Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Adding infoboxes and tidy imdb links

Have you tried talking to him yourself? While a film article should have an infobox (amongst other things), there is no "requirement" for an article to have one from the first edit, nor for the original editor to be the one who adds it. PC78 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message with the editor. Also requested adding grounds for notability if he has the time. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question above, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. A short stub with no infobox is surely better than nothing at all. PC78 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Burden"? I thought we did this for fun! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your own attitude is equally mystifying to me Blofeld—certainly I don't get this rather odd fixation you seem to have regarding infoboxes—and I think you make far too many assumptions about what other people would think. If, as you did, I came across a newbie editor making good faith contributions, I'd be more inclined to thank them rather than come here complaining about the standard of their work. PC78 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes would be great, but not prerequisite. As long as our basic site-wide pillars are met, I don't see the cause for objection when a new editor is being active. Prodding him to be more comprehensive wrt style guidelines is a good idea, but if he chooses to disregard them, so be it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there more to this conversation yesterday?! C'mon people, nice big pre-Christmas group-hug from you all now, or I'll make you watch Police Academy 7! I wish we had more Lord C's helping out with the project! And I see that Blofield has removed his name from the active list of WP:FILM participants. WTF?! Everyone's contribution is valid (yes, I know that should go without saying, but I said it). Weather it be from a new person who isn't aware of things like infoboxes, etc, or from established editors. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes...lots...Blofield has stripped all of his remarks from the entire talk page, making every conversation he participated in rather confusing. Is that even allowed? This particularly conversation now makes almost like, no sense... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand you can add and remove your own talk comments freely, just not others. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Previously deleated article for If You Could Say it in Words

(previously posted here on the film request page - thought it would get more replies on this page Lugnuts (talk) 12: 06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings I know the previous article for If You Could Say it in Words was deleted on the grounds of blatant advertising so I have recreated a stub for it. Although it has to be finished with more information and the bottom links added with year, etc. I wanted someone to take a look at it before I post it and correct any problems within the article so it does not get deleted again. I am not the original author but this is my first Wikipedia article so it’s very possible I misinterpreted some of the rules or wrote something incorrectly. Here is my draft I was also wondering if and how I can reference a face book page that shows the producers claiming they are being held from release because of looking for a distributor. Thanks in advance.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abangyarudo 10:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Abangyarudo (talk)

Hello and welcome to our community! I will see what suggestions I can make for your article. First of all, you can create your own user page to work on the article. For example, User:Abangyarudo/If You Could Say It in Words. (See my example at User:Erik/The Book of Eli.) When you feel like the article is ready, you can move it to the mainspace (If You Could Say It in Words). Since the article was deleted as blatant advertising the first time around, it is a good idea to make sure that the article has an objective tone. Reading WP:NPOV may be useful. One item I noticed in the article is this: "The movie has garnered a lot of attention and support from those in the Autism community due to it's portrayal of Asperger's Syndrome and has been featured favorably in articles on the Wrong Planet Community Website." Saying "garnered a lot of attention and support from those..." is a pretty sweeping claim and could be seen as weasel wording. Since the film has not been released outside a film festival yet, I would hold off on generalizing its reception. Otherwise, there are just cosmetic improvements to make. For example, you should add a lead section, and it may be ideal to reformat the "Cast" section into a simple list. (Wikitables are not much fun to work with, and for this small group of details, it's not necessary.) It may also be a good idea to cite details with the appropriate references. I can make additional suggestions, but let's do this on your user talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I've reworded the statement you felt could be intrepreted as weasel wording. I'll work on redoing the cast list so just to make sure I understand the simple list would be just a regular list separated by breaks like on the Terminator 2 movie page? Abangyarudo (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the right example. You could also expand on each bulleted entry with a brief description of the characters and how they relate to each other, though their actions in the film should be conveyed in the "Plot" section. Up to you if you want to have the brief descriptions or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When I read this topic earlier today, prior to Eric's adding his initial post, I questioned the notability of this film. However, since Eric - whose opinions I value and respect - did not, I cleaned up the article and created it as If You Could Say It in Words. Since nobody in its cast or crew is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, it has a paucity of blue links, and the article links to nothing except this discussion page, so I still wonder if it's notable enough to exist. It will not surprise me if someone proposes it for deletion in the very near future. I would be hard-pressed to find a reason why it shouldn't be. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not comment on the notability because the article was only in the userspace, and I thought that the notability may be better established if the film finds a distributor. I didn't expect it to be moved to the mainspace so quickly! It won an award, so perhaps we can search to see if there is anything more to the story. However, I think we should leave the article's development to Abangyarudo unless the editor wishes for collaboration. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps incorrectly, I assumed if you thought the film wasn't notable you wouldn't have encouraged him or her to work on the article. I stepped in and cleaned it up because Abangyarudo clearly isn't familiar with writing for Wikipedia, given some of the formatting and the large number of red links that appeared in his or her work-in-progress. I didn't realize it isn't proper to collaborate on an article unless an editor asks for assistance, and I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes by doing so. LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help LiteraryMaven. I wasn't planning to release it this early but it seems to fit well. As far as notability it has received coverage through its subject matter that many independent films do not receive furthermore it was the first winner in 2 categories of the new Derby City Film Festival in Louisville, KY. As taking two major awards and its subject matter which parts of that community have stood behind I think determines it has more notability then most independent films in this stage of production. As far as plot while I have seen many scenes of the movie I have not seen the whole movie the last full description of the plot I saw in a previous version of the deleted article. Abangyarudo (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I too have questions over its notability. It would go some way to proofing the article against prods or AfDs if you could find other reliable sources that cover it in some detail. Do you have anything else? My own Google News archive searches have yielded little. Perhaps something in a print publication? Steve ^{T • C} 22:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

theres another article in print form I have never looked at. In a film magazine I do not know any place to retrieve it online here is the information as per imdb Glucksman, Mary. In Focus: Five New Films in Postproduction. Most information is in interviews. In: Filmmaker Magazine (New York City, New York, USA), Jay J. Milla, Vol. 15, 2007, Pgs. 20-22, (MG), ISSN 725274936946. Abangyarudo (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in I Not Stupid Too's peer review

Greetings, fellow WikiProject members. The guy who wrote two GAs about Singaporean movies - I Not Stupid and Homerun (film) - now presents to you his latest masterpiece: I Not Stupid Too! Unfortunately, it is currently sitting at peer review, having received only one review, from Erik. What a shame! The article needs more thorough reviews, especially for prose issues, before it can go to GAN and attain that green plus in a circle.

So could at least two other members of this WikiProject please review the article? I would also appreciate it if someone provided further comments on Erik's two referencing concerns. Perhaps I was a little cranky on that day and my harsh replies scared him away from posting follow-up comments...

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you did not scare me away. :) It has been a busy week for me, and I have a few things going on. I'll add your PR to my to-do list. If others can share their thoughts on the article, that would be helpful, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. I plan to take the article to GAN in about four or five days. Hopefully that gives you enough time to post follow-up comments (sorry for the remarks I made while cranky) and for a few other members of this WikiProject to give detailed reviews. If not, I could keep the article on peer review for a little longer. By the way, if I Not Stupid Too attains GA status, it will be my third Singaporean film GA - may the three GAs provide inspiration and guidance to those who fight systemic bias by writing articles about films from Laos or South Africa or...you get the idea. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a few comments for you to take a look at. If you're interested in getting more people to contribute to your peer review, you could always comment on the other open peer reviews and ask them to review yours. Although people may stumble onto your peer review, helping people with theirs may motivate them to help you with yours. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A question

Why is the category "English-language films" automatically being appended to film articles? In If You Could Say It in Words, English is not wikilinked in the infobox, yet it appears as one, and English-language films was not included as a category, yet it's the first one listed. Does anyone know why? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has coding that reads the language= field and automatically adds a category if one exists. You can replace "English" with "Spanish", and it will add the category "Spanish-language films". —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

I am cordially requesting that users look at and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo in regards to the edit-warring and POV-pushing this user has made, especially in regards with The Dark Knight (film), Body of Lies, Heat (film), Leon (film), and other film articles. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Core articles

I know I probably should start this discussion at the Core articles talk page, but this talk page seems to be more popular. Anyway, does anyone else think that 442 articles in that list is just too much? Wildroot (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have about 48,300 film articles. :) The core is not even 0.01% of that. I have not really visited that article often, but it seems like a fair number. Don't worry, it's a good idea to centralize discussions here, since we can't keep up with all the talk pages of sub-articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried looking for other Projects' lists of core articles to see how many they presented, but at least two of the most prominent, WP:MED and WP:MILHIST don't seem to use them. Was there an original basis on which this number of articles was chosen? Steve ^{T • C} 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the core page was the WikiProject's fix for doing away with the importance= coding in the {{Film}} template. I imagine that it grows in a limited fashion, noting the inclusion formula mentioned on the core page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to call me an idiot for skipping the entire "Inclusion formula" section straight for the list. :) Steve ^{T • C} 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As per above, it represents about 1% of our total articles and acts essentially as a Top-importance parameter. I believe the original discussions about Core hit upon an eventual size near this number, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1% doesn't seem like too much to me, it seems about right. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Split of section on death from Heath Ledger

Earlier today an editor split out the section on Heath Ledger's death from his article. Some editors agreed with this while others did not so the split has been undone to allowed additional, and wider discussion. Views from the Film project as to whether this is an appropriate space to split this article are welcome at Talk:Heath Ledger#Split out of death while the entire original discussion can be found at Talk:Heath Ledger#Undue weight on the death section? Possible solution? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class

Hi! I'm a developer of {{WPBannerMeta}}, the meta-template used by your WikiProject banner. After recent updates and changes to WPBannerMeta we've decided to rescind default support for some of the quality scale classes, including Future-Class, which WPFilm uses in the form of Category:Future-Class film articles. There are three ways to proceed. The new code changes mean that it is possible to implement a workaround which retains the Future-Class assessment exactly as it functions now; this is easy to implement if you wish to continue with the 'status quo'. Of course, if you don't feel that this assessment is particularly useful to WPFilm, by doing nothing we can allow the Future-Class assessment to be deprecated altogether. This is what I've recommended to most of the other projects that use Future-Class, as I really can't see any use for it. For WPFilm, however, I can see the potential utility, so my suggestion would be: do you think it would make more sense to use a separate parameter (eg |future=yes) to display a separate notice that the film is anticipated? That way you can still use the main quality assessment for its intended purpose, which is judgement of the article's current quality. This can also be trivially implemented, with a tracking category added (eg Category:Future Film articles) so you can still keep track of your future films, but the articles also appear in Category:Start-Class film articles, etc. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, {{Film}} doesn't use the meta-template. PC78 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, we don't use the meta template. Additionally, the template also has custom-made specialized tracking coding tied into this class so that we can determine when to remove the Future class. It doesn't make sense for us to assess these articles as regular ones because their unreleased nature makes it impossible to bring them to anything close to completion as per our style guidelines, since they are missing key sections such as plot, critical reception, box office, video release, awards, etc. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, you are quite correct, which begs the question of how your articles got into my tracking category :D. Thanks for the response anyway. Happy‑melon 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees

Can I just draw your attention to a new category, which a user has created? He seems to be running into a few mini-disputes over whether or not a winner should also be included in this category (on the basis that they would have had to have been nominated...). The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied to the authors comments on the film cat talk page here. It's already existed once and was deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've put it up for deletion here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards list article

I created List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations and am thinking of submitting it as a featured list candidate. I was wondering if anyone would care to look at it and make any suggestions before I forge ahead. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks good! My only thought at the moment is, how would you justify the spinning off of this list? The film article itself is 53 KB, so some editors may ask why the separation was called for. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The review process has begun and that question hasn't come up. To answer it, though, without the awards table, the article is 53 KB, with it, it is 80KB, which is reaching a size that can be questioned. The sheer number of awards is extensive (and impressive) and I felt that to properly cover them comprehensively compelled a spin off. I can say authoritatively that one can tire of type "Joel and Ethan Coen" and "Javier Bardem" very quickly. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For everyone, here's the FLC page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratings and reception

How comes on many films released internationally, the ratings and reception sections are the american reaction (inc IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes)? This does not represent a worldwide release. These only seem to be when it is released in the US, whether before or after a release in another country. Simply south not SS, sorry 11:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

IMDb's user ratings should not be cited in any film article, period. The ratings are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew. Rotten Tomatoes is mostly American-centric (even with its UK offshoot), but it is able to gather large enough sample sizes for an accurate gauge of how critics responded to the film. I think that this is a matter of systemic bias, and it is hard to combat that for films released internationally since the most press revolves around the American release. Also, we editors gravitate toward English-language sources, so it is not always possible for us to add in French-language reviews or Spanish-language reviews. I personally don't know of many sources that best capture an international reaction, though for Valkyrie, we do have a number of headlines about German critical reaction on the talk page to use in the article itself. Also, for Hancock, I think it has a pretty comprehensive "Theatrical run" section in capturing how it performed in various territories. I think that for the most developed articles, we try to combat that systemic bias by avoiding use of the word "domestic" and specifying a wide array of release dates when possible. However, I have not worked with foreign-language film articles to know what kind of potential there could be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this in my previous comment... it may be worth reading our guidelines on critical reception. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of top Bollywood films & List of top Tamil-language films

Just stumbled across these articles; besides the rather awkward naming ("List of top films"?), they both seem to have some pretty major issues, and not least in terms of referencing. While I see no problem at all with a "list of top-grossing films", a "list of critically acclaimed films" seems highly subjective even with proper sources, and these two articles are a synthesis of both. I'm not too sure what to suggest, which is why I'm bringing them here. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "top" is problematic... both lead sections start out with popularity as the criteria, then covers both top-grossing films and critically acclaimed films. The Tamil-language list is more problematic, saying this: "...though many of fans' all-time favorites will be found on this list." What about renaming them to something to Films considered the greatest ever? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from needing sources to justify the claims written, I find the term "critically acclaimed" rather dubious. Critically acclaimed in what sense, awards or reviews? Especially when it comes to awards, majority of Bollywood awards are claimed to focus on public perception of the films. Another case is that most of the comparison is based on film's time in the theaters. This can also be misleading when gauging the success. e.g. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, the longest running Bollywood film in theaters, was actually running in a single theater for significant portion of its time in the end. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of top Bollywood films and List of top Tamil-language films do seem rather subjective in their approach to their respective topics, and I'm amazed the article Films considered the greatest ever never has been challenged as being excessively POV since it was created more than five years ago! LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Revamping "Production" section

Our article guidelines have a very light section on production, so there is a more substantial paragraph that is being proposed. Nothing too restricting; just outlines more details that could be covered in such a section. If you have a moment, please weigh in with any thoughts! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

disney live action

Hello - I have merged List of Disney live-action films to List of Disney feature films, but the former is still listed as part of the wikiproject on the talk page. Does the wikiproject tag remain even if the page is redirected, or does the tag get yanked so the redirect page doesn't appear on your radar? SpikeJones (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've yanked the tag. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Spamming?

