Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wikiproject Films Barnstar

It appears that WikiProject Films doesn't have it's own barnstar. I'd like to propose one, perhaps using File:Film Reel 4 by Bubbels.jpg as a template. Something similar with 5 points would work. I attempted to make one but the real isn't perfectly circular and my photoshop skills are lacking. Anyone care to take a shot at it? RichMac (Talk) 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, {{{yourname}}}, hereby award [[User:{{{theirname}}}|{{{theirname}}}]] the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. {{{extra}}} Awarded {{{awarded}}}

... Do you think that looks good? But combine the Barnstar.jpg and Film reel together? Cbrown1023 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Cbrown1023, hereby award RichMac the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Notably the suggestion of creation of this barnstar. Awarded 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An example. Cbrown1023 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was so elated about receiving that star, and then you crushed all my hopes and dreams by those two simple words. RichMac (Talk) 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But we still need to combine the two pics. I can't do that either. Cbrown1023 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this?Her Pegship 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! You rock! Cbrown1023 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Check it out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Barnstar... make changes to it if you want. Cbrown1023 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice job guys.--Supernumerary 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Late for tea) Looks great. Congratulations! Hoverfish 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, wasn't quite what I had pictured in my head, I was thinking more of turning the reel itself into the star, as I've seen on a couple of other project pages, but it looks good non-the-less. RichMac (Talk) 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I had the same picture in my head too. But I couldn't get it to work and that's definately better than anything that I could've done and it looks great (I think). Cbrown1023 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The star looks great, but I would change the background to a lighter colour, such as #D3D3D3 or #C0C0C0, so that the text would be easier to read and the box would look less "intrusive". Prolog 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the background needs to lighten up a bit. Hoverfish 08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As seen in the examples above, I changed the background to LightGrey (#D3D3D3) now. I think it looks better. Prolog 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)

V for Vendetta (film) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Later years in film - subpages

I suggested in Talk:2005 in film creating a subpage named 2005 in film/Releases in North America and placing there all the "Wide release films" and "Other films" with all the specific information there and do the same to all the years where such sections have been created. Please, discuss. Hoverfish 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a good idea? What's your criterion for wide-release? Why is it necessary to segregate these films from the general pile? Girolamo Savonarola 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wide-release would be correct here, if it represented a global or total of english talking countries. However here we have lists showing only North American records. Also the release dates given for films outside N.America are not the same as the films' original release dates. The general pile are top grossing (also specific), awarded, films released in year (original release year), and other information that can include films in general. "Year in film" is a global title. Sepatating it from data specific to N.America could create a sub-series of articles where this data could be presented. Hoverfish 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Presenting the WikiProjects Film Barnstar

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, RichMac, hereby award Cbrown1023 the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For hard work and dedication, categorizing, grading and sorting WikiProject Film articles. As well as guidance and insight on WikiProject Films talk. Awarded RichMac (Talk)

The origional reason I was looking for a WikiProjects Film Barstar ;) RichMac (Talk) 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 14:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to the people who helped assess:

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Cbrown1023, hereby award all the users who helped assess all those articles the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Sorry this turned out as a red link... Awarded 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In the future, this, like all other barnstars, will be given to the user in question on their user or user talk page. Cbrown1023 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I figured with the ongoing talk it was fitting. Will place any other barnstars in the appropriate place in the future. RichMac (Talk) 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I totally agree with what you did (I did the same myself). It helped with the discussion. We just don't want new users coming around and seeing that they're here and wanting to put them here as well... Cbrown1023 13:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still good this talk page got awarded. Looks good in the categories at the bottom. As for the page needing an infobox... Hoverfish 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of (links given for) films only mentioned in articles

I have started a work-list (here) of links given as references to films, but which lead to articles where the film is either barely mentioned or has too little coverage to be considered a legitimate link to the film. Please, help to determine what should be done in each case. Hoverfish 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Julia Stiles

Julia Stiles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Infobox template discussion

Hi, I've started a discussion [1] on the Infobox template talk page. Any comments will be very appreciated. Mallanox 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with Category:Participants in WikiProject Films?

It's not only red again, but now the page also appears empty (last time it was red but most of the contents were there). Glitch again? Hoverfish 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is Category:WikiProject Films participants. Cbrown1023 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Cbrown. Hoverfish 21:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (TV drama)

In the IMDb, Bloody Sunday (TV drama) is a film which premiered in TV and therefore lost its right to be nominated for Oscar. Does this make it a "TV drama"? Bloody Sunday (film), by the way, redirects to it. Hoverfish 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this really should be named as a film rather than a TV drama. The Academy are notoriously snobbish in their choice of nominees. It wasn't specifically geared towards TV (no cliffhangers for commercial breaks). Plenty of other films have premiered on TV and are usually referred to as TV movies rather than TV dramas. Just my opinon. Mallanox 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

I have created a userbox for regular participants in the COTW. Please critique it and put it on your user page (if applicable) using {{User Cinema COTW}}. Cbrown1023 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I will use it if I become a regular. Hoverfish 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I have only helped with The Blues Brothers so far, so I need to help with a few more films before I add it. Was it ever decided if the COTW would last longer than a week? --Nehrams2020 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. (Wikipedia talk:Cinema Collaboration of the Week#Redefining Collaboration's aim?) Cbrown1023 23:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you folks have been so helpful in the past...

...I'm hoping this might be a good place for some help. Here's the deal: I know that The Best is Yet to Come (film) exists. The problem is that I cannot find a damn thing about it other than the one newspaper article I have from 55 years ago regarding its production. I don't know if you folks know where films hide that don't show up on IMDb, or have any other pointers, or can expand it, but any help I can get on this one would be great. Thanks in advance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it finished production and was released? Otherwise, maybe a name change after early production? Cbrown1023 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It almost appears as it it wasn't produced. I only found one solid reference via google [[2]] which simply says "He finally announced plans to film The Best is Yet to Come with an ad-line that promised “All there is to know about cancer.” "

Kind of has me curious now. RichMac (Talk) 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the newspaper article, it gives the impression that it was past tense. If it's a name change, I don't know a thing about it...I dunno. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd look at hard reference material (ie books), especially the ones already mentioned in the article about the producer. Girolamo Savonarola 03:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, none of them mention it. I've even gone the google books route on it, but not having any luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have to take a trip to the library and dig into some archives if you really want this one expanded. RichMac (Talk) 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:uncategorised films populated somewhat

I've bot-populated this from three stub categories (the film-stub root, the horrors, and the comedies); there's currently about 150 in there. (I'm just using the 'raw' category, though I'd tend to agree with the above discussion that there's no reason why a populating template shouldn't be re-introduced.) Alai 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic, I'm not technically minded enough to do stuff like that. It's lucky you're about! Thanks, Mallanox 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I'll make a start on it now.

