Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Naming convention help

Over at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (films) there's a RM for (film) instead of (films), but what is the correct name according to perhaps guidelines or policy? The article will cover both parts of the film (of if you're in the other corner, both films), because it's so early in production it's hard to know the final say but they've (WB) indicated that they are treating it like one film, split into two parts and released separate in at least theatres. Because it's a film adaptation it needs the (film)/(films) and I don't know of any other cases where a two part film (or two films covered in one article) needs to have a disambiguating title (perhaps someone could point at a example, if there's a precedent). — CHANDLER^#10 — 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of Award category lists

I watch the Academy Award for Best Original Song page, and an anonymous editor has decided to turn the latest decade's list into a table. Then I saw that this Anon has done it to quite a few categories/pages, including Oscar, Golden Globes, and SAG (see the user's contributions). The table format looks worse than the lists, especially when it changes at year 2000 for no apparent reason. Does this Wikiproject have a preference, because each day more pages are being changed? I'd like to see the lists kept, and these tables disappear ASAP. --Mtjaws (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This was being done by a registered user as well, which makes me wonder if the IP isn't the same person, since some of the work was done in the same time frame as the IP. The registered editor who is doing this is the same one who was translating all the film titles into English last month. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely share your dislike for the table format. In any event, I think we all agree regardless of which format is used, it should be consistent throughout the article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really hate tables, I think they are valid and often useful. However, in this case, a large number of awards pages were, for the most part, partially tabled, some with huge gaps between parts that were tabled, and the style of the table was odd. In no case was the suggestion made on the article talk page to discuss the tabling, on some pages, flags were inserted (foreign film winners), and it was just a mess. It was compounded by the fact that this is a user who historically will not respond to queries on the user talk page. I undid some of it, and I believe someone else was working on the remainder. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell's Angels (film)

Howard Hughes' 1930 film Hells Angels has a character played by actor Wilhelm von Brincken. IMDB and TCM list the character's name as "Von Richter", while All Movie and the NY Times list is as "Von Richthofen" (as in the "Red Baron"). Other sources are equally divided. The film has no cast of characters list, just a cast list in the opening credits, and I've just looked at the relevant scenes, and there's no spoken references to either a "Von Richter" or a "Von Richthofen". There are, however, shots of a pilot in a bi-plane on which is written "Rittm. Von Richhthofen" around the cockpit ("Rittm" being a military rank, Rittmeister). I have no way of knowing whether the actor in those scenes is Wilhelm von Brincken or not, as I can't find a labelled picture of von Brincken to compare with the actor.

It seems likely that the actor in the cockpit is von Brincken, and that the character being referred to is the pilot of the plane, but it also seems possible that the name was changed in all programs after the fact to avoid any lawsuits from von Richthofen's family. Hughes took an extraordinarily long time filming Hell's Angels, basically making it twice, once as a silent film and then as one with sound, so there was plenty of time for legal threats to have been made. Trouble is, I can't find anything to support such speculation, one way or the other. In fact, I can't find anything at all authoritative on this issue online, so I was wondering if anyone had a good reliable source which might solve this question one way or the other. Failing that, how should the character be listed? Right now, it's listed as "Von Richter" with a footnote saying it might be "Von Richthofen".

Any thoughts? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the British Film Institute mentioned Brincken as "[von Richthofen]" (brackets included). I think BFI is pretty authoritative; have there been similar authoritative sources that say something else? Also, is there any indication how major this role was? If it is not so prominent, maybe it could be excluded. I pulled up a few print resources related to Hell's Angels, so if you want to dig, let me know, and I can share the citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a speaking role at all -- and it's the very last on IMDB's list before the "Rest of the cast" section begins. Variety didn't list the role in its original review, so that's probably an indication that it's not major. The character (if it is indeed the one I think it is) only appears in the massive dogfight in the film's second half, and appears to have been left over from the original silent film (i.e. no overdubbed dialogue). I'd feel better about accepting BFI as authoritative if the film was British, but, no, there's nothing else I've found that seems definitive.

I'd like to look at what you've found, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Film award templates transclusion/ categorization

I created a navbox for Star Screen Awards - Template:Star Screen Awards. A similar one is available for the Filmfare Awards. The problem is that in spite of categorizing the template under Category:Star Screen Award templates using 'noinclude' tags, all the articles that include the template automatically appear in the said template category. Further two awards pages that are linked to from the template - Star Screen Award for Best Villain and Star Screen Award for Best Dialogue - are only visible when on either of the two pages.

I am not sure what's going on. Last Contrarian (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything appears to be in order. Are you still having problems? PC78 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is how I see the Star Screen Awards article (note the 'templates' in the categories, and how the Villain and Dialogue links are missing); this is how I see the template; this is how I see the Star Screen Award for Best Villain article; and this is how I see the Star Screen Award for Best Dialogue one. Last Contrarian (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried refreshing the pages? The code in the template is good. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I normally use firefox; for the screen shots I specifically used Opera. And I find the same problem in both regardless of whether I am logged in or not. I tried it again - same result. Is this is problem as far as the categorization goes? Last Contrarian (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. Try deleting your browser history. If that doesn't work then I can't help you; it all looks fine on my end (IE7). PC78 (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox styling

So there's a bit of a spat on template talk:Underworld Movies regarding its layout.

{{Underworld Movies}} uses the {{navbox}} base class - or should I say abuses it, with all sorts of embellishments which make it more difficult to navigate (especially for readers who are blind or partially sighted). We've had this sort of problem before with arbitrary use of styling.

I redid it using just the default styling, as the documentation recommends, but the template author has reverted, insisting that there is "nothing wrong" with the styling or "being creative". Comments?

(This applies equally to {{Cruel Intentions}}, by the same author.)