CunningWizard (talk · contribs) is adding external links to various film articles to film trailers on Apple.com. I know that Apple is officially used by many films for hosting trailers and is sometimes used for releasing trailers. But mass addition of these links doesn't really seem helpful, especially in cases when film's official site also hosts the trailer. Thoughts? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw this going on, too. I was unsure about what action to take myself. From what I can tell, a link to the film's page on Apple.com shows multiple trailers, where there may only be one on the official site. (Not sure if this applies everywhere.) It gives readers some additional accessibility, but the trailer pages won't last forever, I think. Maybe an ideal approach to take is to remove the links where the film is already widely released? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

They are impermanent, and furthermore, tend to be easily accessible from the film's official site, which is already a normal link to be found on the EL section. (And since the Apple site generally only hosts trailers for upcoming or recent films, it's not unreasonable to expect an official site.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While She Was Out

Could i have some additional eyes on While She Was Out? Me and another editor (User:Allknowingallseeing) seem to be just going back and forth and since he's convinced that nothing i do is sincere, its getting nowhere. Naturallyblind (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't think you know what you're dealing with!!. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[blink] Oy. Well ... I guess that explains a lot. Not why but ... wow. How sad. Thanx! Naturallyblind (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. In the words of my favorite Scottish late night talk show, "I KNOOOOOooooowww!!" Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost World GAR

The Lost World: Jurassic Park is currently undergoing a GAR for issues with beyond excessive plot (1451 words), lack of completeness, missing sources, and MoS issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Award sections - referenced or unreferenced?

Hello. Following on from recent edits made to the article for Star! (film), posts on User:LiteraryMaven's talk page and my talk page, LM claims that awards sections in film article don't need to be referenced; and I quote "I suspect the consensus will agree that awards and nominations do not have to be referenced".

Now I agree that they don't have to be referenced, but it would be nice if they are! I was puzzeled at LM's edit to the removal of a reference (on the Star! article) that backs up the basic facts. Surely every reference is important, even if it's to reinforce the fact that a film has been nominated (or won) a particular award? Input greatly welcomed. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the awards need a source. I don't see why this is even a question, especially considering that it should be really easy to do so. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I don't know where LM is getting their information from, but awards must be references. The only thing in a film article that typically does not get referenced is the plot, and that is not because it does not need a reference but because the page itself acts as one giant reference for the plot (as the information you'd put in a primary source reference template would be the info found in the film infobox). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Lugnuts, User:Eric has done extensive work updating articles about 2008 films in order to include recent awards and nominations. None of them are referenced. Isn't the fact a respected coordinator of the film project isn't including references sufficient evidence they aren't required?

Award categories within film articles generally are wikilinked to the specific articles about them. Since we assume those articles include accurate information, isn't referencing them in the film article overkill?

Ironically, the source Lugnuts referenced for the awards and nominations for Star!, specifically the Academy Award for Best Art Direction, doesn't include all the nominee names Lugnuts himself added to the list. Therefore, how valid can the reference be? LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As per your talk page, the link I added does indeed contain the name of three people nominated in that category. And even if it didn't, I'm referencing the fact that the film had x amount of nominations. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

LM, absolutely not. The fact that a respected editor did not include a reference is not indication that they should not be included. You might have bothered to ask Erik why he did not include the references. Second, we do not cite Wikipedia pages from other Wiki pages. No, citing something on one page and then citing it again on another page is not overkill. You cannot force someone to travel from page to page just to verify the information you put on there. That isn't how things work. If a source does not include everything that an editor is placing there, then remove the information that isn't sourced. It's rather simple. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines does not address the issue of awards and nominations at all, so I'm not sure how User:Sephiroth BCR can say "all of the awards need a source." And if "the only thing in a film article that typically does not get referenced is the plot," as User:Bignole claims, then it follows that every bit of data in an infobox should be followed by a link to a source verifying the information, which of course it doesn't. Could someone please list articles that reference awards and nominations, because I'm not finding any. Thanks. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The infoboxes are a combination of information which should be sourced within the article (such as gross returns, release date, and budgets) and information sourced from the film itself (director, producer, etc). User:Sephiroth BCR can saw that all the awards need a source because it is true per WP:V and WP:RS. Pure plot summary is the only content that has a "no source" needed requirement, and only within that film's article. No article would pass FA without having all of the awards unsourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)This policy covers Sephiroth's claims. As for my claims, please try and understand that not all sources must come from an internet website (as a matter of fact, internet sources are low grade compared to actual published-paper sources). Thus, the information in the infobox is easily verified in the film's credits. If you don't believe that Bryan Singer directed Superman Returns, then go throw the movie in and watch the credits. As for sourcing awards, please see The Dark Knight (film). Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; slow down, a fast-paced discussion leads to quick pulses!) I did not include references in my clean-up of some table formats because, frankly, the work is a little tedious. :) There are so many improvements that are to be had in any article in which I work, and I just did not choose to take the time to find references. For current films, I imagine that a lot of the awards and nominations are easily checked with search engine tests. For older films, this may not be done quite as easily, especially with awards that are less reputed. Per WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Since the material is challenged, we should pursue references for them. As for the infobox comparison, the most of the information is considered very basic. The director is very evident, whereas the budget is not, so the latter needs a reference where the former doesn't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a little further, I revised tables for some film articles because I am interested in improving them as articles likely to be trafficked during awards season. For a film like Doubt, I have not pursued full-out development of the article. If I wanted to present Doubt to others as a well-developed article, I would go ahead and reference the awards, too. There's a lot of uncited material across Wikipedia articles, not just film articles, but I don't think that we would actively try to blank such content. It's a bit akin to fixing the spelling or grammar of an uncited passage... it's easy to do, but you may not be in the best position time-wise or resource-wise to reference that particular passage. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Should awards be referenced? Sure they should, at some point, like nearly every point of fact. Should awards be removed if they aren't referenced? Of course not, unless it can be established that information about the award or nomination wasn't accurate. The point comes, should an article be submitted for GA or FA review, they will have to be. Meanwhile, I see no valid reason why a reliable source for an award should be removed from an article. The list I have submitted for a featured list review is referenced, and the reliability of a couple sources I used was questioned and needed to be replaced. Almost all recent awards can be referenced from online sources, though I found that occasionally, a bit of searching is necessary. In the case of current awards contenders, I would think that they could be sourced now, or it could be postponed until the winners are announced. Because someone has not yet sourced something doesn't mean it won't be. I think the online sources would be a bit more stable after that point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the above post has said it best so far. As far as policy goes, WP:V is very clear: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim, [including] surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. If a major award is not cited, then editors are right to be dubious about it, regardless of the truth behind the fact. However, as happens with the majority of Wikipedia content, most of our unsourced material is not indiscriminately deleted on sight - although editors have every right to do so, albeit with the risk of becoming unpopular rather quickly. Realistically, though, as mentioned above, sourcing will not usually become a sore point prior to a review process. As far as removing citations go, I can't see a good argument for this unless the citation itself is fundamentally flawed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This part of the consensus says they should be sourced.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest someone clarify this issue in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Since the awards section in most film articles are not referenced, you can't expect newcomers who access them as examples to know they should be. Nor does it help that "official" style guidelines make no mention of awards. Finally, if someone is relying on the work of a respected coordinator of the film project who admits he hasn't included references because "the work is a little tedious" for guidance, he can't be faulted for thinking they are unnecessary. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that's really the place for style guidelines - we can't realistically rehash every site-wide policy and guideline: that's why they have their own pages. While more limited and idiosyncratic ones may merit linkage, WP:V is a basic and well-known policy that covers all article-space content, so emphasizing it particularly in one section may actually have the opposite effect of de-emphasizing its importance across the other sections. It needs to be applied throughout the entire article equally.

As far as individual editors' work, or even the state of the average film article's awards section, it's a case of WP:WAX; if you look at our average article period, you're likely to be looking at a Stub or Start article which is blatantly insufficient relative to our style guidelines. The style guidelines are supposed to provide a model towards future article development, which some editors are more disposed towards completing than others. I'd be concerned if you were referencing an FA-class film article with problems. I don't really think that Erik's contributions need to be examined here - if he wants to bring the article to FA, he'll make the required edits. If he doesn't, presumably someone else will in time. Not everyone works quickly, and even fewer actually get articles to FA. If it matters, he's had a large hand in plenty of other high-quality articles, but I don't see either that or his coordinator position as germane relative to the basic site-wide verification policy, which (I've been led to believe) is the issue at hand here, not Erik's edits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that it is a little strange that my editing conduct is being treated as gospel. ;) I think that our previous "Awards" discussion was pretty clear about editors' opinions about whether to add references or not; we treated that as a given and discussed where the footnote is best placed in the table. I was also suggesting an "Awards and nominations" addition to the guidelines (which I think, by now, should be considered "article guidelines", not "style guidelines", but that's for another discussion). We can include the general thoughts from our discussion about when to write as prose or in table format and just clarify the placement of references as part of the overall topic. After all, just because we have these higher-up policies and guidelines doesn't mean we can't at least touch on them (as we already do in the guidelines, asking for reliable sources or to use a neutral point of view). LiteraryMaven is right that most awards sections are not going to be cited... I would say that it is the least controversial kind of information outside of what is already in the primary source (plot description, cast and crew credits), so that's probably why it has not been challenged as much as nuanced production or thematic detail that may also exist. Anyone have an interest in doing a "Awards and nominations" section for the guidelines to cover this point and others raised in previous discussions? If that's not too much instruction creep... —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note: I prefer "Awards and honors" to "Awards and nominations", since it covers more ground. AFI recognition and inclusion in the NFR aren't "awards" per se, but "honors" covers them. An "Awards" section, after all, covers everything to do with a film's relationship to various awards, including both awards that it's been nominated for and those awards that it wins. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with whoever said above that of course awards should be referenced, but unreferenced awards shouldn't be removed from articles -- mostly the facts are not contentious, since they're available in so many places. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "Awards and honors" would be a much better substitute! I had been thinking that "Awards and nominations" did not sound like the best section heading. Definitely works for me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical cut vs. unrated cut

I would like to find out the community's thoughts about the best way to list runtimes in the infobox. At Doomsday (film) and Hancock (film), Beem2 (talk · contribs) has been attempting to add both the theatrical cut runtime and the unrated cut runtime to the infoboxes, despite disagreement by me and a couple of other editors. As those who are familiar with theatrical releases and DVD releases, the DVD sometimes provides additional footage from the cutting room floor and is labeled an unrated cut. In other instances, it is labeled a director's cut, in which the director was not satisfied with how the studio put out the film in theaters and provided his/her own cut. For Doomsday and Hancock, Beem2 thought that this information was necessary to include in the infobox. I disagreed because the unrated cuts for either of these films are not recognized as significant, having less than a dozen minutes' worth of extra footage with the film's arc not being much altered. This is in opposition to well-known director's cuts, like Kingdom of Heaven or Brazil, which the different runtime would be worth highlighting in the infobox due to the cut altering the meaning of the film and the recognition of the cut. I attempted a compromise to identify the length of unrated cuts, if they are not recognized as significant, in the "Home media" section, but this was not seen as acceptable. What would be the best criteria for dealing with the various runtimes? —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your logic accurate in this respect. As a viewer, most readers are more familiar with the theatrical cut and not additional cuts released through DVD/BR. In fact I find it unnecessary to mention the different runtimes even in cases such as Kingdom of Heaven. As you put it, if an altered cut is significantly different from theatrical cut in terms of plot etc., such information can easily be incorporated in the prose in relevant section. Unless of course there is overwhelming consensus on adding the runtime in infobox, in which case my comment is irrelevant. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno to be honest. While I think this is largely a trivial issue, I'm a little sympathetic towards these additions. It's not unreasonable to think that the most "familiar" cut of a film is the version released on DVD, and determining the "significance" of additional material as described above seems to verge on the subjective. I have no strong feelings either way, though. PC78 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point that the DVD will be the longer-lasting medium. Still, though, it seems that the additional minutes would be after the fact, when it has been responded to in its theatrical cut. That's why when I mentioned the director's cuts, there is significant coverage about Brazil and Kingdom of Heaven; not so much with Doomsday and Hancock. I am sure that there are examples that will muddy the waters, but for items like Doomsday and Hancock, the cuts are not as significant. Like I said, I have no qualms about detailing these runtimes in the article body. I am just not seeing the need to work in nuances to the concise infobox. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going to be an issue to try and determine if each film's unrated/extended version would qualify. Otherwise editors would point out that films like Brazil were able to include the director's cut, but question why Hancock or their film was not. We should modify our guidelines to either accept including it or prevent it from being added. I believe it will just cause more issues if we pick and choose based on the significance of the unrated/director's version. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It needn't be an "all in"/"all out". I think if we are to include information on "unrated" cuts, it should be possible to differentiate between the significant alterations and those that are DVD marketing ploys by looking at what has appeared in the coverage from reliable sources. As long as it goes beyond a review that simply mentions it in passing. It's a fine line, and maybe an unimportant one, and I don't think there's any particular guideline we can lay down here to clarify it. It's probably just one of these things that has to be taken on an article by article basis, decided on the talk pages of each. Steve ^{T • C} 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion has always been, unless the film is released to theaters in the unrated version (or some other special version, ala Alien), then you only list the theatrical runtime in the infobox. Otherwise, what is to stop us from listing every possible runtime from the various cuts of a film (*cough*Blade Runner*cough*). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Second this view. The infobox should be for the original theatrical run. Let the prose deal with multiple releases, where sourcable and relevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Family films category at CFD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My Bloody Valentine