You're more than welcome: the real thanks are due to the people willing to slog through and actually categorise them, of course. I'm filling it back up once again now, following the recent database dump (and working may way through some more film stub categories). Alai 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack guideline

If a soundtrack guideline exists I think it should be added to the style guideline. I would be nice to have just one format. I know I should be bold and do it myself, but I don't have the time right now. If no one does it, I'll have time in two weeks. Until then suggestions and information would be helpful for whoever does it.Pro bug catcher 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Albums has a format for album track listings, and I think it would make sense to follow that. Also, when soundtrack sections are split off, the new articles' talk pages could be tagged with {{Album}}. — WiseKwai 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Wisekwai, you’re right, in that case I think the film guideline should have a few words, to redirect editors to the album guideline. Can I just add it myself?Pro bug catcher 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. :) Cbrown1023 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach

I've created that page and put in some new stuff (based off WP:WPBIO). Check it out and please do anything you can to make it better. Cbrown1023 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Prey (film)

Could probably be split into two articles. When I happened upon it, it was focusing on an unofficially announced movie announced only through an insert in a video game and didnt even begin to discuss the film currently in post production and being screened to focus audiences. but it will eventually need to be split, i think. 216.165.38.230 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Later, when there is enough information to span two articles and the other one has been confirmed. Cbrown1023 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hence "eventually."216.165.39.201 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 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. Cbrown1023 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category proposal

I propose a Category:Heist pictures, to highlight films that have a bank robbery or other similar activity as a main theme of a film, i.e., Heist, Inside Man, Thief, Loophole, etc. Ideally, the category page would contain a list of the films so categorized, updated automatically when the category template is added to a film's article. Thoughts? Alan 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should've told you earlier... there is already Category:Heist films. I thought you had something different in mind. Cbrown1023 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I do not understand the last part of your statement. Isn't that what categories already do? (see WP:CAT if you are unfamiliar with them) Cbrown1023 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I'm only vaguely familiar with the inner juju of Wikipedia.Alan 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging categories

I was wandering around the categories section to see what categories I have, and realized that almost none of the film-related categories have our tag on their discussion page- I mean our WikiProject film tag with the class rating. The class rating is pretty easy to do, since they're all categories- since there are hundreds of these categories, I thought I'd alert people to this lack of tagging in the hopes of getting aid in tagging them. The task is a little daunting, I must say. -Elizabennet 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can chip away at it here and there. — WiseKwai 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Worth expanding an unrated film article ?

Hi,

• Talk:Alexandre le bienheureux.

See you there,

Ultrogothe 10:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline discussion

Just a heads up that the discussion at [3] for the proposed Overcategorization guidelines has a talk section dealing specifically with how to handle actor-by-film and actor-by-tv-series categories. The goal would be to form a consistent policy guideline for which actor-by-series categories are acceptable, which aren't, and generally help editors decide when to use a category for cast lists and when to use a list article.

If you're interested in this topic, head on over to that discussion page and give your two cents. :) Dugwiki 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline for plot summary length

I would like to establish better guidelines for plot summary length. To me, 910 words is a plot outline, not summary. Here's featured fiction film article plot summary word counts for comparison:

Article	Running time (min)	Word count
Blade Runner	115	413
Casablanca	102	708
Dog Day Afternoon	124	630
Gremlins	106	842
Gremlins 2: The New Batch	106	547
Halloween	91	484
Halloween II	92	389
Halloween III: Season of the Witch	96	487
Jaws	124	941
Night of the Living Dead	96	937
November	73	499
Ran	160	865
Richard III	161	639
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	133	840
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones	142	863
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith	140	989
Summer of '42	103	1282
Sunset Boulevard	110	584
Tenebrae	101	599
V for Vendetta	132	945
Witchfinder General	87	571

Based on this research, I believe the plot summary for the average feature length picture (to about 130 minutes) should be around 600 words. There seems to be a break at that point (notice there is are no summaries between 708 and 840 words) where we move into "blow-by-blow" style summaries. Any thoughts? – flamurai (t) 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad decision, but the problem comes where not all films are the same. Certain films have have more of a plot than other films. Halloween is pretty simple, kid goes crazy kills people, escapes mental hospital and kills again. V for Vendetta is a little different. It would depend on the material at hand. If the film covers a lot of detail (like the Saw films) then it would probably need a little more, to make sense, than another film of the same length. I do think that 900 words is pushing it in length, and plots should maybe be no more than 750 or so words, but you also have to take the time to read them. Some plots could be written so that they actually read fast; it's about your word choice. Bignole 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make a list of questions that editors can ask about a plot summary, such as, "Can the summary do without this sentence?" Films differ too greatly for there to be a specific word limit, no matter how hard one pushes it. The plot fix-up process should be done by a number of editors sharing dialogue with a goal of making the information concise. Just my $0.02. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. After editing the Batman Begins summary with Bignole I have a much better idea of what's necessary. (I'm impressed we got it down below 800 words.) The idea is to eliminate unnecessary detail (in many cases this means deviating from the timeline of the film) and use the tightest language possible, especially in long summaries. I just made the chart to get a general idea... I understand that not all plots are created equal. – flamurai (t) 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Helpful things...

I was just thinking: Is there any way to make a little "FilmInfoboxNeeded" tag to put at the top of applicable pages? Sort of like the stub tag, but about needing an infobox. Do y'all think this would be necessary and/or helpful? The same thing could be applied for "SynopsisNeeded". It could tag it as part of the category, and then it would make a list to easily find which ones need the info. -Elizabennet 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be too hard. All you'd need to do is find a template which essentially works similarly, and edit it accordingly. I can't imagine it taking more than 30 minutes. Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one, it looks like this: . ::Mallanox 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added this template multiple times, but is there a way to set it to where a separate category could be created for just film template requests? This one here feeds into all of the infobox requests, which makes it difficult to search for the films that need it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I do use the infoboxneeded one a lot, but I'd like a separate one. Something like:

This article is in need of a Film Infobox. You can help Wikipedia by adding one to it.