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the template looks ghastly. Looking at the talk page it appears that someone made the same objection about a year ago. I'm tempted to revert back to your revision, but I'll hold off for now pending further comment. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arrrggghh... my eyes. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur that this template is an eyesore. I support changing it to Chris's revision, but I'm also inclined to recommend removing the "People" rows and to reduce "Characters" to one line. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reader/editor with a visual impairment, the Underworld template actually is painful for me to read with the stark differences in color and variations. I have to squint to read it yet it is still difficult. I simply can't read the Cruel Intentions template, which also begs the secondary question to me of "why do we have this anyway?" (Then again, I think we know I believe this template thing has blossomed out of control.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted both templates. There's clearly no need for this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an eyesore. There isn't any good reason to revert these back. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A visually impaired user has already said that he has difficulty reading the templates. There is simply no need to use such decoration on these templates, and frankly you couldn't have picked a more horrible colour scheme. Edit waring will not help here. PC78 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok first of all it's 'color.' Secondly, no need to be insulting. The templates match the color of the film posters, ads, and graphics. Thirdly, fine then you leave me with no option. Since I created the Cruel Intentions one so I'm gonna find out how to get itg nominated for deletion since there isn't enough articles to warrant one anyway. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On this side of the Atlantic we spell it "colour"; see American and British English spelling differences. Not quite sure where I insulted you, but your own comment was a little insulting towards users of British English. I'm also unsure as to how I've left you with "no option", or why you're so adverse to using the standard colours of a {{navbox}}. By all means pursue the deletion of the Cruel Intentions template, but you don't own what you create on Wikipedia. If a concensus of opinion disgrees with you, then you should accept it and move on. PC78 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please consider people less able to see, than yourself (WP:ACCESS has info). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some assistance

Friday the 13th (2009 film) has been tagged as an article that is written as a promotional piece about the film. I personally disagree with this assessment, but would like some additional input on the talk page regarding the information that is being questioned as well as the sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I but List of R Rated Movies should be deleted asap!!!12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and look at the first four movies that were put in there. LOL. I beefed up the prod explanation (though, I think it should have been speedied). Let us know if the prod is removed and the page goes to AfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did put it up for speedy but somebody declined, why the hell why, who knows!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rang De Basanti now open

The A-Class review for Rang De Basanti is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia movie house architecture competition sponsored by Film Society of Lincoln Center

Thought you folks would be interested in this—it's a Wikipedia photo competition that covers the whole of the US. This is part of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art project, and the deadline for submissions on Flickr is the end of February. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Film Society of Lincoln Center for the rules on-wiki, and check out this blog post. Happy shooting!--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

In case there are any new Ken Loach fans here now, I will make another plea for other project editors to watchlist The Wind That Shakes the Barley. Despite over a year's worth of discussion with multiple editors, there's one editor who compulsively adds detail to the plot section, making it longer and longer and worse in multiple ways. I've trimmed it back down to guideline length many times, but don't have time to constantly watch. Any help is much appreciated. --Melty girl 04:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Will watch for further attempts to embiggen beyond MOSFILM guidance. The film isn't long enough or tortuously-plotted enough to warrant more than a 700-word description, IMO. Steve ^{T • C} 08:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Steve. Very nice edits too. The editor in question is very fond of starting sentences with "Meanwhile," and "However," ... among other problems. --Melty girl 07:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Embiggen"? That's a new one on me. (I guess my vocabularly has just been embiggened! That's good, because in other ways my memory's been smallified over the years.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, Ed. I thought you of all people would have been up-to-date on your pop culture references (see here). Steve ^{T • C} 08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I like The Simpsons, but I never quite caught the addiction, so I only watch it occasionally. Now Family Guy, Robot Chicken and Aqua Teen Hunger Force, that's another story! Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh Ed.... I might have hoped you liked TGTTM too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's never managed to suck me in -- worth trying? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines to article guidelines

There is a request to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. See discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan Fleury

Hello all. I've just spent some time removing the name of "Dan Fleury" from a couple of dozen film articles. User:Wtwhitejr, who has now been indef blocked, had apparently added that name to the cast lists in those articles. Fleury seems to have been a member of the musical group Bound Stems, but there are only two credits under that name on IMDB, none of them the articles I cleared up.

I only mention this because it seems quite possible that the person responsible for this low-grade vandalism (of a particularly insidious type, because superficially it looks OK) will return under another name and start adding "Dan Fleury" to other articles -- so, if you happen to see it in the future, it's most probably false information and should be removed. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to keep track of this via Special:WhatLinksHere/Dan Fleury; will check periodically. Steve ^{T • C} 08:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if he inserts it with a redlink, otherwise it won't show up on that page -- you'd have to do a search for "Dan Fleury". Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines

When there is a discussion on this page and the consensus is different from what the style guidelines show, shouldn't they be changed? I remember two past discussions, one about the release date in the infobox and the other about plot summaries. I am 100% certain the consensus for the release date was the first THEATRICAL release, but the guidelines still show the first showing, even if it's at a film festival. I see some articles that list a few festival dates in the infobox and then a few release dates for different countries. This seems like way TMI. I am also sure the consensus about plot summaries was they shouldn't include cast names but the guidelines still show they should. Is my memory about the discussions not as clear as I think it is or is it just that nobody bothered to change the guidelines to agree with the consensus? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, same message was also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Style guidelines. Responses should probably go there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss introduction of new parameter for Infobox film

The top of Template talk:Infobox Film suggests posting here to draw attention to a topic. The topic at hand is whether {{Infobox Film}} should include an optional format parameter to allow highlighting format-related details about a film (e.g. black-and-white, aspect ratio). Consider joining the conversation. