack on YOU. (BTW -- I'm not suggesting that I'm free of this; this is a large part of most people's motivation for working on WP. It's just that one has to keep it in check.)

We're not going to rein this in without a guideline re the number of words allowed in a synopsis. I'd say 500 words. That's two pages, in publishing. That's enough for a fairly detailed treatment.

It would also help if the writers realized that their contribution goes for nothing if no one can bear to read it. I look at a lot of synopses and feel like an editor's assistant looking at the slush pile. Three sentences in and you're saying, "Urk, this is terrible!" and tossing it aside. Or clicking out of the article. If anyone knows of any studies re the maximum effective size of a film synopsis, post them here!

How would I go about getting a 500-word limit enacted into an enforceable policy? Zora 06:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I've proposed hard number limits on plot summaries myself, and no will go for it. Wikipedians don't like it, for some reason. It's the only thing I can think of that would work, though. We need a guideline to point to when we trim these things. If you get something started, contact me on my talk page and I'll help. It needs to be done at a high level; TV, Books, Comics, etc. all have this problem. Maybe at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). If we pick a max size, then people will have to improve the writing instead of expanding it. - Peregrinefisher 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"How would I go about getting a 500-word limit enacted into an enforceable policy?" You don't need to because we do already have a limit. "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot," from here. You can refer the offenders to this and that ought to stifle their complaints, if not there are other processes you can use.

"But nothing happened, yes?" No! Take a look at the previous collaborations. Each one has had its plot cut down to a nice size. Check it out. Psycho's plot [4] during collaboration. We cut the whole detailed one and kept the brief one. For the current collaboration Pulp Fiction, we concentrated on the plot. I'll let you dig through its history if you wish, but here is the talk page evidence. You can look at all the other recent collabs if you want more proof.

For how much thought you've put into this issue, I would think that you would have looked at our style guidelines. They are accessible from the sidebar posted on all of our project pages. I would think you would have watched the style page during the previous discussion on this topic to see how it turned out. Do your homework before you ask questions to see if it has already been asked.--Supernumerary 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But are project guidelines enforceable? I know admins will intervene to protect general wiki guidelines, but I'm not so sure of support for project guidelines. I'm not even sure of the process by which they're adopted. Zora 23:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it's time to find out if they are enforceable. You can try to contact our resident admin Cbrown, or you can take your specific case(s) to Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Our guidelines were made from other guidelines and commonsense, but for anything controversial we had to reach consensus first. I'm sure that many people will be very vexed if our project guidelines are found to be unenforceable. Hopefully enough people that we could make them enforceable, so keep us posted on how this turns out!--Supernumerary 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policies to be enforced. Yet where clear guidelines exist, they offer a strong argument for judging individual cases. The only way I see is to pursue each case individually. 500 words may be way too much for an unimportant or simple film. In other cases 600 words may be judged appropriate. I even suggested once that we keep a brief summary on the main article and, if available, offer "extended plot" as a sub-article, since there are many users who prefer to have a detailed plot. But since no one commented, I gathered it was not a bright idea. By the way I love long plots, but surely they don't have to be 1000 words. Hoverfish Talk 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to put some guidelines out? Take a look at the dreck passing for a plot summary in The Good Shepherd (film)....There is a follow also at Cross of Iron insisting that his own blow by blow original research is better than a brief summary that actually uses cites from primary and secondary sources. I think the Project needs to put its head down and do some serious work about guiding policy and enforcing standards. The majority of film articles I've been reading are a bad joke as far as encyclopedic goes.68.146.198.203 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What's got me going on this is an altercation at Curse of the Golden Flower, where the synopsis is now up to 1800 words. I am so angry at one user, who apparently doesn't think non-Chinese should edit the article, that I've stayed away until I cool down. Anyone else who has better social skills than I do who wishes to tackle the synopsis please do so. Armed with the guideline, I think I can start tackling some synopses in the Indian cinema articles. Zora 05:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that tackling synopses in the Indian cinema requires much better social skills than mine. There is a tendency for actor fans to re-tailor articles after their favorite stars. There is a Indian cinema project, where you might want to take a look or bring up the issue. The only thing I can do is suggest again my sub-article idea for over-lengthy plots. I hope more members revive the discussion on this topic and some useful decision is taken, but please, try to see it also through the eyes of persons who might not get a chance to see (say) the Curse of a Golden Flower and would enjoy to read (optionally) the long version. Hoverfish Talk 08:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

She knows about that project, Zora is much like the us (you know who you are) of the Indian Cinema Project. :) Cbrown1023 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, by last count we have almost 17,500 articles! That's a lot to keep track of. We do the best we can critique the articles using our guidelines when they go to peer review, our peer review, GAC, and FAC. That stated, it is upsetting to know that those are all places authors go when they think their articles are complete, we need some better way to get the word out. Cbrown1023 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I post reviews and interviews as external links?