It'd be in the Category:Articles in need of a film infobox (or something like that). -Elizabennet 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OR:

A Film infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated.

And it'd do the category add as well. I just don't know what I should call the template. Ditto for synopsis.

{{needs film infobox}} and {{film needs synopsis}} seem good. (I am a big fan of template names that read well when editing the page... e.g. {{long plot summary}} rather than {{plot}}.) – flamurai (t) 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. I, on the other hand, prefer the shorter template names as they are easier to add when tagging multiple films. Once this is created and set up, I'll start replacing it with the ones I already inserted and on needed pages.--Nehrams2020 06:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey, they're both up, as are the categories. -Elizabennet 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I put links to the style guidelines and their respective sections for both of the templates. Cbrown1023 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do these tags go - on the article or the talk page? — WiseKwai 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It goes on the talk page, and I usually put it right below the WikiProject banners.--Nehrams2020 18:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it took me two hours, but all of the previous {{infoboxneed|infobox film}} templates have been switched over to {{needs film infobox}}. However, the category does not divide the films by letter, so if someone knows how to do that, please fix it.--Nehrams2020 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a quick change so it should automatically divide by letter for your new category. Also added the new template to the film template category. By the way, the entries starting with 'the' will individually have to be edited if you want them to fall under a different letter than 'T'. --PhantomS 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you rock! -Elizabennet 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

End note: The new tags were created at {{needs film infobox}} and {{film needs synopsis}}, with according category listings. -Elizabennet 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense if it was {{needs film synopsis}} with the corresponding category of 'Category: Articles that need a film synopsis', in order for there to be a more common layout for the two templates? Otherwise, it's going to create confusion. --PhantomS 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FA/GA Listing

I have created a listing of our featured and GA article accessable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Distinguised items. Where do you think is the best place to put this list? In Assessment (where it is), in Style, in some other Department (as seen in the sidebar), or in a new department, like Spotlight? Cbrown1023 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The below comment is copied from User talk:Cbrown1023

It certainly does not belong under style, and it does not really fit on assessment or under any other department for that matter. So it would be best make a Spotlight department, and put it there. The only thing is that we need more than a couple tables for a new page, but the question is what else to spotlight (the collaboration already has a link on the project page, articles under review are in the announcements, maybe outstanding contributors?). It might be best to post this on the project's talkpage and get more opinions.--Supernumerary 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

End note

I guess we could also put it on the main page... but I don't want to make it cluttered. Cbrown1023 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Flightplan

Are any participants able to help me make this into a good article?? I would appreciate the help if anyone is able to. --SunStar Net 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a look and IMO it first has to reach B properly first. Have you checked the project's Collaboration? Try nominating it and see if anyone else votes for it. Even if it doesn't get to be Collaboration of the week, you might find some editor to help you (off collaboation). Hoverfish 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Film series cmoved improperly

Hello to the wikiproject film editors. Recently an editor changed the series of ducunentaires by Michael apted that began with Seven Up! to the Up Series. Unfortunately they did a cut and paste rather than an actual move, thus losing the edit history. I do not know how to fix this situation so I am coming to you in the hope that you can correct this as well as letting the editor know what they did wrong so they won't make this mistake in the future. Of course, no redirects were fixed either so that kay need to be looked into also. Thanks ahead of time for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try hailing an admin at the admin noticeboard. I'm certain someone can help deal with the issue quickly and effectively there. I'm not certain that "normal" users can easily rectify these types of errors. Girolamo Savonarola 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem was taken care of (not by me). Hoverfish 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox film - Special effects by

Most blockbusters today rely on special effects. I'd like to see in the infobox, even for a tiny credit like 'ILM', or even listing supervisors. Wiki-newbie 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the infobox is already really, really big, and while that's not a reason to rule out another addition to it, I don't think we should include special effects. It should be included in the article, though, if it is a special effects-heavy film (e.g. Alien, Underworld, etc). -Elizabennet 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

General classification of films

I'm putting together the navigation pages for Version 0.5 (a soon-to-be-released test CD release of about 2000 Wikipedia articles). Note- the format on the Version 0.5 is to be changed. We have always found films hard to classify - should they go under Arts along with paintings, or under Language & Literature along with plays/theatre (as I am doing currently), or under Media (under "Society") (by association with TV & newspapers)? Personally I think the Theatre connection is strongest, and this is clearly seen if you want to include actors/actresses in the same section, which seems sensible to me. I even think TV articles should go there, because good TV is often like theatre & literature, and is often closely linked to film (as with Star Trek). But I'm not an expert on this - where do you think Films should go? (Note - I will include links that say, "For film listings see XXX"). Thanks, Walkerma 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that theatre is film's closest relative (and indeed TV as well, who remembers Armchair Theatre?!). Although there are links to art and media, the purpose of film, to create an emotional response in the viewer, is essentially identical to the purpose of theatre. Mallanox 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that, traditionally, film is most closely associated with theatre (hence the reason that they're called movie "theaters"), so I agree with Mallanox. -Elizabennet 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mass media" seems prima facie correct, never mind the 'by association' argument, and "Literature" much less so (film is not primarily a literary medium, and is much less so than theatre). If anything "Media" would be broader than "mass media", so why would that suggest a reclassification? Alai 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that films don't just happen, they have to be written. They are scripted the same way as theatre. Mass media covers news, magazines, the internet. All manner of things far removed from film. Mallanox 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're claiming the term mass media doesn't cover film and television, you're using it entirely differently from most people -- not to say the wikipedia article. That something 'is written' does not make it most appropriately classified under "literature". Alai 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The orignal question was which place best fits the requirements. I think it fits in best with language and literature because of its shared purpose. Mass media has many purposes and is not always intended to entertain nor invoke an emotional response. Mallanox 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see we're not alone in being torn between things! It is hard to pin down, I think really it resides in all three places to some extent - mass media certainly does cover films and television and actors, but so does theatre. Based on the above I think I'll leave it in Language and Literature next to theatre, but there will be a very obvious "redirect" on the Society & Social Sciences page (in the "media" subsection) and I'll also include a similar note in the arts section. I think as long as it's clear it won't matter too much where the information resides. Thanks for your input. Walkerma 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Superman has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It already is featured, isn't it? Bignole