There is a request to move My Bloody Valentine (2009 film) to My Bloody Valentine 3-D. See discussion at Talk:My Bloody Valentine (2009 film)#Requested move. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles on film quotes

Do these and these warrant their own articles independent of their films? This is not so much a question of whether or not they are notable as much as whether or not they can't be part of their parent films' articles. I'm concerned, particularly since discovering that we apparently have a movie quote infobox. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a tricky issue. The catch is, even if a film meets the requirements for notability, it does not necessarily mean that it warrants an article. In the case of movie quotes, I would say, unless you can establish a logical reason why that information cannot be presented in the article for the film/tv/etc, then you don't need a page devoted solely to the quote. By "logical", I mean be able to explain how having a separate page on the subject will enhance the average readers understanding of the topic (i.e. what makes this quote so special that covering it in the parent article will ultimately inhibit our readers). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All it does it indulge a fannish compulsion to create lists of interesting-to-the-author trivia. The fact that one of them was compiled by the afi doesn't make it any more encyckopedic. Naturallyblind (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that as far as quotes go, these are not too bad. They seem like the quotes that would transcend the films themselves. I have to admit that it is pretty funny to see a {{Infobox movie quote}} template... it's like an archaeological discovery! I recall searching for some of these quotes on Access World News (a subscription-only newspaper database) sometime ago for whatever reason, and there were quite a few hits about some of these quotes. Google News shows the competition between some of them. I think that they are fine as stand-alone as long as they can be well-referenced as cultural icons... something like Walk this way (film line) may need a little pruning of the indiscriminate references. It strikes me as awkward to try to merge these into parent articles, though I don't think we need the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, if we indiscriminately allow movie quotes to have their own article (when/if they can easily be fitted into their parent article), then we open the door to pages like Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. As, if I wanted to create that page all I'd have to do is argue that there are other pages about a single line of dialogue spoken about/in a movie. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at some subscription-only resources, and a lot of them tend to present quotes in list format. What about some kind of list article to which a quote can be merged? I think it would be clearer to redirect to something like "List of famous movie quotes" (with strict sourcing, of course) than it is to a film article where it may not always be possible to have a redirect to a specific section. We do have AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes (whose presence I am not sure about), so there is that redundancy to address. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a "yes" or "no" answer to the question; each article should be judged on its own merits. Shaken, not stirred seems perfectly acceptable, and I'll be back is associated as much with the actor as it is with the film it was first used in. On the other hand, You talkin' to me? looks like a good merge candidate, and Klaatu barada nikto is just an obscenely long list of pop culture references that doesn't assert any notability beyond the film. I agree that the template is a bit unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Should 'Infobox film' use 'Infobox'?

Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Conversion to use 'infobox' base class Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move of Barry Lyndon article

A user has moved the article from Barry Lyndon to Barry Lyndon (film), and now the former page is a disambig page. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page to request it be moved back to how it was. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Remember Last Night? now open

The peer review for Remember Last Night? is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Mewvi

Template:Mewvi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding citation templates

Many of the articles under this project don't use proper citation templates. I would like to know if any bot is available, which can do this tedious work. Also if any of you are having any macro to replace normal citation with a proper template, please share with me in my talk page. Have a great year ahead--Anoopkn (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use such templates though. Per WP:CITE, "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." PC78 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anoopkn, I've been vaguely aware of the work done on {{Citation}}. I've generally used {{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}}, and {{Cite web}}. Are these templates discouraged in favor of the more general one? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I got what I needed from WP:CITE. Many tools are available there for the purpose. Erik, I think such a recommendation does not exist, and I think more specific templates will do better than a general one, because the {{Citation}} template is more or less same as {{Cite web}}--Anoopkn (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Casablanca (film) needs more input

I believe it would be useful to have more opinions on Talk:Casablanca (film) on the general question of what constitutes WP:UNDUE in terms of criticism of a film, and the specific question of whether Umberto Eco's criticism of Casablanca should be included in the article, and to what extent.

Please see Criticism by Umberto Eco for the discussion so far. The original state of the article is represented by the "Critical reception" section this revision of this revision. This is being rejected as a cut-and-dried violation WP:UNDUE. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Super 35 format

I was wondering what other editors thought about Category:Films shot in Super 35. 476 films are categorized under this, yet I am pretty positive that the overwhelming majority of them will never actually touch on the Super 35 format. It seems to be overcategorization since it is a verifiable but not very relevant fact about a film. I was considering putting it up for WP:CFD, but I thought I'd start preliminary discussion here to see if my assessment is off the mark. What do other editors think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - if we were to fully populate that category it would undoubtedly include the majority of 35mm films shot in the past twenty years. There's nothing innately exceptional or noteworthy about being shot in Super 35 anymore. Maybe back in the 1980's, but at this point it is the de-facto format for 35mm. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement as well, really overcategorization & I don't see anything really relevant about films any more. If it was noteworthy for a specific film (i.e. the first film shot in this format, it should be noted in the article, otherwise, don't see much use for the category. Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. That category is not necessary. --Thomprod (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:B-movie directors

Category:B-movie directors has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

What are user opinions of images of clappers and actors in templates such as {{Americanfilmlist}} and {{CinemaoftheUS}}.I discussed this at WP:MOSICON and its was agreed the clappers an other images where decorartion Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: these templates don't need any images. They are merely decorative and only add visual clutter to articles. PC78 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a new issue to me. The discussion at WT:MOSICON does not seem to have clear answers. I understand the logic for avoiding invention (I enjoyed the North American "flag" example), though

I do not think that the combination of the clapper and the flag really constitute that kind of neologism. WP:STUB says, "Adding a small image to the stub template (the "stub icon") is generally discouraged because it increases the strain on the Wikipedia servers but may be used, so long as the image must be public domain or have a free license..." Maybe what could be done for these templates is to shrink the icon so it is closer to the size of stub images and place them left or right of "Cinema of the United States". Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The clapperboard images have no encyclopedic value whatsoever: they are invented for Wikipedia, they're not official and don't really represent anything. Using them for the project is one thing, but I don't think they belong in the article space. At worst I think it puts us in danger of looking amateurish. As for other images, why for example do we need a map of Australia in {{Australiafilmlist}}? Images should be placed directly in articles where they are relevant to the context. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Across the board the images on these templates are invented, irrelevant or confusing. I mean do these two people really need to be on the {{Mexicanfilmlist}} and as such every page the uses it . Also while Hollywood may be considered the spiritual home of American cinema its doesn't illustrate or represent that American cinema is a National industry. Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since both policy and guidelines are against this usage. Is there a consensus to remove the clapper icons? Gnevin (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is their any disagreement to this? Please so now before I start to remove this icons Gnevin (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in strong disagreement to it but I see you went ahead The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i gave plenty of notice of my intention to remove, if there is a con to readd , i will personally do so Gnevin (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is very bad form to be reverting my changing considering you had so long to object but i guess its poll time .Gnevin (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comments on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to List of (year) box office number-one films in (country). The move appears logical and in conformance with guideline. This has been available for comment for 16 days here, 10 of which were during its listing and relisting at requested moves, which I did given the number of articles involved, coupled with the lack of participation. I am surprised by the lack of comment given that this move is advertised on the talk pages of all 55 articles involved, and take that as resounding endorsement of at least lack of controversy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of box office number-one films

There's a growing number of these articles, and they are all at present named along these lines:

Box office number one films of 2008 (USA)
Box office number one films of 2008 (Australia)

and so on. Per WP:SAL the title of a list article should begin with "List of...", and I also believe that the parenthetical disambigators are unnecessary. I would therefore like to propose renaming these articles as such:

List of box office number-one films of 2008 in the United States

or perhaps the slightly less clunky:

List of 2008 box office number-one films in the United States

Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with adding "List" to the article title, but I do not have a preference for the parenthetical disambiguation. For the U.S. lists, though, the article titles may need to mention Canada, too. Box Office Mojo says, "All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted." —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the nav template for these articles, it looks like someone plans to create seperate articles for Canada. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? I don't see anything that's purely Canadian. (Not sure if there are any sources that could cover that, either.) I did see two politically correct lists, though... List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada and List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean the links in {{Lists of box office number-one films}}. Sure, they're all redlinks, but I assume they've been put there for a purpose. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested Moves

Listed at WP:RM for further input. Complete list of articles affected by this move request is below. PC78 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Box office number-one films

On a side note. Why do the Australian and UK lists use US date format? mm dd,yy - X201 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else? In that case, I would propose the following:

Box office number-one films of XXXX (USA) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in the United States
Box office number-one films of XXXX (UK) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in the United Kingdom
Box office number-one films of XXXX (Australia) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in Australia
Box office number-one films of XXXX (Philippines) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in the Philippines
Box office number-one films of XXXX (South Korea) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in South Korea
Box office number-one films of XXXX (Canada) → List of box office number one films of XXXX in Canada

PC78 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eyes on Casablanca (film)

An IP editor is attempting to add this, in the section about the logical flaw concerning the letters of transit:

What most Anglophones who've made so much of this seem to be unaware of is that native German-speaking Peter Lorre (who had a very difficult time learning English upon his emigration to the U.S.) was still pronouncing his "W" as a "V", hence "Vey-GAHN," which innumerable English-speakers seem to think is "Day-GALL". But any Francophone will tell you that De Gaulle isn't pronounced "Day-GALL" but "Də-GOHL" and "Vey-GAHN" is exactly how "Weygand" sounds when spoken by a German native who can get the French ending right but still has a problem with that "W".

This sounds plausible enough, but it really needs a citation to verify it, so I removed it and advised the editor (via talk pages & edit summaries) to get a cite before re-adding, but the editor keeps restoring it. Some additional input would be appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan has reverted, but it's probably worth keeping an eye out. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like rubbish to me, like one of those old jokes how a French and an American guy argue over how van Gogh should be pronounced exactly. WP is not a place to suggest what "English-speakers seem to think" and what "any Francophone will tell you". Just ask for WP:SEMI if it continues.--Termer (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edits by User:92.8.130.184

92.8.130.184 (talk · contribs) has been editing the movie income figures for a number of movies. These edits appear suspicious to me, and all have only a cryptic edit comment of "jrcck". They were not responsive to a request for source information. In particular, they changed the production budget figure for one film downwards, which definitely can't be a dynamically-changing figure. I've temporarily blocked them from editing.

Can someone double-check these figures against recent sources, to check whether I made the correct judgment here? -- The Anome (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At face value they appear to be good faith edits, but as I check them they're all wrong. All those films do need to be updated, but the numbers he is providing are not accurate. They are only slightly off, but it just calls into question where he is getting the number and whether or not he may be trying to deceptively vandalize pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No apparent deception; they're all from The Numbers, which I believe we're OK with as a reliable source, but which often has different totals to Box Office Mojo. 99% of the time, this doesn't matter, as the difference is slight. Steve ^{T • C} 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check the-numbers. Good catch. Maybe they should be unblocked then and informed that the numbers are coming from Box Office Mojo and not The-Numbers.com. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesized material at Gladiator (2000 film)

At Gladiator (2000 film), the "Historical" section was purged of synthesized content in which sources about the historical events (never touching on the film at all) were used to present an argument in the section about historical deviations. An editor has been attempting to restore this original research. See discussion at Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)#Historical content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films Questionnaire 1 in progress!