1. Are there any review websites that you do not allow?

2. Do you allow reviews that appear on personal websites and blogs?

3. Should I ask permission for each review, or can I just go ahead and post the reviews as external links?

4. Can I post an interview of an actor that is in the film?

5. Did anyone drink too much last night? ImaGoodPerson 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not supposed to copy text, reviews, interviews, etc from other sites into Wikipedia. We can write articles or sections where we cite sources. We could give a line said by someone and give source, if acceptable. Personal websites and blogs are not even sources to cite. Please see: Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hoverfish Talk 19:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. However, my questions pertained to adding external links, and not copying reviews, so I guess the answer to question #5 was "yes" (haha).

Let me rephrase the questions that have not yet been answered:

1. Are there any review websites that I may not place external links to?

2. Should I ask permission before I place each external link, or can I just go ahead and post external links to webpages that contain reviews and interviews?

3. Can I post an external link to a webpage that contains an interview of an actor that is in the film? ImaGoodPerson 19:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you may want to see Wikipedia:External links. I hope it helps. No one gives permissions. What happens is that if unappropriate external links are found, they are deleted. Generally we use referneces to IMDB and AMG for various film data (but we do not give references to reviews by users). Instead we go to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for professional critics reviews. But generally any professional critic review is acceptable. Hoverfish Talk 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If yours gets removed by another user and they call it spam, take it to the talk page of the article discuss, and if it passes and is allowed by the frequent editor's of the article, include it. If you think that it will likely be removed again, add a little editors message (surrounded by <!-- and --> saying that it has been discussed as worth of inclusion and give a link to the proper history page. Please note that none of that will appear in the actual article itself unless someone views the article in edit mode. Cbrown1023 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

I want to propose a new template to assist in upgrading the quality of films within the WikiProject. Of our 17,000+ film articles, approximately 10,000 of them are stubs. I think it would be better for the project if the majority of these could be improved to start class or better. I would like to propose a template that would go on the talk page listing the characteristics of a start class and how to upgrade it from stub to start. The template would list the basic requirements of the project's guidelines and assessment requirements to alert users how to improve the article. I think the template should look something like this:

Stub to Start-Class Instructions
To bring this stub article to start class it needs the following requirements:

  • Picture (movie poster, DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or a character from the film)
  • Film infobox ({{infobox film}})
  • Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.)
  • Plot summary
  • Cast section
  • At least two other sections of information (production, box office, differences from novel/TV show, soundtrack, sequels, references in popular culture, DVD release, etc.)
  • Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))

Once this article has achieved these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template removed.


First of all, I would like to determine if this is feasible and desired for the project, and if so, how this template could be removed, if anything should be added/removed from the requirements. I think that by adding this to all stub articles, we can gradually improve them by bringing more attention to what guidelines the project follows. I know that it would take a while to tag the 10,000+ films, and I would not mind doing so. In the process of doing this, we would be able to determine if some of the stubs already meet these standards as some of the assessments of films were done months ago. I would like any feedback on this, and if it is decided to go forward with this, somebody would have to create the template since I don't know how.--Nehrams2020 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a great idea. As you may have noticed in my addition of the "needs infobox film" paramter, you can easily transclude the template into the page. The slightly complicated bit would be to allow this to only happen for stubs but to happen automatically. I'm sure that Shane can figure it out if one of us can't. Cbrown1023 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It can work. However, we need to determine the different stages for grading. I mentioned this before in a previous post, but no one responded to the topic. Shane (talk/contrib) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Different stages for grading", what is it you mean there? {{Film Grading scheme}} should be of assistance if I catch your drift. I know you created it. :) You just may have forgotten about it since you haven't edited it in six months. :) Cbrown1023 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be great if we could somehow transclude it with the films that are currently assessed as as stubs. Is the Film Grading Scheme created for WP:Films or was that established for the assessment department for the CD release of Wikipedia? Do you think that the requirements listed above are too high/low for start class? --Nehrams2020 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It was created by us for our use but based off of the CD releases (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team)...Cbrown1023 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it a very good idea and all technical details can be nicely arranged. If no one else is already into it, I can try a first draft starting 6 hours from now. However to make all this easy for anyone, we have to make best use of the stub cats. The starting point (off the main project page) should be a page where all these cats are nicely ordered and appealingly presented, so that one finds smaller groups to pick one's choice from. In this starting page, giving an idea of priority (awarded films, director filmography, etc) would be useful, although not everyone would follow it. Hoverfish Talk 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Detail: The priority of pictures shouldn't start with screenshot but with poster. Screenshot should be 3rd. Sorry for my delay, there was the issue on long synopsis going on. I start now. "The slightly complicated bit", is however beyond me to arrange. Hoverfish Talk 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think it's necessary to give here the whole Editorial Team scheme. All we really need is the Stub & Start and we could decide on some changes, for our purpose if necessary. Hoverfish Talk 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, also if this is somewhat successful or easy to implement, we could include another template that shows how to go from start to B, B to GA, GA to A/FA. If people see instructions, I think that they are more likely to improve the article. --Nehrams2020 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, work is going on here. Hoverfish Talk 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Hoverfish helped to develop and now needs to be touched up/improved. You can see the original version here. --Nehrams2020 08:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article upgrading needed: You can help. WP:IA 

 Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions

To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met:

  • Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.)
  • Film infobox ({{infobox film}})
  • Picture (movie poster, DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or a character from the film)
  • Plot summary
  • Cast section
  • At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, references in popular culture, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)
  • Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))

 Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF

Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template removed.

Looks good. My internet was installed today, so when I get a chance after unpacking, I will get back into things. We going to run it "Collapsible" inside {{Film}} or it be separate. If it is separate, people might get worried that the talk page would get to filled. My suggestion is have it "Collapsible" in {{Film}}. I've already got an idea how I would program it. I'll be doing inside here when I start working on the new code. Shane (talk/contrib) 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way is to have it in the Film template and display it IF class=stub. Hoverfish Talk 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, the two boxes (Film assessment and Upgrading needed) should be displayed separate, with a line between them. Hoverfish Talk 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Like who the peer review is currently shown? Cbrown1023 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I had in mind is that the Film template box, as we see it till now, doesn't change but if it is class stub, then one line after it starts the box of the Upgrade. They can still be in the same template (Film), but the second box appears ONLY if the class is Stub. Not collapsible in the sense of "More information about this article [show]". Hoverfish Talk 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The "more information" only shows up when one of the fields is inputted... so the collapsible would only appear if it was class=Stub... Cbrown1023 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New

To Wikiproject Film, I have one comment. You can find me at Wikiproject Aircraft, but I'm new to this project, my question may be answered, but its a user-friendly issue.

Many articles about composers (eg. John Williams) have music files allowing the user to listen to music the composer has created. I find that using OGG music files is unpractical, seeing that MP3 files or Windows Media Player is much more commonly in use. I am unable to sample any of the music, because I do not have OGG format installed on my computer. A funny browser also pops up when I click on any of the music files.

Why are the files in OGG format? ChockStock 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sound files on Wikipedia generally use the Ogg Vorbis sound format, and video files use the Ogg Theora format. These are roughly similar to other formats used to play digital audio and video such as MP3 and MPEG. The difference is that the Ogg formats are completely free, open, and unpatented." from here. If you follow that link, you'll find instructions on how to play OGG files as well.--Supernumerary 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankee ChockStock 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External links and IMDb

What's the policy for films on whether the External Link sections should include a link to IMDb? WP:TV#External links says to use the IMDb link in the infobox and not put one in the External Links section; is the convention the same here?

Jordan Brown 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB should be in both the infobox and the external links. It might seem redundant, but that's how we do it here.--Supernumerary 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Extended plot sub articles

Pertaining to the above discussion #Long synopses -- again, I would like to propose that we have sub articles for a film's extended plot. Is this acceptable and possible? The reason is that most occasional readers, shouldn't have to go through an extended plot in the main article, but some that are looking particularly for it could still get it. Surely that's not a priority or something to recommend, but if we have it, additionally to a good plot summary, we could find its righteous place. And surely everything must remain encyclopedic and details leading off the main plot should not be included, even in the extended version. Hoverfish Talk 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, I think it would work. A general, no spoiler plot, could go on the main article, followed by a link to it's subpage for a large plot synopsis. Like Hoverfish, I too come to Wikipedia to read the entire plot synopsis of films that I have no desire to see or want to find details about a particular scene. --Nehrams2020 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked on it. "Subpage" would be [[Main article title/Extended plot]]. This is not allowed: Do not use subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia (see WP:SP). A sub-article is basically an independent article, but it is linked only via its main article. It can appear however under Random article. Hoverfish Talk 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would accept this as way to deal with the evident strong desire of editors to write long synopses. I as a reader hate and loathe them -- they're usually very badly written and boring -- but having a 400-600 word synopsis on the main page and a long-as-you-please synopsis in a sub-article would make more people happy. (I had written "make everyone happy" and then realized that I have run into too many editors who feel that their extremely important information must be placed in the main article, in a prominent position, surrounded by triumphal arches and monumental statuary. But I digress.) Zora 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For all concerned, I have placed a question here: Wikipedia talk:Subpages#From WikiProject Films talk. Hoverfish Talk 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Even if we make this a guideline (having short synopsis in the main article and long in a page by itself), we will still have to deal with and argue about it in many individual cases. Look at some GA films like The Blues Brothers (film). I can't prove it, but I think that most peole who visit this article are pleased with its illustrated "Plot". It can be argued that the article would lose rather than gain if the plot was replaced by a short synopsis and pasted into another article. FA Night of the Living Dead has also a rather long "Plot". IMO in films guidelines we have to be reasonably flexible. And there will be always be fan films and fans. We can keep them encyclopedic but not out. Hoverfish Talk 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're an outlier, Hoverfish. I've never heard anyone but you claim to like reading long synopses. We could get some real data, however, if we moved long synopses into subarticles in a few high-profile films and then kept track of the clickthroughs. I could be the one who's an outlier. Real data would beat arguing. Zora 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One concern is that by writing a long, detailed plot summary you are in effect trying to replace the film. This might be construed as limiting the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the film in any way, especially if the plot description is scene-by-scene.--Supernumerary 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not insist I am right. If my personal preference is not common to others I can live with it and with short plots too and I can even try to contribute very concisely. But didn't Nehrams just say he also likes them a bit more elaborate, or did I misunderstand him? In any case, I don't like scene-to-scene plots. I promised to ask about the clickthrough thing: Will do tomorrow. Till then. Hoverfish Talk 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing you can do is create a short summary section that's small and put the big one in an extended summary section. Then people can decide for themselves what they want to read. - Peregrinefisher 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I myself see a strong distinction between going to get something, by clicking on it (that's my choice) and having to scroll through something interminable that I don't want to read. The first feels like checking out a purchase by googling it; the second feels like having to wait through commercials when I watch broadcast TV. But then, hadn't you already agreed that long synopses were not OK? It seems as if that decision were being revisited. Zora 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have short and long summaries, then you can click on either link in the table of contents and get exactly what you want. I'm against super long summaries if that's all there is. I don't want to be forced to read a book. For example, Welcome to the Hellmouth gives you the option of a quick read or a long one. I think the reader gets what they want, just not wikipedians who don't like long summaries. - Peregrinefisher 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-articles that are just plot summaries would generally not be allowed under the policy on what Wikipedia is not -

“ Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. ”

. CovenantD 07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after all the above, this wouldn't be useful anyway, but that's the answer I got on the question of "clicks": MediaWiki does supports page views but was, last I knew, disabled on wikipedia due to the extreme high traffic. It seems we will have to go by good faith. Hoverfish Talk 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Title in English or original title

Hi, the title sais it all. If the movie is promoted with an english title in USA, should that be used or the original title? --Steinninn 11:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UE Girolamo Savonarola 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Use the English title. See naming conventions for films. Cop 633 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 ! Important Hi-Tech Update !

Wikipedia is lately able to have tables sortable by column. All one needs to do is read m:help:sorting and give class="sortable" to a table. Hoverfish Talk 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

Image:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
A Trip to the Moon (film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Request that kinda sorta involves the film The Hitcher

There might be confusion with this request. See Talk:The Hitchers (band from Limerick). But then I could be crazy. But with only a few votes, more people should chim in. Whatever way they think. Peace out. 205.157.110.11 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)== Deleted Wikilinks at Movie Company Articles ==

A deletionist Wikipedian, User:Tregoweth, has gone on a deleting binge at WP articles about various movie companies (Warner Bros. Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Paramount Pictures, that I know of), stripping them of their lists of wikilinked movies, leaving edit summaries such as "No need to duplicate IMDb!" IMDb doesn't provide links to the Wikipedia articles about these movies, though, which is what these deleted lists mostly were. I've reverted his edit on Paramount Pictures but (so far) not the others. Users associated with this project probably wrote many of the movie articles that are losing wikilinkage because of these list deletions, so I thought some of you might like to know what was happening. Whyaduck 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted him and left a message on his talk page. Please contact me if anyone does anything like this again. - Peregrine Fisher 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a related note from the film categorizing project: There is talk about giving category by studio of production to all films (where studio is notable). When this happens the deleted lists will be only partial duplicates of the cat, but we aren't there yet. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Even when their is a similar cat, I don't think these lists should be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've warned him that I'd warn him if he does it again. Cbrown1023 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)