Um, a featured article review is concerned with removing featured status because of no longer being FA-quality. So, yes it is featured, but this is concerned with teh removing the status. Cbrown1023 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks Bignole 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Film lists in jeopardy

User:Calton has tagged dozens of "Lists of <country> films" for afd; his stated judgment is that "Wikipedia is not IMDb lite." Will you folks please pitch in and save these lists, which seem to be both useful and encyclopedic? See the afd discussion here. Thanks - Her Pegship 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But they are very unwieldy and often potentially uncompletable. Surely this is something that categorization can do far easier and better? Girolamo Savonarola 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

However, if they are maintained, they are very useful, especially if the films in the list haven't yet had an article written about them. Categories only work if the articles exist. There are still gaps of information. — WiseKwai 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a relatively limitless number of films from any given country which don't have articles. That's not a good enough reason. You can use that to justify just about any unmanageable list. Girolamo Savonarola 12:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we may end up with huge amounts of films very hard to manage and especially very hard to tell which films are notable enough. We should not duplicate a database. But if someone like Wisekwai has an idea of a country's notable films, notable directors etc, why not try to integrate the information somehow? Hoverfish 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There and countless films that have been made and lost to time and will never appear on the list. There are other films that have been made and appear on a list and probably will never have articles written about them. But they are there on the list, if someone is looking for the information. And, perhaps, one day someone will come along with the right information in hand to say, "Yes, this film is notable", and be able to write an article about it. The lists can be structured so that they are useful. Nothing is completely unmanageable. — WiseKwai 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If the list is setup good and well managed: it should stay. But if it's mainly original research, and poorly done and/or maintained...it probably should go. As much as I find lists useful, sometimes they are just pointless. A list of weapons for a movie (such as Doom) isn't that helpful. Many movies feature many weapons: it doesn't mean they need a list to point it all out here. Take that type of information to fansites or fan wiki's. RobJ1981 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

his stated judgment is that "Wikipedia is not IMDb lite."

That's because Wikipedia -- you know, an encyclopedia -- isn't IMDB Lite, i.e., a directory or text dump. Copying pages of lists from IMDB and vomiting them up onto Wikipedia isn't the least bit useful or encyclopedic, nor would creating directory listings of everything ever put on celluloid, as User:Ernst Stavros Blofeld, for one, seems intent on doing. The very point of a general-knowledge encyclopedia is as a digest or highlighting of an almost infinite body of human knowledge. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seem to be doing again, huh? Honestly, read the entire article for deletion page—the one you started—and you'll see that that issue has been addressed with the author and he's stated his intentions which are not at all as you have characterized. Doctor Sunshine 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I keep saying I do not intend to start articles on every film. Many. many films are not notable at all. Why do you keep saying this. I am attempting to set out a basis to which to provide infomration on global film. Most are actually notable and need full articles which provide information. I am attempting to make wikipedia globaly covered in detail rather than Anglo American what is wrong with this? I think the lists are encyclopedic in themsevles as they provide info of country film cutlrue and expand from the main Cinema of ... page. I agree that all of the year lists should be redirected to categories which I have done already. All of the continent categories should be kept because they list several fuilms which each country has produced which wil;l probably never be notable enough for an article and a category. They also serve to tie in with continent culture and are part of Cinema of Asia Cinema of Africa etc.

New Navigation boxes

If there are no opbjections in due course I will be drawing up very useful navigation boxes for Films by genre (redirecting to categories), films by language (redirect mostly to categories and maybe the new lists which some should be kept), Actors by nationality, Film directors by nationality connecting to categories of both so new lists will NOT be created. I will also attelpt to do the same in the world of global television with yearsd in telelvision countries in telelvision programmmes, tellevision actors and directors by nationality to ensure global telelvision is covered too? Each box will be managable and concise and will attempt to comprehend film and telelvision as global rather than purely American . Who thinks this is a good idea? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A question and comments on some film categories

Do categories such as Category:Species films really need to exist? It's overcategorizing in my opinion. In most film articles that have sequels: there is the preceded by/followed by note in the info box. As well as the see also section which lists sequels of the movie. I can understand the category if it's a big series: such as Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond and so on... but for some small series I think it's just overcategorizing. Just because one film series is set up a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean all should be in my opinion. RobJ1981 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably better served by a footer template linking all the films, I would imagine. I agree with you - film series which have less than, say, five separate articles probably don't warrant a category. Girolamo Savonarola 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is definately not necessary, 10 or more is okay but 4! That's too little! Cbrown1023 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So should this one be put up for deletion then? --Nehrams2020 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nehram's question sums it all up in a nutshell. No guidelines = neverending questions. We delete this, then we come to the next. But are then 6 enough? And is it only a number that has to be established? Hoverfish 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As creator of many of the categories that are no doubt being mentioned here, they do in my opinion serve a purpose. For one, the genre categories of film fill up very, very quickly. They will continue to do so until Hollywood, Bollywood and everyone else gets bored and stops making them. As such, it is better in the long run to have categories such as these not to stop that happening but to at least slow it down.

Another reason is to make categories like Category:American films more managable. It's a monster, and shifting some of it into subcategories makes it slightly more easy on the eye.

In response to Cbrown1023, I think that 4 is the perfect number to begin such a categorisation. How many series of films actually make it to four? In truth it is not that many. If a series makes it that far it is, again this is just my opinion, of encyclopaedic merit to include them and categories are far less cumbersome than series boxes that just clutter articles. Mallanox 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But isn't it just the fact that it won't get any larger than 4 enough to discourage a creation. Cbrown1023 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted some may stop there. Other will continue to expand. How about Rocky films? Who would have thought a couple of years ago we'd be looking at another in the series? Why is a small category that is very specific worse than a massive one where everything ends up?

To use the case in point, Species. Using the Category link at the bottom of the page it is easy to navigate between other film articles in the series. If the best we had was Science-fiction films they would be far less easy to navigate.

Also, having a series category, it means that some of the more broad categories can be placed on it meaning that only more specific categories appear on the individual article.