Hello, as some of you may have been notified, the coordinators have launched the WikiProject's first questionnaire. We hope to use the results to figure out what could be the priorities for the community. If you have not yet filled out the questionnaire, we invite you to do so! It does not matter if you feel too much of a regular or a newcomer. If you have seen other editors who edit film articles but may not know about the questionnaire, please link them to the questionnaire as well! Results and analysis should hopefully be available for next month's newsletter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal status

I have nominated Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture — Drama for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard Koch (screenwriter)

Assistance on this article is needed. This is one of the most prominent screenwriters of his generation. IP edits turned it into an attack on his politics and screenplay to Mission to Moscow. Surely not his best work, but he is mainly notable for his work on Casablanca and for Orson Welles. There's virtually nothing on that, and the article on this very prominent screenwriter needs expansion by knowledgeable editors. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to ask for help with clean-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, too. Here's a possible resource to help expand the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop by the Filmmakers project. I'm actually active in that, but I wasn't sure it applied to screenwriters because of the "Actors" aspect. Incidentally, the same IP has been hard at work on Bosley Crowther, but I've rolled back the damage. That should be monitored, if anyone has a chance. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot necessity

There is a question at the FAC for Barton Fink about whether a pair of screenshots is necessary for the article. More info here. Your thoughts are invited. Scartol • Tok 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll about Icons

I had removed all the icons for Category:Film_country_list_templates as per this discussion above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Images, however i was then revert by [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld who felt i didn't have enough WP:Con to this. I think a straw poll with help clarify this. Can everyone interest please make their feelings know

Do you agree with the removal of the images such as actors,maps and the clappers from Category:Film_country_list_templates as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Inventing_new_icons Gnevin (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason why is not that I am opposed to the idea evne if it makes them look very bare indeed, its just actually by rmeoving some of those icons it has revealed that some of them are redundant templates anyway and we should come to a consensus on them. I think a number of them should be put up for deletion, chiefly the ones which only link list and cinema. We have footer templates for this and basically we should keep only the ones which connect to film lists which they are intended for right? What we should do is create a list of the side templates which only have two links in them the list and the cinema and then delete those actual templates. Once we are left with the remaining ones which have all the film list links in them (or potentially could) as intended we can make a fuller decision about removing any images. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As for their encyclopedic value I have to agree with Gnevin about it although I do think the lists look very bland without any images whatsoever. But all the same it was really an attempt to make them look more appealing and user friendly. I am all for encyclopedic content but I also like presentation for certian pages. Anyway I think we should draw up a list of the filmlist side plates which only have two links in first before we do any straw polling, The issue of the many redundant decor templates themsevles is more of an issue at present I think. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on those templates with just two links - in fact I've been meaning to get around to those myself for some time. I had a bunch deleted a while back which were just one blue link and a red link. If you're the creator of some of these, then perhaps they can be speedied? PC78 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was also an issue I had been meaning to get around to, I'm glad actually that Gvenin has broght my attention to them even if somewhat indirectly. Well I could list them at TFD but I doubt anybody will want to keep them. They are intended purely for lists of films which overflow on more than one page, South Korean, America Italy etc not Kuwait for instance! Well I could db-author them if there ar eno complaints although somebody would need to use AWB to remove them from the lists. Perhaps its better if Gvenin uses AWB to delete the following templates as I don't have AWB.

We may need ones like Dutch, Czech, Romania etc in the future once these lists are filled out but we don't need them for now. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Film country list templates

Lets discuss these templates first before any straw polling about icons please. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should remove the templates with just one or two links (but don't see why we can't discuss the icon too but I can wait). What would you need me too do with AWB? Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this as a serious discussion. WP:ICONDECORATION is applied to in-text decorations, it has nothing to do with templates. If that was the case, the first thing that would need to go would be File:Video-x-generic.svg from WikiProject Films template. And perhaps we should delete the Wikipedia logo from the upper-left corner of Wikipedia also? So I don't understand the motivation behind making Wikipedia more dull.

The second question, did I get it right, everything in Category:Film country list templates has been suggested should be deleted? Why? Oppose, both suggestions!--Termer (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No Termer we are not proposing to delete all the templates, certainly not the ones which link multiple lists together. The main ones will not be touched just the ones listed above The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The icon policy clearly has applicability to templates, as the guideline's very page uses an example from an infobox, which obviously is a template. I think the issue is not article vs. template but more which namespace the template exists in. Templates used for talk pages or project pages clearly don't fall within the articlespace, and therefore the icon policy is not applicable to them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that the discussion about the deletion of templates has to delay (or even be related to) the discussion about the use of flag-clapperboard images in templates.

1. About the images: Because the image of the flag on the clapperboard does not add any additional encyclopedic information, it can be classified as decoration. Whether or not this decoration is considered distracting is a personal opinion. (I like the icons.) But because these icons don't provide any essential information or needed illustration, WP:ICONDECORATION clearly states that Wikipedia generally dislikes the use of these icons. They may make it prettier, but on the flip-side may make it more visually distracting. At the same time, it seems as though WP:MOSICON was written about images in the article-space. While the templates do fall within the article-space, maybe WP:MOSICON should specifically outline template icon use, to clear things up for future discussions. On a side note, the clapperboard icons are not considered original research so shouldn't be yanked for that reason. If anything, these icons are just fancy flags. And because these are film country list templates, I think the use of flags is not unreasonable. After all of this, I'm torn between two lukewarm beliefs: I think that the icons are just decoration and therefore should be removed, but also that the icons are just like flags on any other country-specific template and therefore shouldn't be removed. Ultimately, I don't care either way. I'm just presenting what I think about the situation.

2. About the templates: I don't think the empty ones do anything for the articles they're used in. But others such as the American film list template and the Australian film list template should remain.

3. One more thing: Why are there random pictures (such as the previously mentioned Australian map) in the templates. I definitely think that those should be removed if the templates themselves aren't. -- M☺MENT Deuterium (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The general con at WP:MOSICON is that stub and portal template while on the mainspace are not part of it while navboxes and infoboxes are Gnevin (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS the icon are WP:OR they where invented for Wiki and have no usage outside wiki as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Inventing_new_icons says The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy,Gnevin (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support both the removal of these icons from article templates (for the reasons given above) and the deletion of these useless navtemplates. Blofeld, can we just go ahead and TfD them? PC78 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes go ahead and delete the ones listed above and add my comments of approval as author if you like. I don't think I mixed any of the currently useful templates in with them. oNce thats done I think we need to discuss and come to a consensus on the clapperboards which I see as pretty harmless but I can see both arguments for. I can see the argument that they are not encyclopedic but I also think removing them will make the lists look especially dull. Personally I think the lists need some sort of color in them and I don;t think the images look particularly out of place or are such an issue that is will affect useability or cause editors to think any less of them. As several people mentioned above templates do not fall within the article criteria, they are not articles, and some presentation is generally permitted evne though there is considerable disagreement over flags. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Images invented for WP which have no usage outside WP seem to be exempt from WP:OR by WP:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." M☺MENT Deuterium (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, inventing WP:ORish icons like "North American flag"

has nothing to do with the discussion above, either to use national and/or geographical iconography in order to identify the national cinemas in related templates and articles. The only better alternative to current solution, instead of country list templates would be creating a national cinema infobox that would include national iconography and anything related to the filmmaking in the country, including links to the lists of films etc.--Termer (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting carry on the OR discussion there is no need for a icon all at Gnevin (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The (example) given in WP:ICONDECORATION that is distracting indeed has nothing to do with using the national/geographic iconography in Film country templates and Film_country_list_templates where the icons clarify the specific political periods and cultural regions of filmmaking. In case you do believe that for example Clapperboard flag icons have no place in Wikipedia, please feel free to list the icons for deletion in commons at first. Whatever the result is going to be, it surely is going to give us an answer to this discussion. Also, in case you choose to proceed, please keep me posted so that I'd know to oppose any attempts to delete the icons from Commons. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away, Termer. This is about removing these icons from article space, not deleting them here or on Commons. PC78 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments given for removal suggest clearly that the icons should be deleted all together once using those in templates is considered "article space". For example File:United States film.png is used in more than 100 pages due to inclusion in Template:American films. So please, feel free to explain and point out what exactly I'm missing here, where this "article space" that includes templates starts and ends exactly and how using the icons is good in some and bad in other cases?--Termer (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As i said before above The general con at WP:MOSICON is that stub and portal template while on the mainspace are not part of it while navboxes and infoboxes are Gnevin (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what article space is (surely), and that extends to any templates that are meant for transclusion in the article space (excluding stub and portal tempates apparently, as noted above). That still leaves plenty of other uses for them in talk page templates, user page templates etc., the project banner being the most obvious example. The presence of these icons on Commons is nothing to do with us here. PC78 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Gnevin navboxes and infoboxes are part of the mainspace? So what is the problem? The WP:MOSICON you pointed out is very clear about it: The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes. They should not be used in the article body. So it can't be clearer than that, the icons shouldn't be used in "article body", not in "article space" or "mainspace" in general. Since you have clearly misunderstood the style guideline, I'd suggest you revert all your relevant edits, not only the ones related to film. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since i help crafted the guideline I can assure you I have not misunderstood it . Your highlighting one section of the MOS out of context (which i have now changed) Gnevin (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the style guide suggest that icons shouldn't be used in templates , it's only about in-text icons in the article body like the (example) given over there, and then there are lists of Inappropriate use 1, Inappropriate use 2. So I have no idea what exactly are you talking about. And this discussion seems to go beyond Wp project film and should be taken to relevant talk page Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons).--Termer (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you the MOS refers to templates as well as articles ,other than that I don't know what to say Gnevin (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to assure me of anything, please just quote where exactly has it ever said so and where is the discussion that has determined such a consensus on the question? Other than that, I'm taking this to the relevant talk page--Termer (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TFD nom here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_12 Gnevin (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationfilmlist

As a result of the discussion at WP:TFD, and not knowing about this previous discussion here, I made a template that would replace many, if not all, of the individual country film list templates. It has far more than the two links which were a major problem with the previous templates. The template itself is at {{Nationfilmlist}}, and I've changed over a couple of pages to show how it would appear (see List of Afghan films, List of Algerian films, and List of Hungarian films. If the template is of no use to you, feel free to propose it for deletion. I would, however, suggest that you at least give it a go - it provides redlinks to several uniform series of articles and categories which may be worth starting, and also provides several useful blue links in most cases.

As far as the flag-clapperboard icons, personally I think they should be kept - despite the comments above they are certainly not covered by WP:ICONDECORATION's section on inventing new icons - if they were, so would 90% of other template icons be, including the vast majority of stub icons. There is no invention here, simply combination of two existing standard icons. Invention, as detailed in that guideline, clearly refers to the creation of entirely new items, such as the bogus flag given as an example. These icons do not fall into that category. They do not detract from the text of the articles, and expressly signal the existence of the infobox which, without any icon, would be more hidden within the text. It is perhaps also worth noting that WP:ICONDECORATION is currently under dispute and may yet be dropped as a guideline (it has certainly never been a policy). Grutness...wha? 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is adding a US flag and a Canadian flag bogus and adding a flag and a clapper the combination of two existing standard icons. MOSICON does not apply to stub templates Gnevin (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Combining two flags and referring to them as a flag for North America is bogus since there has never been such a flag and it implies both a flag and a political entity which do not exist. It could also imply a political staance in its users, being taken as an indication that such an entity is a good or bad thing. Combining a flag and a film icon to represent film from the country indicated by the flag is not bogus, since it does not imply the existence of a non-existent entity. It is no more bogus than the standard and perfectly acceptable use of a flag superimposed on a soccer ball on stub templates indicating footballers from specific countries. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Icons aside, the problem I have with these templates (and by extension the one you've created) is that they are redundant to the nav templates we already have sitting at the foot of these articles. In addition, the links in your template seem to be mostly for categories, and I don't think that's entirely appropriate. PC78 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're the bosses on this sort of thing. Not sure why having categories in there is inappropriate - it's fairly common practice in infoboxes - but more to the point, the infoboxes at the foot of the articles don't seem to be particularly widespread. There is an infobox for Afghan films, but none for either of the other two I did (and given that they were random choices, I suspect the same is true for many other countries). Surely this template makes a reasonable stopgap measure until such templates are done for all countries. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

European film stubs

I made a request to create a stub for all European films from countries that don't currently have a stub tag, under the umberella of Europe-film-stub (see discussion here). Waacstats has come back with a query - does anyone know anything about it? Cheers. Lugnuts (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there seemed to be no real objections, so the stub-cat has been created. I've worked through a few countries and have made some upmerged templates. Hope people find these new stubs handy. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass move of films with Spanish titles?

User:NWill is apparently moving any film with a Spanish title to its English title - see this contrib list. I came across this when he or she moved Michael Powell's Luna de Miel to Honymoon, its English name. I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but shouldn't such a mass change have been discussed in advance? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious...are these like official English titles used when released in an English language, or just his translations that he is moving to? If its the former, then that would seem to be in-line with the naming conventions, but if its the later (which I suspect it is), I'd imagine they should all be reverted. And agreed, with the sheer number he appears to be doing, some pre-discussion would have been good, if for no other reason than to give folks a head up and make sure it was all good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I know next to nothing about Spanish cinema, so the names in his contrib list don't convey to me an answer to your question. In the case of "Luna de Miel", he moved it from the official Spanish name to the UK-release name (ignoring the American-release name). I image that there was a reason that User:SteveCrook, who specializes in Powell and Pressburger, chose to create the article under the Spanish name and not the English one, and since I've done a fair amount of developemnt of the article, I feel I have a vested interest in it. I would have appreciated some discussion. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...unfortunately, I also am not familiar with Spanish cinema, mostly working in the US/UK and anime stuff...I know wiht US/UK, you use the original release name because its English already, while with anime use the romaji if it is unlicensed, and the first English release title if it is. Have you dropped a note with SteveCrook to get his thoughts on the renaming? On the surface, it seems like NWill may be renaming without proper consideration of which name it should be and discussing with active editors, which is poor etiquette, at the least. Looking at his user page, it seems he has a ton of warnings about content issues, and is continuing to not respond to your request that he explain his movings. That is disconcerting...more so, looking at his contribs, it seems he has never left a single talk page message despite having his account since 2005, which makes it seem likely he isn't going to explain himself....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I dropped a note to Steve, who posted a request on NWill's talk page for the article to be moved back. I also notified the Spanish task force here and both of its registered members. As you say, the contents of NWill's talk page gives one pause. I think that eventually admins are going to have to get involved. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted to AN/I about this, and one of the commenters there verified that some of the films (which are both Spanish and Italian) were never released in English, so that NWill must be translating the original title into English and moving the article to that title - very misleading. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. I don't envy the admin that will have to clean up behind it! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of folks are working on it now. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I agree with the page moves, per WP:UE and WP:NCF. When I spot a film title not in English, I usually move it to the English title, making sure to fix any double-redirects, etc. EXTRA Although, looking at this user's talk page, the main issue is that he or she doesn't invite discussion and does changes like this without consultation. Although, my original point remains valid about having the English name as the article title. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not if the film doesn't have an English name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, well made! ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that several hundred titles from english back into Spanish have been moved in answer to the ANI complaint. Wasn't there a consensus at WP:Films that if a film has been released internationally then the title should be in English not Spanish? I personally don't mind, and for a long time think of it as an original Spanish film so should be in the native language. But if you look too much into it problems start occuring, FOr instance The Good the Bad and the Ugly is an Italian film but is not under its Italian title. Are we to move Chinese or Korean titles back to native languages. What about all those interntationally famous French and Italian films that have appeared at the majot festivals, are we to move these back to native names, despite many of them being unrecognisable out of English? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the above complaint was in relation to films that don't have an English language title, so there is no conflict here with our current naming conventions. Do you believe any of these reverts was incorrect? PC78 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes many examples. Some of the Argentine and Spanish films were moved to Spanish by my good friend Black Falcon in good faith in answer to the complaint. El crimen del padre Amaro (had a strong release in the states and UK as "The Crime of Father Amaro", La niña de tus ojos for instance starring Peneleope Cruz has been released internationlaly in English as The Girl of Your Dreams etc and is now in the rather less familiar Spanish title with the awkward searching title not to mention messing up the filmography and actor article direct links. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason why they shouldn't be moved back then, though it might be best to raise the issue with Black Falcon (if you haven't already) and/or make a note on the article talk page. PC78 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pursuing free images for film articles

Nehrams2020 and I had a brief conversation about pursuing free images for film articles. Lately, I have seen some articles of recent films use free images from the films' premieres. N2020 and I were contemplating on whether or not this could go further, possibly with free images of ongoing production. Of course, the easiest approach right now would be to get free images from the premieres. Another editor, David Shankbone, took many photographs at a film festival, which was especially a boon to biographical articles. He used a WikiMedia media pass for this purpose, and I am thinking about seeing if this could become more widespread. I'd like to open a dialogue here for ideas on this topic, and David will come by and share his experience about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be easier to discuss over the telephone, because it is a little complicated. I blogged about how I went about getting access, but for advice beyond that blog post, it would be better for you to call me or have me call you. Write me through Wikipedia (so I know it's you and not a freak) with your number, or write and I will give you mine. I'm more than happy to help however I can. --David Shankbone 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think photographs taken at a film's premiere are relevant enough to be included in an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Entertainment Tonight. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

lol wut. How is a photo of Drew Barrymore, or Alec Baldwin, or Martin Scorsese, not relevant? Where, exactly, do you think actors, actresses, directors etc. show up, if not at the festival for their industry. You made me laugh, though, because that, uh, musing was nonsensical. In case you haven't noticed, we can only use creative commons photography - we're lucky we get any photos. You've only been editing a few months, so I take it you don't understand the image rules. --David Shankbone 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

LiteraryMaven, most popular films are copyrighted, so there is a need to explicitly define fair use rationales for non-free images. For freely licensed images like what is found at Creative Commons, we do not need to scrutinize them for rationales. Wikipedia articles highly benefit from free images, and film articles in particular sorely need free images due to the copyrighted nature of most films. Photographs from films' premieres can serve as visual aids to identify cast members, especially grouped together for a particular film. Providing such free images won't breach Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view; as long as we're objective with conveying information, we are okay. David, I still need to email you. I'll try to do that later tonight. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, David, I was expressing an opinion, and I believe I'm entitled to do so without being attacked. Since you're aware I have been editing for only a few months, I think it would have been nice if you had avoided the snide "holier than thou" attitude and tried to educate instead of criticize me. Surely telling someone his "musing was nonsensical" goes against Wikipedia guidelines - or any guidelines, for that matter - re: common courtesy. Attitudes like yours are what discourage newcomers from continuing to contribute.

You are right in assuming I am bewildered by all the image rules. I added an image of a singer's CD to an article about her and was told it could be used only in an article about the CD itself. I don't understand why an image is acceptable for one article but not another. Apparently it has to do with its use as much as it does its source.

In many instances I have seen stills from a film - which I assume are more relevant than a shot of Drew Barrymore flashing a grin to her fans from the red carpet - deleted from an article, and I haven't understood why, especially since "screenshots" is one of the options on the image upload page. It appears film posters or DVD covers are acceptable images, since most film articles have one or the other.

In any event, I assumed - apparently incorrectly - that a scene of an actor in a movie was more relevant to a film article than a shot of him promoting it, which appears to be common in articles about the actor himself, and which makes sense to me. Mea culpa for my grievous error.

Erik, thank you for explaining without condescending. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, David that was totally uncalled for. And just because he's new doesn't mean he is completely wrong, just maybe a bit wrong about the why :-). I, for one, completely agree with LiteraryMaven. Sorry, but a photo from a film premiere adds nothing but decoration to an article about the film. Yes, it premiered, big deal. What does that say about the film? Nothing except, look, the actors showed up (not uncommong). Illustrating the actors, especially out of character, does not add encyclopedic value to the film article itself, free image or not. Such images are useful for the articles on those actors or in their common's gallery, but certainly not the film page, and should not be encouraged for use in any film article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with what Collectonian says above. Certainly (as Erik suggests) any group photographs of a film's cast would be useful for our needs, but if we're talking about photos of individual actors then they belong elsewhere. It's up to an actor's biography article to show what they look like, not film articles. PC78 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Collectonian and PC78, for expressing more eloquently what I was trying to say in the two sentences of my original message. Both of you have stated fully what I was feeling but failed to convey. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I read what you wrote was that we shouldn't have a photo of Madonna at her film premiere on the Madonna article because the film premiere is unnotable. I am guessing I read that wrong, based upon your response. That said, I still disagree with you; having photos of film premieres on articles about the films is icing on the cake, but when we do have them it shows the moment in time the film actually opened, giving historical context and a peak "behind the scenes" of what goes into making, and marketing, the film. There are many, many very famous photographs taken at film premieres throughout the history of movie-making. I'd also suggest that if you don't want snarky responses, don't make snarky statements like "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Entertainment Tonight". Such comments are counterproductive. We all know Wikipedia is not ET, and you are likely to get a less snarky response if you cut out those kinds of statements that immediately diminish an opposing viewpoint (before you even see it) as essentially supporting trivial fluff. My apologies anyway, since you're new and I should have had more tolerance for your snarkiness. Perhaps because you are new, you don't realize how difficult it is to obtain any images for any articles of famous people, that when someone proposes going out and getting them, it vastly, vastly improves many aspects of the project, regardless of whether they are awesome for only one article or not. --David Shankbone 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian and PC78, it is important to realize that the "decorative" argument is primarily for non-free images; freely licensed images are not bound as stringently. Like I said, for film articles, free images are difficult to come by. I do not think that there is anything absurd about showing freely licensed images of actor(s) at the premieres of a given film. If there was some film where a person made a sandwich (let's say Bill from Kill Bill), it would be absurd to show a picture of a sandwich, you know? :) But freely licensed images of a film's primary actors allow readers to put faces to the names on the spot with no concern criteria-wise. Not all films will have the kind of commentary to warrant usage of screenshots (a very straightforward drama film too bland to warrant serious commentary, for example), so freely licensed images can serve as visual aids. I say this even if the premieres are not well-known; there is no detriment to film articles for including such images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Images should always be relevant to the context of the article though, that's not a standard that goes out of the window if an image happens to be free. If a reader wants to put a face to the name Tom Cruise then they should know to click on the handy blue link. :) Given that this discussion has so far been largely hypothetical, does anyone know of any such images actually being used in films articles? PC78 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All film articles have "Cast" sections, so illustrating a primary actor from that approximate timeframe seems within context. Remember that actors do age and all; we would not add a 1980s image of Tom Cruise to his recent Valkyrie, for example. Also, arguing about clicking through to the host article itself is another criteria of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use at Images' #5: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)." Again, freely licensed images don't need to be bound by this kind of constraint. Two examples that use such freely licensed images are Tropic Thunder and Iron Man. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I assume you refer to these two images? I'd say that the former is a good example of how these sorts of images are useful to us, since it clearly relates to the film (the film posters are quite prominent in the image) and is suggestive of the film's popularity. On the other hand, the latter is just a generic shot of Downey Jr which could have been taken anywhere and says nothing of the film, more the kind of thing I was talking about above, i.e. great in Robert Downey Jr. but not so much in Iron Man (film). You seem to be misapplying that criteria of WP:NFC, but in any case it has no bearing on a free image. I concede your point about "Cast" sections, but would you be happy if such a section used a dozen free images? It's not a question of constraint, more a case of restraint; we shouldn't be using images simply because they are free and available. PC78 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a dozen images for the "Cast" section is a pretty extreme case, PC78. :) Besides, image galleries (if they were structured like so) are normally discouraged on the mainspace. My argument is that it is hard to practice restraint for the articles of topics that are largely under copyright. Surely there is a point of excess, like a dozen images of cast members. For an image of Robert Downey Jr. from Iron Man, why does it need to be evidenced within the frame that it is promotion of the film? Is it harmful otherwise? If an image of an actor is the same in the film article as what is in the infobox of the actor's article, what difference does it make? I'm just arguing that such images are acceptable because their ties to the film are hardly tenuous. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not "harmful", just not relevant since there is no obvious tie to the film within the image. Were it an image of Downey Jr on holiday in Barbados (for instance), would you still be defending it's use in the film article? It's not the repetition of the same image across several articles that bothers me, it just illustrates what I said above, i.e. that it's not the job of the Iron Man (film) article to show a reader what Robert Downey Jr looks like, they can click on Robert Downey Jr. and reasonably expect to find an image there. You say the link is not tenuous in this instance, but I disagree. PC78 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A free image of Downey Jr on holiday would not belong at Iron Man because he is not doing anything in relation to the film. For the publicity image, he is promoting Iron Man. That's the connection with his direct participation, and I think it is too unrealistic to require some presence of publicity materials to make the connection "obvious". The Downey Jr image at Iron Man has the Iron Man helmet in the background, anyway... ;) Most freely licensed images have descriptions to go with it, so I doubt that the question would come up too often whether or not an actor was really at the premiere of his or her film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did spot that in the image, but I guess I need something a bit more obvious... maybe I'm too demanding? :) PC78 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will agree to disagree, since we are not really flooded with such freely licensed images at this point. Perhaps if we can get a batch, we can revisit the ideal approaches to include some of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not mean the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Entertainment Tonight" to be "snarky" or "counterproductive." This was your perception, not my intent. What I was trying to express is my understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that uses images because they are relevant to the article and not simply because they are free. I personally don't think an image of actors on the red carpet at a film premiere adds anything of value to the article about the film itself, but that's just my opinion.