Why not file using the most specific criterion avaiable? Mallanox 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a series box instead? Your only response to that seems to be aesthetics, which is not really enough, considering that not all series boxes are created with the same design. Girolamo Savonarola 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I clearly haven't made my point. Genre categories are becoming huge unwieldy beasts. Giving film series their own category alleviates this. It removes clutter from the articles themselves by moving some of the broad categories onto a higher level category. For example, all Texas Chainsaw Massacre films are American. There for making Category:TCM a subcat of American films means that American films is less full and each of the individiual articles has a category moved higher so it only has more pertainent categories in it. Series boxes don't help this at all, they don't make categorisation any easier, in fact it means that you have to keep checking each article in the series to make sure the categories are consistent. Bear in mine that each film article has: A category for the year, one for the country of origin, one for th language, probably a couple of genres. Add to that any awards, subjects and directors, the number of categories gets very high in many cases, particularly the highest traffic films which tend to be the blockbusters and serial films. Mallanox 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A series box makes the most sense to me. A series box lists all the movies, and is helpful to anyone looking to read about the sequels in the series. It's much better than having to look at a small category that will probably never get new articles in it. RobJ1981 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another example:Category:The Neverending Story adaptations. It could easily be replaced by a Neverending Story box that would be placed on the relevant pages. If I knew how to make a template, I would do it myself. RobJ1981 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this needs our esoteric initiates. I am also for the box solution. Hoverfish 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: {{The NeverEnding Story}}. My first attempt at a template, what does everyone think? RobJ1981 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, but I don't see that it precludes a series category as well. Mallanox 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? I fixed up the template a little, since I noticed a few errors in it. RobJ1981 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Shifting back to left margin as the columns are getting narrow). I'm a little concerned that you may think my comment was sarcastic. It certainly wasn't meant as such. I only meant to say that I don't see why you template can't go on and have a category for it as well. That would prove an all-encompassng cross-reference strategy that would please everyone. Mallanox 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as said above: do short film series really need a category? The template does a fine job of showing all movies/related articles. I think it's alot better to see all things at once, instead of having to look at a small category. A small category that can't get expanded much to be exact. Neverending Story is a good example of this. Unless a remake of some sort happens, it's doubtful a new movie will come out. Un-needed categories need to be addressed alot more on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Why have a small category and a template? If people are reading the article, they can easily see the template before seeing the categories. I think this is a case of "let's just make a category because popular series have a similar category already". While it's good to be consistent, overcategorizing is an issue here as well. Quality over quantity is usually the best way to go. RobJ1981 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think you are trivialising my point. I'm talking about removing clutter and making large categories less unwieldy. Mallanox 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way of short films. The category is small only because short films have not been systematically assigned the category. There are however quite a lot of articles on shorts. Hoverfish 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Days in film

This editor is creating 'this day in film' articles. Laudable, but each article consists of just one event, which isn't very illuminating. I've suggested he does one day at a time and lists lot's of events, rather than doing lots of days with one event. Additional help/input is probably a good idea. exolon 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just getting the articles started so they can be expanded. My main area of interest is the AFI 100 (and to a lesser extent the BFI 100) and Hitchcock films. I have no birth/death data. I'm sure there are books of the "year in film"? But I don't have one. :-( Still, I personally want to be able to look up any day in film. I have a small personal db of films I own on DVD and am xferring that as best I can (I'm only one person). But the beauty of Wikipedia is that others can start to help! Thanks for posting about this here, I wasn't sure where to mention it. —02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have noticed what is happening currently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films. As for starting something new and hoping that others will help, I think one should talk about it, wait to see IF others will help and then start. Hoverfish 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea with possibilities, and, if anything, it could made the linking of release dates in film infoboxes useful. — WiseKwai 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from year, precise original release dates are not given in a big number of infoboxes. Also in non N. American films, the date given is most often that of the release in N. America. Hoverfish 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you when it comes to the "big number of infoboxes", but many film articles I've contributed to are exceptions. North America is not the center of the earth in my eyes and the important release date to note is that of its country of origin. — WiseKwai 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen what's happened to some of the lists. But in those cases the category system could easily be used. In this case, the idea is to mirror the date articles, which are arguably getting to be too long. I suppose one could add a film section to every day of the year in those articles, but they are getting too big. This will allow film related births and deaths to be removed from those article. It's the way of the future as those articles get unmanagable, we will start to see December 7 in science and December 7 in politics, etc. because that will be the only way to manage the data. If these film articles get deleted now, I'd be willing to make a bet that such articles will be the way things are done within a few years. —Hanuman Das 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The other arguments are interesting, but nothing says every film has to be listed. Yes, release dates are not known for all films, yes foreign films should be dated by release in the country of origin, if know. Perhaps a separate section titled "US release" should be added. I am quite open to discussion of how best to do this. I am simply being bold and starting with a proof of concept. —Hanuman Das 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I am slow to get what you mean, but in relation to, say, 2004 in film #Events, #Births and #Deaths, wouldn't your work overlap? Hoverfish 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, IMO, one thing that may help in your new series is if you include <div class="messagebox cleanup">This article is a work in progress. Feel free to expand.</div> (or something similar) at the top, until more info is entered. This might save you some frustration in case anybody else thinks they are useless. Hoverfish 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid for GA - 3 questions.

I Not Stupid is a Singaporean film written and directed by Jack Neo. It is the all-time third-highest grossing movie in Singapore. This satirical comedy prompted the Singapore government to make changes to the education system.

For several months, I have been working on this article. After several concerns are addressed, I Not Stupid should be ready for a Good Article nomination.

I need the following questions answered before I can address the concerns:

• The Production section is under construction. Due to the systemic bias of available references, finding information on Singaporean movies is difficult. For this reason, the completed Production section will only be 2-4 paragraphs long, as I'm only aiming for GA status. Bearing this in mind, what information must be included in the Production section? (e.g. shooting locations, budget, crew...)
• The Plot section is unreferenced. However, the plot sections of Casablanca, Halloween, Jaws, V for Vendetta and Witchfinder General (all featured articles) are unreferenced. As I am only aiming for GA status, is it necessary to reference the Plot section of I Not Stupid?
• The Political satire section is unreferenced. Will it cause I Not Stupid to fail the "factually accurate and verifiable" section of the GA criteria, considering that the rest of the article is well-referenced? If so, will its removal cause the article to fail the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria, considering that political satire is an integral element of the film?

Singaporean members of this WikiProject should consider collaborating with me to improve I Not Stupid to GA status, and to improve articles on other Jack Neo movies.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the information's not available the informations not available. The plot doesn't need references as the actual movie is the assumed reference point. The political satire section could probably use some, otherwise it might be deemed "original research". If not for the film itself even general references to Singaporean satire would likely suffice. Otherwise, it's well on it's way. Kudos. Doctor Sunshine 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the references you're already using must certainly refer to the political satire, don't they? You could use some of them in that section. How about the critic who expressed surprise it wasn't censored? Why would it have been censored? Great film and a good article so far, I think. You're headed in the right direction. — WiseKwai 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why the Plot section doesn't need references.

Researching on Singapore-related movies is difficult, but not impossible. Writing a Production section which is 2-4 paragraphs long will be challenging, but doable. However, I need to know what information a Production section must include, before researching for such information. Any pointers on researching would be appreciated.

Although most reviews mention that I Not Stupid contains political satire, I could not find any that goes into greater detail. A "Political satire" section with only one sentence - that I Not Stupid contains political satire - would seem awkward, and hence I expanded the section with examples, which turned out to be original research. Therefore, I'm considering deleting the section altogether, but am concerned that doing so would cause the article to fail the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria.

I'm glad to know that I'm nearly there. After working on the article for three months, I just need to overcome a couple of hurdles to finish.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style#Background/Production. (dropping link for my use and your use) Cbrown1023 15:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Included here should be a history of the film's background and development, such as how many studios, actors, directors and writers were involved with the project at one point or another. Continuing onto the production of the film, facts such as filming dates, budget figures, any noteworthy tidbits (such as delays, reshoots etc.) should be transformed into prose. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed.

Cbrown1023 15:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the films in WP:GA, such as "Manos" The Hands of Fate and Batman Begins; and WP:FA, such as Blade Runner and Casablanca (film). Those should give you some ideas. It's hard to believe that there are only a couple good and feature foreign language films. Kind of sad, actually. You're going to rock some worlds here, Non-america is counting on you. Doctor Sunshine 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Large amount of new lists for deletion, discussion needed

There has been a current debate over the last few days of several of User: Ernst Stavro Blofeld's contributions to the WP:Film. He has begun creating muliple new lists featuring lists of films by year (ex: List of 1896 films, in comparision to the original 1896 in film with the list of films though not featured on the page and linking from it as expansion anyway), a list of films by country (ex: List of Finnish films, currently up for AFD for being too broad and possible copyright problems), and two new templates ({{filmsbyyear}} & {{Filmsbycountry}}). Although he is working with the best of intentions to attempt to improve the project, and was bold in creating these lists/templates, there needs to be some debate on whether they are necessary or need to be more discriminate. There is current discussion about the country lists at the AFD here and about the years in film in AFD here several user pages including: his, Hoverfish, and Cbrown1023. Instead of attempting to solve this around the project, Hoverfish and myself thought that it would be better if it was brought to the attention of WP:Films to be discussed by all members, in hopes of finding a swift and beneficial solution. Please discuss if these lists or templates should be deleted, remain, merged, or some alternate solution. --Nehrams2020 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One concern is that Ernst Stavro Blofeld has found and collected films for the early years, where the Years in film are almost empty. So, before deleting anything at all, let's see what we can integrate and how and where. If we integrate them in the Years in film, under section Films released in 19xx, we still have to give this list a limiting name, so that we don't end up with a huge and not so useful alphabetical list of all possible films. The case for deletion is that we do not name any limiting (discriminating) factor as title of the list. So we will have to come up with one. One of the good questions E.S.Blofeld has asked (on the country lists issue) is how comes and Greek films are not tagged for deletion. This is because this list is very carefully filtered to contain only Greek films with international notability. Yet the title, should state the factor, i.e. Internationally notable Greek films, or something equivalent. The same goes for the new series he started creating as Films in 19xx. They are tagged because these can become bottomless pits in the Main namespace. If Film Project wants to have a full database of all possible films, we should at least ask some sysops how this may be accomplished. That is IF we want it. If not lets clear out for us and for all newcommers, what limiting factors a "full" list should have, so we know how to update it and what to filter out of it. Hoverfish 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To tag on to what Hoverfish is talking about. Blofelds work is VERY good, but it isn't going to stand up in the Mainspace. These articles are probably going to be deleted, but they can be undeleted and moved to the project namespace. Here is how to handle this. Once the AFD has been completed, go to the Deletion Review page at WP:DRV and request that the pages be undeleted and "no-redirect move" to the project namespace. What this means is that the entire set of his work is listed under, for example, Wikipedia: WikiProject Films/List of Finnish Films. This will allow for the work to remain, but it won't be violating established policies on Mainspace articles. Also, the lists could be recreated as List of important Finnish Films and in the list lead-in, one should list the criteria for important, such as "Films listed here all receieved significant coverage in reliable sources." Reference the reviews of each film when creating the list, and someone needs to assure that every film listed has a comprehensive review referenced to it in reliable sources. That would help solve the problems that we have. Also, existing lists of films should probably be culled back to only notable films, and they should be moved to article titles that indicate inclusion criteria. For the record, anyone can do this for the lists NOT up for deletion such as List of Greek Films. As I am not really a member of this project, I will leave it up to established members on a format and procedure for doing this. Oh, and the years films, such as List of 1896 Films or whatever are reduntant articles to the ones that already exist like 1896 in Film. The template that Blofeld made is really great work, and the Lists he created should be redirected to these articles. If the "XXXX in film" articles need to be expanded, it should be done. --Jayron32 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To get along with what Jayron32 said, we could make them all accessible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Lists of films. Cbrown1023 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in film project terms this looks to be the right place. Alternatively we could create Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Lists of films by country or region of origin and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Lists of films in years, although in my opinion the second is one step too much, as their present content (in film titles) can be directly added to the lists of years in film. Hoverfish 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou to all and I emphasise again I appreciate everyones contribution to this. THis is a major task and I like everyone involved wants it to be done properly. Rather than creating new confusing lists redirects to cateogories will be made the templates definately kept and can be used even in the categories as a quick movement aroung global film. What I wanted was to be able to view a list of films made in a certain year or country at a click which wasn;t really present beofr ethe boxes but can see is really there already in the cateogries just needs full expansion. However as I am gradually adding films I would be very pleased if temporary lists of films i wuld like to add could be listed behind the mainspace in our Wikiproject. E.g for Finnish film films beginning with b list them and add them to wikipedia then delete the list then add the missing c film complete delete list like this. E.g Wikipedia:WikiProject:List of Finnish films when completed then add a new missing list and add the films to wikipedia etc. But the idea is to add films that are worthy - contray to what User:Calton I don't just want to add a totally unnotable film for the sake of it. I gneeuingly believe most films are of some information value and I will not create articles if I believe they cannot be expanded or are dodgy in any way. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we already have Years in film pages. Girolamo Savonarola 11:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on G. Savonarola's comment, I have to add my view of things currently. I have read in a recent communication of E.S.Blofeld that he intends or considers "branching out of the years in film", which basically means creating another series of articles, as sub-articles. So while the project is also concerned on what the name of this series will be, and if they will be class NA under film project namespace, I am concerned mostly on what this implies for the Years in film. IMO a decision should not be taken to create a mainspace list of "[Limiting factor] films in year", but to turn section "Films in year 19xx" of the Years in film series, to a name encyclopedically meaningful and to put all the early films E.S.Blofeld has compiled there. So Years in film doesn't have to be updated and crossed continiously with "[Lf] films in years", because that's a waste of useful editing time for someone. The only argument against this that I can understand, is that "Years in film" may not be a pure list of films (as "Lists of films" implies), since it contains also other lists, on events, births, etc. In this case we have to agree on what should be done to solve this. - Later addition: Do we remove it from Lists of films?

But either way, a link to the category namespace has a slightly different function than linking to a series of lists in the main namespace. The main namespace contains information in "presentation" form, as it addresses the public. Categories is a special tool, which also the public may use. The Lists of films is, as the title implies, an article-compliation of lists. To offer for each section a link to the appropriate general category, where all articles are easily accessible, is something quite understandable. But to place a whole navigation template, which navigates in categories, is IMO, not in context with the title, because this list, is a list of categories and not films. Now I know you like the navigation, and so do the others. My proposition, for now, is to use the template to link to "Years in film", provided line breaks are put every 10 years, so we can navigate easier. If another list of "[Lf] films in year" is decided, the same navigation template can be easily be worked into a new additional one, as needed. Hoverfish 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose that changes are made to List of films by country and even date. Rather than delete them I think each country should have the list of notbale films in order by year of release rather than an A-Z that the categories will eventually create anyway. This is far more useful which I believe Thai films and that have already done. Alos the format could be changed to a box With year and date of release in chronoligcal order and director of film by country. I notcied debate over the dates of film releases. If lists were drawn up of films by year then the same could eventually be done, from Januray 1st to december the 31st by year. This will not only be an expansion of the main pages e.g 1947 in film and Cinema of .... but will give more specific infomration about date of release in chronological order.

Note that years in film neither give a full list of notable films nor specific details of date of release which the lists as new parts of these pages could accomplish. The lists would be parts of the years in film pages Surely then this cannot be disregarded as non-encyclopedic? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: All further work on the new country lists has been moved under Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article namespace. Hoverfish 21:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject missing notable films by year and country

Presently I am compiling a list of Bulgartian films because there are none in the category. THis is for information purpoese. However I have started with A researching each one and I have found many unotable which have been removed e.g short documentaries and 8 minute cartoons etc. In the end we will have a narrowed down list of missing notable Bulgarian films which can be added to wikipedia. However with other country lists I have no objection if you rather let me compile them behind the mainspace e.g List of Austrian films. Once again lists will be added and then researched removing the non notablre articles again with a list of full missing films for the country to add to wikipedia. Please trust me on this one. The Bulgarian films are being compiled in the mainspace for temporary encylopedic reasons. If somebody wnatede a list of bulgarian films there would at present have only been one or two films See Category:Bulgarian films.

I propose a major new organization of missing wikipedia films by country and date Starting with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing Argentine films Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing Austrian films

This way lists can be accessed from imdb or british film instute but again can be researched so that a finely tuned list of missing films by country will be created chucking out the non notable films. THis will be gradual though so we can manage existing red links in relation to the entire Wikiproject. E.g I am willing to work on one country at a time rather than going ahead creating red links.

I also propose a major change in films by year. I believe in the same way lists can be compiled on different Wikiproject pages by e.g

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1896 films Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1897 films Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1898 films

etc. Again full lists can be compiled but then researched to remove the titles which are not notable leaving really worthy articles which may be created. The process of researching each year and country could be gradual but I fell this way be make sure that every film of notablity is covered with the crap removed by inital research. Then once these articles are created fully then of course we will automatically have a finely tuned list of films by every year and country which are not only lists but actually provide information on every one which is what my goal on wikipedia is all about. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Then once every year list or country list is finely tuned to notablity then they could be adeed to the main Missing notable articles page organized by country or date in a new section or whatever. Of ocurse I would love to here everyones opinion on this before going ahead as I respect all of you film wikipedians greatly for the immense work and organization already done on wikipedia. Everyone should be very proud of their achievments so far. A major well done. I believe my new process of research could be very imporant in creating an ultimate list of missing notable films but I wouldn't be happy if i thought people were not happy with my ideas. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This way many different wikipedians could concentrate on different areas with one working on adding missing 1896 films to wikipedia another 1897 films another adding missing Argentine films another missing brazilian films etc. This whole idea would be a further expansion of missing notable films from wikiproject Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See List of Bulgarian films: A. List has been narrowed down to notable films. -first notable film started for Bulgaria A byahme mladi.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