Just as I made you laugh earlier, you made me laugh with your comment "My apologies anyway, since you're new and I should have had more tolerance for your snarkiness." It's hardly an apology when it's just as condescending as the comments for which you supposedly are apologizing. I'm here to make what I hope will be seen as valid contributions, and I welcome intelligent feedback from everyone, but editing Wikipedia doesn't pay me enough to have to tolerate supercilious lectures from anyone. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tropic Thunder, I agree the images of Downey and Cruise in and out of makeup are appropriate because they show the lengths to which they went to portray their respective characters. I understand why the image of Stiller signing autographs is relevant, because there's an extensive section about promotion and appearances in the article. The image of protesters also seems appropriate because it relates to the section about controversy. But how does the image of a set constructed for a scene ultimately deleted from the film enhance the article? I could understand if there was a detailed explanation about why this particular set was built and/or why it was decided not to include the scene in the film, but nothing in the article relates specifically to this image at all. So everyone clearly understands my motivation in asking this question, allow me to assure you I'm not being "snarky," I'm simply trying to understand why some images are considered relevant and therefore acceptable while others are deleted for not meeting Wikipedia requirements. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not joining this discussion earlier, I have been uploading numerous free images I just got permission for. Although I don't think that individual actors need to be in film articles if it's just a portrait of them, I believe the image should be used if the actor is promoting the film. For the many image permissions I've found, they probably wouldn't need to be used on a film article (unless it was for something like this). The majority of these go directly to the actor's main page (with the exception of the film sets). I believe the main reason Erik started this topic was to find ways to search for free images related to film articles. Looking at the many film articles we have, few have free images. We were curious if any members knew of someone or somewhere to locate images that could be released under a free license. It's great to have a poster and screenshot in an article, but to include images of the production, marketing, etc. really helps to improve the article. In response to LiteraryMaven, the reason that I added the film set was because before the film was released I thought the set would be used in the actual film. Instead, in the director's cut of the film, the set is featured prominently in one of the large scenes. I do keep an eye out for other free images related to the film and if a better one arises, I'll likely replace it. I was fortunate to find so many free images for that film, but Erik and I would like to find an easier route for locating free images for our articles to assist our members in improving articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for film festival titles

Are there any guidelines regarding the naming of yearly film festival articles? For example, Cannes have articles in the format of 1952 Cannes Film Festival and Venice have articles in the format of 64th Venice International Film Festival. Is it based on how the festival style their award years, or is their a Wiki policy? Input welcome. Lugnuts (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it likely most readers seeking information would search by year, which is concise, rather than by "64th," which is too vague to be helpful? LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We can always create redirects for these, LiteraryMaven. I think that it should be based on how the festival style their award years, but I welcome convenient redirects to assist readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to create obvious redirects in anycase. I will go with how the festival sites style their awards. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesized section at Defiance (2008 film)

The "Location" section of this article consists entirely of an editor chastizing critics for getting the location of the movie wrong. This nonsense comprises a significant chunk of the article. I removed it and was instantly reverted. The article has other issues, including an "inaccuracies" section that really belongs in an article on the Bielski brothers depicted in the film. This could use some experienced hands and possibly administrator assistance. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete "Location" as original research. For "Controversies and inaccuracies", it really should be an objectively titled "Historical accuracy" section that can cover both what was accurate about the film and what was not. I've tagged it accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point on the "controversies" section. On "Location," I did delete it and I was instantly reverted by someone who reinstated an abbreviated version. Then that was reverted with the full, lengthy "location" section put back in. I think I'm approaching 3RR as concerns that article, so I'm reluctant to do more reversions. It needs a lot of work and is a real mess. I just added a New Yorker review to a "reception" section that was one sentence long. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Erik intervened and was reverted. I just cut back on an overlong "inaccuracies" section but I don't expect it to remain that way. There's also a preponderance of Polish language sources that cannot be verified. Someone with experience dealing with this kind of situation may want to step in, as I've done about all I can do. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 films called Push

There are two 2009 films that are titled Push -- the science fiction film and the drama film (whose longer title is Push: Based on a Novel by Sapphire). The articles for these films were disambiguated as Push (2009 sci-fi film) and Push (2009 drama film), but the latter article was moved to the longer title. There is a requested move here, arguing to use the common name of the drama film to restore the previous disambiguation. Please evaluate the request to see if it is appropriate or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm A GA, not a bricklayer

James T Kirk should porbably be re-evaluated, as its been spiffied up a lot over the past month or so. A peer review was initiated yesterday, and all are welcome to add their comments there. I think its better than B, but what do you folk think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Country" parameter in film infobox

A proposal has been made to revise the description for the country= field in the {{Infobox Film}} template at the template's talk page to clarify the criteria for countries. Please see discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez, you'd think there were no films without articles, no stubs to be expanded into full articles, no perfunctory articles to be fleshed out, no new films to write about. Can we please stop screwing arouind with the damned infobox template and put our energies to improving the encyclopedia? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The template is not being edited; its documentation is. It helps to clarify this particular field (since a few discussions about the field have taken place in the past) so we can point to a clear description of it in the documentation. Taking care of this now saves us from redundant discussions, giving us time to make articles on films old and new and to expand current articles to be more valuable. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a I stirred a hornet's nest here! Like Erik said, the intention is simply to modify the documentation for clarity. ^LeaveSleaves 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on anyone's proprosal, I haven't even looked at it. All I'm saying is that there's an awful lot of energy going into piddly stuff that's ancillary to the actual work that needs to be done. The primary purpose of the project is to write an encyclopedia, people should spend as much of their time doing that and stop worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's frustration talking. I see so much b.s. going on, so much time and energy being wasted on stuff that's just not important, and yet gets dealt with as if it's the reason we're here -- and I'm not primarily talking about here (WP:Films), I mean all over the place. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. I ordinarily edit articles on old movies, which is an island of tranquility, and recently wandered into a political hornet's nest surrounding one recent movie. Never again. Back to B movies for me. Stetsonharry (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the topic arose from my misinterpretation of instructions. And I felt that this shouldn't happen to others following those instructions. ^LeaveSleaves 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem unimportant, if the instructions aren't clear, it can disrupt making good articles as editors get confused over what the infobox should have (which is a part of the infobox). Besides, I don't think such a discussion is really taking anyone away from regular editing is it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very good idea and I support it. I was just making a general comment to Ed occasioned by my frustration on an unrelated issue. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New department

Our project has added a new department, similar to some other projects. The resources department provides links to reliable sources for finding information about films. In addition, members can post their home media and print libraries to help other users in finding information in DVD special features, commentaries, books, etc. If you know of a reliable source that can be used for finding information for articles, please bring it up on the talk page of the department so it can be added. In addition, feel free to add your library if you are willing to help other users find information on our film articles. This department has the potential to help new and experienced editors find additional sources and improve the quality of our articles. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice page. After only a brief glance, this is very helpful compilation of links. I added short links to it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#References and Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Resources -- where I think many people like me go hunting for something like that. Of course, it should also be added into the Departments list on the main project page. Thanks for creating it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link in the two locations and pointing out the department on our main project page. I just added a link there, can anyone else think of anywhere else it should be posted? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) clean up

Found Cutler Beckett which lead me to peek at other PotC articles and found that they have been split into a ton of subarticles, including a bunch for every character, no matter how notable, fictional elements including FOUR articles on the ships and a list of locations and a list of objects. There is even a stub for the pinball machine!! See {{Pirates of the Caribbean}} to see just how bad it is. Anyone want to work on getting this mess cleaned up? Some might be mergeable, but I think most needs deletion and I've started by AfDed two, the Beckett and Black Pearl. Additional views here would be good though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend bypassing AFD and instead pursuing consensus to merge details from some articles and to redirect other articles. Just watch the two current AFDs unfold. Since all these topics obviously have some basis, there will be article rescues for posterity's sake, ignoring the logic to grow from inward. The rescues will misrepresent content to play up the significance of the given topics (for example, "Reception" section of the fictional island Isla Sorna, as if there was potential for more). I think that some of the primary articles are Good Articles, so perhaps contact the major contributors and see if they have an inkling of how to clean up these messes? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack Sparrow's is a good article and he has notability, as does Davy Jones (though its only start). Some of the rest need to go, but so far yeah, the AfD isn't even bothering with a rescue attempt, just play "I like it" and "its a main character" arguments. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD discussion

If interested, there is a CfD discussion here that some of you may want to participate in. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Riding the Rails

There is a dispute going on at Riding the Rails over whether this Betty Boop cartoon was nominated for an Oscar. Although the cartoon is not listed in the official Academy Awards database (which I would think would be the best source), there are multiple other sources which claim that it was nominated for an Oscar. Does anyone have advice as to how to resolve the contradiction and find out either (a) why some sources got the idea that Riding the Rails was Oscar-nominated or (b) how the nomination got omitted from the official records? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance that it was some sort of special award or nomination that might easily escape notice from not being on the "standard" lists? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The academy award database is very comprehensive -- showing every special, technical, honorary and scientific award. It appears that this is a case of a publishing error at some point that has been propagated over time. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's truly an issue, then someone willing to do the research and go back towards contemporary sources probably will be able to get a definitive answer. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

James T. Kirk - is it A-Class?

Can someone re-assess James T. Kirk? I am unsure how to generate the template for review at the article level - there appears to be some conflicting info (and I would genuinely like to know how to do it if someone can take the time to show me how), and I don't want a mistake on my part to slow down the process and movement to GA and FA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to open an A-Class review to determine that. See here for more instructions on how to do this. It would be best if the peer review concluded first, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:American films

Is Template:American films supposed to be used on every single article about an American film? The template looked to me like it belongs on articles like List of American films of 1936 (it links to such articles, after all), but it is not used there. Instead, it is used in countless film articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a rather pointless use of a template to me. --Conti|✉ 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just did some digging, and I found this TfD. Huh, so instead of having a template in an article about a film linking to lists of films of the same decade, we now have a template linking to lists of films of all decades? That's hardly an improvement. --Conti|✉ 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the template should be used this widely because there are too many unrelated links. A better approach would be to instead pursue "See also" sections with links like 2008 in film, List of American films of 2008, and other links related to the article's topic but not used in the article body. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we have a bit of a drama over this last time it came up? :) If anything I would merge it with {{CinemaoftheUS}}, because frankly I don't see much distinction between the two. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there was some drama, but I missed out on it. The result back then was to merge all the templates into one, which didn't really solve anything. And if we merge this template into Template:CinemaoftheUS, we'll still have the very same problem, just with a different template. Removing (and subsequently deleting) the template and adding a simple link to the "see also" section, like Erik said, makes more sense to me. --Conti|✉ 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, true, we'll have the same problem but with one template instead of two. :) However, similar navtemplates for other countries are also widely used in the same way. Are you saying they shouldn't be used period, or do you think American film articles should be an exception? PC78 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've just looked at a random German film to see which template is used there, and I think Template:CinemaofGermany is quite different from Template:American films. Personally, I don't consider Template:CinemaofGermany to be that useful, either, if it is used in all articles about German films (Why should Run Lola Run link to List of German films 1895–1918, after all?), but that's an argument for a different discussion. Merging Template:American films with Template:CinemaoftheUS might be a good start. Actually, Template:CinemaoftheUS has instructions on how to use the template, and I entirely agree with them. And I think similar templates for other countries should be used in the same way. --Conti|✉ 13:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The German template probably isn't the best example for a comparison; try {{CinemaofJapan}}. I think I kind of agree with you over the use of these templates, but I'd like to hear some more opinions. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting some more opinions sounds like a good idea. :) --Conti|✉ 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nominations backlog

Hello, everyone! Like usual, there is a backlog with Good Article nominations, and the backlog includes some film articles. Listed below are these nominated articles, and if editors have the time, I encourage them to take a moment and review them!

I Not Stupid Too, nominated by Hildanknight
Remember Last Night?, nominated by Otto4711
Rocket Science, nominated by 97198
The 39 Steps, nominated by Mattbr
Schindler's List, nominated by Limetolime
Beyond the Sea, nominated by Wildroot

Remember that it is usually good form to review another Good Article candidate when you nominate an article for the candidancy! —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe a nominated article needs work, is it customary to edit it accordingly or just state your reservations about its qualifications on the appropriate page? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can go either way, and it may depend on the type of edits needed. For example, if copy-editing is needed, it may sometimes help to be bold and do it yourself since it is sometimes difficult to explain to editors what to fix. If there is an issue with the content, though, the primary contributors may be in a better spot to uncover new or additional information. There's no serious restriction in either case... I would imagine the only one to be if you had contributed quite a bit to the article (like paragraphs' worth) then passed it as a Good Article. Hope that clears it up! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold with Beyond the Sea and created separate sections for marketing, critical reception, box office, awards, and DVD release, since all the data was lumped into one area. I'm not sure why some nominations had been removed but I reverted them so the information is complete. I see at one point the article had a soundtrack section listing the songs in the film; this was removed but I hesitate to revert it because I'm not sure what the policy is. Personally, I think knowing what Darrin songs were featured in the film adds value to the article. Also, am I alone in thinking the lead is a little too long? LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some nominations because some editors were in the process of reviewing them, having put the nomination on hold at WP:GAN. I just checked with them to make sure that they were going to review them. For Beyond the Sea, it may be worth starting discussion on the film article's talk page about the structure and content of the article. I've watchlisted the article, so I can share my thoughts at its talk page. As for track listings, we don't have a clear guideline about them (only one sentence at MOS:FILM), so talk with the primary contributor(s) about why you believe the listing should belong in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus among the various WP:NOT discussions and some other places is that tracklistings do not belong in main articles except, of course, for in notable album articles and for musicals. Beyond that, maybe in a discography (ala the various Final Fantasy discography albums), but otherwise they aren't notable and add only trivial value to articles. If there are particular songs in a film's soundtrack that are notable for mention, they should be mentioned in the appropriate prose sections. For the original question, doing minor edits, like copyedits, quick corrects, etc are fine. Doing anything that might be construed as major work, such as reorganizing, adding/removing content, etc, should be noted in the GA review rather than done by someone intending to review the article. If you want to do the work yourself, its cool, but it would, in most cases, disqualify you from doing the GA review for that article as you are now "vested" in it. Usually, I'll leave a good explanation on what I feel is lacking before its GA material and give time to correct. If it isn't corrected and I have to fail the article, I may then come back and work on bringing it up to GA status myself to renom later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to your message about track listings (might be worth starting a separate discussion about this), I mostly agree with this general consensus. However, I think that listings could also be permitted for the sake of navigation, either to provide wiki-links to song titles or performing artists. For a listing that has bland song titles like "Intro", "Bar Scene", "Outro" all performed by one musician, it may be better written as prose. Like for Fight Club (film)#Musical score, this was the listing that I excluded because it was not very important nor navigable. However, some films may have a compilation of songs by various artists whose articles are worth exposing to readers. Just my thoughts on that. We ought to pursue expansion of the "Soundtrack" section at MOS:FILM sometime. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your responses. However, I'm confused, Erik. Recommending a discussion with "primary contributor(s)" suggests certain editors would "own" an article, and I was under the impression that was against Wikipedia policy. Could you please clarify what you're saying?