List of films by date of release

I propose that changes are made to List of films by country. Rather than delete them I think each country should have the list of notbale films in order by year of release rather than an A-Z that the categories will eventually create anyway. This is far more useful which I believe Thai films and that have already done. Alos the format could be changed to a box With year and date of release in chronoligcal order and director of film by country. I notcied debate over the dates of film releases. If lists were drawn up of films by year then the same could eventually be done, from Januray 1st to december the 31st by year. This will not only be an expansion of the main pages e.g 1947 in film and Cinema of .... but will give more specific infomration about date of release in chronological order. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I went through the series of Cinema of (European country). In some countries, not very developed text-wise, there are lists of notable films, directors, etc. In several class start and B, lists are given separately. A series of List of notable films of (European country) would be rather helpful in keeping a consistent presentation. About lists by date of release, there are such listings (given as tables) for Wide-release (in N.America mostly) films in the later Years in film. I think such lists by date are more specific, and hard to spot films in. I would give priority to a series of complementary lists in alphabetical order, which give some notability details (of international recognition) for each entry (something that cannot be done viewing the listing of a category). Hoverfish 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

redirects

If redirects will be too much of a strain on the system I won't do them its just wikipedia has thousands of new visitors every day and List of ... films is far more probable than Category: which they wouldn't know about. If the redirects weren't there you would type in List of 1947 films and it would seemingly not be there. Iknow the access is on lists of films which people will go to. The new navigation boxes then will just go directly to categories.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A trove of worthy topics

Seattle International Film Festival#Golden Space Needle winners has enough redlinks to keep someone quite busy creating worthy articles. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually 17 out of 22 is a prety good score you have there. I will be contributing soon in including all "reds" in the lists of films without an article, where awarded films are presently marked and from where the list of missing notable films will be updated. Hopefully articles will cover your list soon and they won't even reach there. Thank you for compiling the list (table). Hoverfish 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question of film notability

Until now I have concentrated on Film Festival awards to compile notable films. There is also the Significant Critics' awards, up top in List of film awards. Shouldn't these films be considered notable too? Hoverfish 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - And what about Industry awards? Hoverfish 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, probably... There could be further information at Wikipedia:Notability (films), but I'm not sure. Cbrown1023 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting link. Deprecated? I think this article needs urgently to be properly developed and to reach guidelines status (or if this should be kept as a souvenir, then "Notablity in films" or something). It would be The Light we are all looking for lately. Or is there something like Wikipedia:Importance in films? Hoverfish 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would like it, that's kinda why I "dropped" the link. :-) Cbrown1023 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Template-Class film articles

I struggle to see the point of this, but if it's really necessary, can this please be renamed to Category:Template-Class film pages? Or better, to Category:film templates, or merged into Category:film non-articles? (Or best of all, get rid of it entirely.) Alai 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already a Category: Film templates; why not just create Category: WikiProject Films templates as a sub-cat? Either way, I agree with Alai that the naming is kinda, well, confusing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, pesky bluelink. I'm fine by with your suggestion, but what exactly is the intended distinction? Alai 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be moved... I tried it by updating the template, but they are still in the other category. There may just be a lag in the server but somebody else check it out. (I moved it to Category:WikiProject Films templates) Cbrown1023 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's slowly filling. In case anyone is wondering why I just acted: I created the categories... so I figured no one would care if I moved it to the right place. Cbrown1023 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not me! I've fixed the few links to the redirect (aside from some from talk pages), any objections if it's deleted? (Category redirects seem more trouble than they're worth, especially for template-populated cats.) Alai 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, delete... :-) Cbrown1023 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done and dusted. Now, can we do something similar with Category:Category-Class film articles? (Of which I notice that Category talk:Category-Class film articles is a member, natch...) Alai 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, slowly filling (but at a much faster rate than yesterday). Previous category marked for speedy by me (the author, db-author) and because it's empty (or will be; db-empty). Cbrown1023 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Limited release films

I have a question on the naming guidelines of a film. The upcoming film Home of the Brave (2007 film), is set to release on limited release on December 15, 2006 and wide release on January 5, 2007. Should the film remain as (2007 film) or return to (2006 film) to include the limited release of the film? Just want to know so I can fix some redirects and determine if there is an established guideline for future similar cases.--Nehrams2020 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be 2006 - see Crash (2004 film) for a similar example. Also this guideline recommends using IMDB dates, which are always of the earliest screening, 2006 in this case. Cop 633 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I say also 2006. I always correct dates to original release. Hoverfish 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, I'll move it back to what it was before. --Nehrams2020 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I need HELP!

Copied from User talk:Cbrown1023

I just received your Wiki-film invitation. I am glad to be a part of it, though my time is limited. I am Roger, and a film historian. I wanted to ask your assistance on an article that has been bothering me since I first joined Wikipedia American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. I was starting my volunteer editing for enjoyment and contributions. starting in the silent era. I ran across this article on this company that had been completely over "Cited" with conflicting information. I did my research and found out that even in the discussion of the article there were heated arguments that were utterly ridiculous. This company was an old film company that seemingly went out of business in 1928. In the 80's it was said to have been revived by a man who was in the Little Rascals and his son. As I perused the discussion page I was astonished. The people from new company were defensive, but the volunteer editors were to the point of verbally abusive. One of the statements was that they wanted to destroy the creditability of the company. I tried in vain to edit and correct, but my corrections were reverted and I was no less than harassed. I was even verbally attacked accusing me of being part of said company. I then went to other silent film articles, and discovered that "None" were scrutinized, and over cited as excessively as this article. Since the administrators did not assist at all I reluctantly gave up on much of my Wikipedia involvement, and now have a "Bad Taste" in my mouth for Wikipedia period. I am a suido film historian, and do the lecture circuit quite often. I am very busy and have alot of associates that are in my field as well as financers. After hearing of this plight, the word has gone out not to donate nor support Wikipedia. They have also reviewed this article. Hopefully if this and other discrepancies are corrected with this and other articles, then things may be different. I bring this to your attention because Wikipedia is a wonderful idea handled in the proper manner, and not used as a "Battlefield". Please let me know if you or the our asssociates at Wiki-film can help.

--Roger the red 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wicker Man naming discussion

May I please ask for anyone interested to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wicker_Man#Move_to_The_Wicker_Man_.281973_film.29_.3F where there is a discussion about what to call the article. There are opposing viewpoints but not enough to achieve consensus. Any opinions are welcome. Mallanox 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Improper redirect

Australian film Deadly (stub) happens to have a talk page redirecting to another film, apparently not Australian. Can someone please help sort this out? Hoverfish 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it, take a look. I just deleted the redirect. The message on the talk page was for the actual film of the talk page. "Deadly" did not have anything on its talk page. --Nehrams2020 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how it got there. Thanks for fixing and explaining. Hoverfish 17:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What amazes me is that it was like that since mid-2005. --Nehrams2020 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)