Also, isn't it customary to link a film's year of release and specify its country of origin in the beginning of the article? An editor has removed that information twice, and if I'm understanding his rationale correctly, it's because the information is in the infobox. Isn't the infobox supposed to be a quick reference guide, with most of the data in it repeated within the article itself? Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with primary contributor(s) is more of a matter of common courtesy. It may be worth reading WP:OWN#Primary editors: "In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership." As for specific issues with edits at the film article, let's take discussion to that article's talk page. We generally try to keep WT:FILM discussions focused on broader issues or serving as heads-up for specific issues outside the project space. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globe Award for Best Director – Motion Picture

I have nominated Golden Globe Award for Best Director – Motion Picture for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance

I've having a bit of trouble with a new user over the H2: Halloween 2 page. The biggest issue is that the "film" fails WP:NFF. First, because it hasn't officially entered production yet (as far as I can tell from news reports), and even if it has, there is no new news on the actual production itself. There have been a few blurbs about some minor character castings, but that is about it. The information on that page is already on Halloween (franchise)#Future (it was there long before the page existed), yet this new user continues to un-redirect the page and replicate already published information there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) up for deletion

What did I do wrong so that this list be up for deletion? I referred to the other articles I copied from which is under wikipedia ok. So what's the problem? I worked a lot on this list which u can see in the original page that was splitt and whant to get it to featured. But it seems one of the users is unhappy that his name isn't on the history of the new list. Please tell me what I can do to fix this.

Thanks a lot --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A tfd this project might be interested in

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_28#Template:Nationfilmlist Gnevin (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Most absolutely notable films concerning ghosts.

Hi all, I am sprucing up ghost and was musing on a short list of the most notable depictions of ghosts on film through the ages for the Ghost#Film_and_television section. All suggestions welcome. Also, if someone has a reference discussiing the use of ghosts in film overall that would be much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some online sources:

Print sources:

Toppman, Lawrence (August 17, 1990). "Hollywood: Thank heaven for ghosts!". Charlotte Observer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Rickey, Carrie (August 7, 1990). "Spirits and cinema from Ghost to Flatliners". Philadelphia Inquirer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Toner, Noreen (October 28, 1990). "Ghost stories: Fascination with spirit world captured on film". The Press of Atlantic City. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Arar, Yardena (July 25, 1990). "A Haunting Presence in Film: Ghost leads Hollywood's latest whirl with the spirits". San Francisco Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (re-printed from Los Angeles Daily News)
Effenberger, Don (May 31, 1995). "Some more visible ghostly characters". Philadelphia Daily News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hope these help! Also, check out this book. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging articles for WP:FILM

This is an idea I've been toying with for a while now. There are many film-related articles out there which have yet to be tagged for this project, and I've been looking at the possibility of having some of this done by a bot, but the scope of our project (no biographies etc.) is making this a little tricky.

However, everything in Category:Films by year looks comfortably within our scope (with the exception of a few eponymous categories: Category:Chak De India, Category:Donnie Darko, Category:Dragnet, Category:Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Category:Sholay). I would therefore like to propose making a request at WP:BOTREQ for a bot to sweep through the thousands of articles in these categories and ensure that they all have the {{Film}} project banner on their talk page. Is this agreeable, or does anyone foresee any problems with this? PC78 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Would it be possible to take it one step further and tag un-tagged films with the relevant sub-project tag? For example, an article in Category:Films by year and/or in Category:German films tagged with the German task-force tag? I say and/or as there are a handful of film articles that don't have a year category, but do have a country category. Lugnuts (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to have a bot add task forces in relevent categories, e.g. add {{Film|Argentine-task-force=yes}} to everything in Category:Argentine films by year. I'm not sure if it's possible to go further with this request as outlined above, but if it proves successful then I'd certainly like to make future requests targeting other specific areas such as Category:German films. PC78 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be good if a bot could hit those. I've seen several myself while editing, that I was surprised to find lacked the project tag as some were even decently large hits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's the latest with this? Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the request later tonight. Sorry, I've been a bit distracted by other wikistuff. :) PC78 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries - didn't want to see a good idea disappear up the page! Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request made. :) PC78 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, still no update at WP:BOTREQ, and the later request you made has been started by a bot! See the history of this article's talk page. D'oh! Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This got done, BTW. We now have 2500+ unassessed articles if anyone wants to get stuck in! PC78 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

It is currently the case that AfD discussions for the biography articles of filmmakers and such are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film; I believe it would be prudent to relocate such discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and actresses and rename that page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. This would be of benefit to both WP:FILM, as such articles do not fall within this project's scope, and WP:BIOGRAPHY, who do not currently include such discussions on their Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting page.

Since I am posting this same comment at WT:FILM, WT:BIOGRAPHY and WT:FILMBIO, can any comments please be left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Proposed refocus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and actresses where I have already raised the issue, so it isn't being discussed in four different places. PC78 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This change has now been made. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent message

I'm in the process of independently auditing the FAs at Milhist, one of which is 300 (film). The articles History template reports that it is to be the main page article on 14 feb, however the article has had no formal review since its promotion in August of 2007, and a check of the external links using the {{Wikipedia:Featured article tools}} device has returned a report suggesting that multiple sites have issues ranging from page moves to dead links. Since the article is predominantly within the scope of WP:FILM, I am leaving this message to bring this problem to your attention and offer everyone a chance to spit and polish the article ahead of its TFA appearance. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the regular contributors have been pretty assiduous about ensuring any changes to the article meet the standard, so I would think there's nothing major to worry about. But I'll have a glance over it prior to its appearance, as will several other editors now you've posted this, I've no doubt. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Man with the Iron Fist

I'm not that familar with the guidance on future films - does this article meet the requirements? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, no. I did a quick search on Google News, and the most recent sources (mid-2008) suggest that it's no more than a script. PC78 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone announcements

Hello there members of WikiProject Films! As one of the most active and fastest expanding WikiProjects, I would really like your comments and help regarding a bot I'm designing. In essence, the idea is to reinvigorate the Wikipedia Announcements page by letting a bot do all the hard work. All the respective WikiProjects will have to do is to let me know:

that they want milestones their project has reached to appear on the page
what indicator the bot should used for "counting" the number of articles
what those milestones should be

Although it's only at early stage, it would be great to be able to get a few projects onside (or not) for now, and get their details so dry-runs can be carried out. So, what about it? (I will be watching this page, but still best to ping my user to let me know you've replied.)

Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. :) Off the top of my head I would say that suitable milestones should be: number of articles (every 10,000), number of GAs (every 100), and number of FAs (every 50). Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and added it, with slightly different increments. Feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Whispers Like Thunder

This article was deleted at AfD the other week (discussion here), but has now been recreated by the author. Although it appears to have been partially rewritten, it still has the same problems, i.e. that the film itself fails WP:NFF but the article seems to have a lot of useful non-film content. Any suggestions what to do here? PC78 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As most of the information in the article is the historical background, I'd suggest a reworking of the article to have the true events as its primary focus, with the information on the film in a subsection. The article itself can then be moved to Conley sisters or similar. Steve ^{T • C} 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD as recreation of deleted material. If he wants to create a separate article on the Conley sisters (that doesn't rely on the film's promotional materials to actually establish notability), that's fine, but this is still an article on a non-notable film. As it was userfied as part of the AfD, there is really no excuse to recreate it (which, per the author's note, he did purely because he claimed he had no chance to defend the article in the AfD). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice your explanation here before I removed the speedy. Thought it was a drive-by nom and that you were unaware of this discussion about what should be done with it. Per established process, it's inappropriate to re-add the notice now, isn't it, and we have to got to a prod? Oh well, it at least gives us the opportunity to look at whatever other options might exist. As I say, I'm all for moving the page; a quick solution that doesn't leave a potentially-valuable future contributor feeling hard done by. I've left a note at the editor's talk page with the suggestion. Steve ^{T • C} 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it can still be readded since it wasn't removed by an admin (PRODs are the ones that can't be readded after being removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you Google Whispers Like Thunder, very few of the results relate to this film. It's not even listed on IMDb, a site that tends to include anything that's reached the pre-production stage. What is the actual status of this film? Its own website (which states it's "under construction") is vague as to how far into the development stage it actually is. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We could always be bold and just move it into the authors userspace. I would be reluctant to go down the route of deletion again when there appears to be a lot of good content in the article, but the result of the AfD was quite clear. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is already there, from the AfD results? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; User:TG4M/Whispers Like Thunder is a redlink, so it appears that the offer to have this material userfied was not taken up. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - external links

Again - let's try to get this clear, once and for all. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article categories

Treybien (talk · contribs) has been editing film articles to exclude Category:American films and to instead include categories like "American genre films"; see example. Per WP:CATEGORY, categories do not form a tree, and I'm concerned that this kind of re-categorization will be detrimental, as we would not get a quick count of how many American films there are. I'm not very familiar with the usage of categories, so I just want to make sure I assess the situation correctly. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well categories I don't believe are used to tabulate how many of the topic there are, but to help separate and associate them. There's also the problem with a category becoming too large then it's usefulness to locate film or even browse becomes more and more obsolete. We should discuss how this should be treated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support Erik per WP:SUBCAT. Also, keeping articles in basic "atomic" categories such as nationality allows for more useful dynamic category intersection searches. Theoretically, if articles were also tagged by genre instead of "Fooian genre films", then it is much easier to simply do a cross search for common articles in both Category:American films and Category:Drama films to find American drama films. That being said, I don't have a problem with people manually adding articles to an intersection category, so long as the root categorization scheme remains in place. As per the site categorization principles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet films - stubs

I'm looking at creating a stub category for Russian/Soviet films, but not sure how to go about it (naming the stub, that is, rather than the process). We have the Soviet & Post Soviet film task-force - should all the stubs be Soviet stubs? Or a mix of Soviet stubs and Russian stubs? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be two: soviet-film-stub for films made in USSR from 1917 to 1991 and russian-film-stub for post 1991 films. It's not clear where Russian Empire, pre-1917 films should go, though. Henry Merrivale (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There are only 7 pre-1917 films, so I'm happy to ignore them for the purpose of this (some crazy rule dictating that there has to be 60+ stubs in a category). Soviet films has 240+ articles and Russian films over 100, so I'm guessing most of them will be stubs. Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur - the task force grouping doesn't dictate the stub grouping. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Request made here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for film series

Inqvisitor (talk · contribs) believes because monarchs have succession boxes, films and their sequels should too. This is obviously redundant with the film infobox and franchise templates but I was wondering if it was worth considering to add succession boxes for series too. Alientraveller (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, editor told me he thought it wasn't worth discussing. Alientraveller (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason given for removing the boxes just didn't hold up considering the fact that most succession boxes are redundant. The EON Bond films have a direct line of succession spanning 22 films and 47 years under the same production company; that certainly does not apply to most film series. There were already boxes in for the Brosnan films so I had just completed the line. Inqvisitor (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Near Dark

User:DreamGuy is edit warring at this film article, ripping out its entire plot section and claiming "Wikipedia is WP:NOT for point by point summaries of the entire plot of a movie." The film's plot section was just over 800 words, certainly not nearly as bad as some of ours. Discussion on the talk page agreed resulted in an editor working on cutting it down to the MoS recommendation. However, he is continuing to insist and, frankly vandalize the article, by ripping out the entire plot. I've reported him for 3RR, but he is apparently doing this all around the place so more eyes would be useful. Found more: Demon Seed, Young Guns II, Halloween: Resurrection, and Twelve Monkeys, along with some play and short story articles.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As a note, he was blocked for edit warring, but the block quickly removed. From his comments, he will continue to rip plots out of any article he desires claiming it fails NOT, despite clear guidelines to the contrary. Hopefully other project members will watch him as it could effect many film articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Zack Snyder

The director template for Zack Snyder, {{Zack Snyder}}, was deleted by the admin Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) as "useless". The template has been placed for deletion review here. Thoughts are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it'll be a SNOW overturn, so I won't bother commenting there, but should this return to TfD I'd likely !vote for its deletion; three links is a little below my personal threshold for needing a director template. Still, I agree that the admin should probably have taken it to TfD rather than deleting it outright, or at the very least dropped a note here to prompt a discussion on sparsely-populated templates in general. I think there's a perception among a lot of Wikipedians that anyone dealing with pop culture articles will automatically be a rabid inclusionist fanboy (or girl) who will immediately fight any attempts to see a precious, if useless, resource removed, which might be why a tiresome fight was sought to be avoided by the admin. But I think those of us who contribute here have proven time and time again that we're able to discuss such requests in a mature and non-partisan manner. Any further comments to the deletion review should reflect this. Steve ^{T • C} 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators and MILHIST

Hello, all. As you may know, once every six months we at milhist elect a number of coordinators who oversee the various aspects of the project. Given that your project and our project share a common task force a question has been raised as to whether a project member in good standing from FILMS would consider running for coordinatorship at MILHIST. It is our opinion that this may help the war films task force by encouraging members from both projects to participate. You are invited to comment on this here or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Simultaneous_referenda. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Zack Snyder

Template:Zack Snyder has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale tirade on set of Terminator Salvation

I am sure some of you are aware of the audio recording that has appeared on the internet recently of Christian Bale's verbal tirade on the set of Terminator Salvation ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I was wondering what WP:FILMS folks thought about sourcing standards, and also how much weighting to give the incident at the various associated articles:

Christian Bale
Terminator Salvation
Shane Hurlbut (I created this one recently)

Would appreciate some feedback on this, I would like to get the article on Shane Hurlbut up to Good Article quality status at some point. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate to his article (if it's even real), as it wasn't something the ultimately affected the film (as the DOP was still working their till the end of filming). Actors have spats with crew members all the time, this time it was just (supposedly) caught on audio tape. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And what about the current treatment at the article Shane Hurlbut? Should it be trimmed down, have it only as a one or two sentence mention, something else... ? Cirt (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At best, it should get a minor mention on his article, particularly when it was really not that huge a deal except for it somehow being recorded and getting (IMHO) overplayed on the news. CNN was yapping about it earlier today, though Hurlbut's name was not mentioned at the time (they did say he'd been warned about the issue before though). I think its best to air on the side of caution on both men's articles to avoid giving far too much weight to it and BLP issues. Unless something major actually happens, like one quits or something, I'm not even sure it should be mentioned at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, so ... what about specifically at the article Shane Hurlbut? How does it look the way it is currently, should that be trimmed down? Cirt (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally would say trim it down some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed. Better? Cirt (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice the Christian Bale article could use a good deal of referencing improvement as well, and tagged it as such. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the tirade, but I'm not sure I agree with the ref tag - seem to be plenty of references on the article to me, I'm not saying that more would hurt it - but there are a lot now. Is it because a BLP needs more references? — Ched (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not work on the tirade section for the Christian Bale article. I added the {{refimprove}} tag because the article has many sentences that are unsourced. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OH! Ok, I was watching the whole thing (Bale's little rant) on TV (TMZ maybe?) while I was surfing around - and clicked on the Bale article. You did the Shane Hurlbut article. Good work. Wasn't questioning the tag as wrong or anything - just confirming that BLP articles tend to need more references than some of the other articles (for my own understanding). Well, guess I'll just close with "Holy F-Word Batman" ;) .. — Ched (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

GAR on Christian Bale

Christian Bale has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate feedback in this RSN thread

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Internet_Encyclopedia_of_Cinematographers. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

At Sean Penn and Marisa Tomei. One editor in particular has done multiple reverts simply because I've asked for a reliable-source citation about a claim in each article about an uncredited role. His argument is that if it appears in an IMDb cast list, then it is absolutely unimpeachable and correct, regardless of the fact IMDb is an open wiki whose use has been controversial for years in WikiProject Films.

Can we please get an admin to weigh in on this? Generally speaking, I find it confounding for an editor to block a request for accurate information. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to this individual that a role listed as uncredited on IMDb does not require an outside source, that IMDb is considered reliable for role listings. I did not say that IMDb is an absolutely impeachable and correct source for all aspects of a film, but for certain things, which were listed, it is absolutely considered reliable. I also told him that IMDb is not an open wiki, although parts of it are open to editing. He has been told this repeatedly by me, and now by two other editors. I made two reverts on each article because my good faith advice was totally disregarded. I hope someone will please explain to this new editor that IMDb is considered reliable for film roles. This is tiresome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we not replace IMDb with sources that both of you can agree on? For these actors, I suppose IMDb can stand up to scrutiny with role listings, but it may be less the case for less famous actors. Surely the information has been reported elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have asked: Where is this policy/guideline claim coming from? All I can find is a non-binding essay, which is no justification for removing a good-faith request for a more reliable source than IMDb. The use of IMDb appears to be controversial, it appears from going through WP:FILMS talk archives, and I've found bright-line consensus that IMDb cast listings are never to be questioned. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional, in response to Erik: I'd actually done a cursory Google search, and the only references I could find to these uncredited roles came from Wikipedia mirrors or IMDb. Shouldn't that raise suspicion, and make one ask other editors if they might be able to find a more reliable citation? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for outside sourcing besides IMDb on actors of the notability of Sean Penn and Marisa Tomei. It isn't good enough for me to say I've seen the film with Sean Penn and know he's in it, but I see no point in asking for cites based on "contentious material" in these two cases. The editor has been told by no less than three editors that this is sufficient. You may not find much from Google on bit uncredited roles in films 20 years old. This seems more a case of not wanting to be wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, Wildhartlivie, but you are not correct there. IMDB is NOT considered a reliable source, and is not considered to be "impeachable." It should not be used as a source at all, for anything, per all discussions regarding its use in WP:RS, the notice board, here, FACs, FLCs, GA reviews, etc. IMDB credit lists are useful for easier copying to the article, and can be a useful starting point for what to look for, but that's all. If the film credits themselves do not support a person in a role, then an actual reliable source is required. 207.237.223.118 may be a "new editor" but he is fully correct to request a reliable source supporting those claims, which is not IMDB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict times two) Try checking Google Books. For Sean Penn and Cool Blue, I found this. Here's one for Marisa Tomei and The Toxic Avenger. This confirms that they had roles, so since this is mainly descriptive information, I don't think explicit citation is necessary since it's not questionable at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to go ahead and add, though, if either article is being aimed at GA or above since they are uncredited :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

At what point did I say that IMDb is impeachable? Those were the words of the IP. And how does 2870 hits on Google for Sean Penn and Cool Blue not support that he was in that film? No one except the IP is saying that the role is user added to IMDb. This is beyond ridiculous when we have to start providing an outside credit for an uncredited role because an editor passing by saw an uncredited role. If IMDb is not considered reliable for anything, then by all means, let's write a policy saying so. This isn't a matter of taking an article to GA status, it was a tag added in passing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what "tagged in passing" means. That seems to imply it was not a legitimate, good-faith request.

The editor did not use the word "unimpeachable," but is saying if it appears in an IMDb cast list, then it's automatically usable. That's the essential definition of "unimpeachable."

In any case, Erik has generously taken the time to find citations. Since these are two uncredited roles, which raises the bar for sourcing, I'm not sure how it can hurt to add the cites. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, misread part of your earlier post. However, just because the IP was the first to question it is no reason not to respond appropriately by finding valid sources. His tagging it is fine, and your response to his valid question seems a bit bitey. There is nothing anywhere that says that only established users can challenge unsourced material, and as they are uncredited roles, the film itself isn't a source either. There is already something official saying IMDB isn't a valid source: WP:RS. This is further clarified in many many discussions. I do agree, though, it wouldn't hurt to note it in the project as well, maybe in the MoS in the ref section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm over this. It's obvious that there is disagreement over the reliability in some parts of IMDb, while there is fairly much overall agreement over things which are unreliable. That would be why there is no policy about IMDb - there is disagreement over it. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, IP. You claimed that IMDb is an open wiki, which is not true, and that I asserted it was impeachable, which is also not true. I've yet to find the film roles of a major film star to be incorrect. I don't believe my first note to the IP was bitey in the least. Any bite-iness came after he began reverting and discussing it in his edit summary. He's been here 4 months and almost his first response was to go to AN/I over it, where there is a history established already. In any case, thank you for looking Erik. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits to Sean Penn or Marisa Tomei since 20:10 and 20:09, respectively, and have instead been engaged, properly, in discussion here. Yet Wildhartlivie has left a threatening 3RR tag on my talk page, at 21:07 -- and hour after my last edit and while I'm in the midst of proper discussion! This smacks of harassment. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IP, this is not an adminstrator board. It is the film project discussion page. I rightfully left the 3RR note when I noticed you had reverted three times, even in the midst of discussing this on our talk pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wandering in from Project Film. No source is unimpeachable, as ANYthing that involves humans has a potential for error. IMDB is controversial in some aspects just as is the New York Times, in that those parts of each that do not have editorial oversight are not acceptable by Wikipedia. Containing informations that do not have oversight does not automatically make a source completely unreliable... it only means a determination must be made as to what is or is not acceptable. It is generally accepted by Project Film and Project TV that the certain non-controversal informations as defined in the Cite IMDB essay are reasonable and prudent. Better sources are always preferred, but in their lack, it is acceptable to turn to IMDB cast listings. Rarely will a production's website or film review list all the minutae of a film production department or minor roles... but they will submit such to IMDB... to vett and to post. That Penn had a walk on in Cool Blue as Phil the Plumber is not contentious. I saw the film. I saw Penn in the film. Wikipedia accepts the film itself as a source for such information. That it was done as a favor for his friend Woody Harrelson and was a last minute production decision and was never listed in the onscreen credits does not mean it now requires a cite. The film IS the cite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the input -- the more editors here discussing this, the better. I would note that your viewing of Cool Blue is not really relevant -- that would be original research. Additionally, saying "The film IS the cite," is incorrect, according to WP:RS, which states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, in this case it is not original reaearch, as it is as valid and repeatable WP:Vverification of an observable fact... not theory, speculation, supposition, opinion, synthesis, nor conjecture... just as if I were reading a newspaper and using what I read as a source in an article. And note... we are speaking toward WP:V and not WP:N (more below). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read what you posted again, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. The uncredited role is far from that. In an article about the actor, we expect secondary sources such as interviews and reviews and critical analysis about the actor's work and his/her life around that. An uncredited role is a very small portion, and if the film is available to others to verify, then it can be used as a primary source for this very basic piece of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Except, it isn't. If the role is uncredited, the film itself isn't a source because its only verifiable as far as someone's opinion that the person you see on the screen is who you think it is. Who plays whats isn't sourced to the film itself in terms of what's on screen (that's only the plot), but the list of credits at the end of the film. If someone isn't identified, then a reliable source other than the film is necessary to say "that guy WAS Sean Penn" rather than "That guy looks like it might be Sean Penn." And, of course, the film can't be a citation that he was doing a favor for anyone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To Collectonion: Eric is correct. And you may address to question all of Project Film and they choose to chime in. If I read aomething that is written in a newspaper, I might write about what I read and use the paper as the source. If I see something in a film, I may write about it and use the film as the source. Simple. The only one who cannot duplicate this use of eyes to read or see something so it may be confirmed might be someone who is actually visionless. The concept behind citing verifiable sources falls back to WP:Verifiability. A reader (or viewer) must be able to read (see) the source for themselves in order to assure themselves that I am not a liar. In the role of Phil the Plumber it was exceedingly obvious that it was Penn and not a look-alike or someone in makeup. There are other instances where notables have made uncreited appearance in film or television. That they were not for some reason listed in the on screen credits does not mean they were not there. Being able to do a visual examination of a film source, just as one can do with a news source, makes such verification posible. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the more important issue whether or not an uncredited appearence should be listed in a filmography at all? My personal policy is never to include them. I think most performers exclude credits like "Man in Yellow Raincoat" or "Girl #2 at Party" from their resumes. I don't think they'll mind or care if their Wikipedia articles follow suit. :) LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's a good point. If the actor were a minor or non-notable, the inclusion of such a minor bit of information would not add to the reader's understanding nor contribute anything toward notability. However, in the case of Penn, he IS a notable, and knowing that he did do an uncredited bit part in one of his early films DOES add to the reader's understanding of the person. In "Little House on the Prairie: The Voice of Tinker Jones" (1974), he apeared as a "kid" (uncredited). In Hellinger's Law (1981) he was literally credited as "bit part". In Cool Blue (1988) he was Phil the Plumber (uncredited). "In Saturday Night Live: Laura Leighton/Rancid" (1995) he made an uncredited cameo step-in as himself (uncredited). In "Ellen: Emma" (1997), he did a cameo appearance as himself (uncredited). In "Searching for Debra Winger" (2002) he did another cameo apperance as himself (uncredited). The fact that he is willing to do uncredited appearances might actually make a nice sub-section in the Penn article. But if Sean Penn never gained notability, none of this would matter to a reader's understanding of the article. That he did DOES add to this understanding. Since all guidelines begin with the caveat "must be used with common sense and the occasional exception", the inclusion of an "uncredited" role WP:Verified by IMDB improves wiki and a reader's understanding of the subject and his large body of work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We're bringing up a lot of interesting points, most of which come down to the controversy over the use of IMDb. To get very specific, here's my question. I'd like to add Erik's citations to these two uncredited roles. It hurts nothing, and adds an authoritative reference besides.

I've never heard of editors removing citations; in fact, I frequently see things with two footnotes, both verifying the same thing. My question is: Is anyone here going to actively go and remove valid citations for something that does not appear in official onscreen credits?

What's ironic is that I'm a journalist. I'm writing an article, for a major paper, about movies that this year's Oscar nominees have made that they might rather forget. (For Penn, I ultimately chose Shanghai Surprise.) My paper does not allow the claim of an uncredited role on IMDb's say-so, and I could not find confirmation within the Wikipedia article. Had the Google Books reference been there, such a print/online reference would have met the newspaper's standard. I don't believe an encyclopedia should have a lower standard than a newspaper.

So: If I add Erik's valid, reliable-source citations to these two claims, is anyone here going to remove them? And if so, why? What are they hurting?--207.237.223.118 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to remove the citations... and a warm pat-on-the-back to Erik. The contention as I see it was a placement of a tag requesting a citation... placed on something that really did not need one... and thus leading to this great discussion about what is required to be cited and where and when and by who. And all this gained you a citable fact for your article. This discussion will happen again in the future, as many times these things are decided on a case-by-case basis... often required because no two events are identical, even if similar. What I find interesting in your last comment is that your paper would not allow a reasonable factoid from IMDB, but would allow it from the ever-changing wikipedia. Wiki is certainly not the final word in anything... as articles go through a constant state of evolution. Quick... go finish that article before someone hits a button somewhere and all of wiki disappears as a electronic burp. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective, and I appreciate your voice supporting the addition of Erik's citations.

One small correction: I never said we accept Wikipedia. In fact, we have a policy against it. I was referring to citations (the phrase I used was "confirmation within the Wikipedia article," i.e., the source of the claim), which in this case are books by professional writers and editors and vetted by fact-checkers and a legal department. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)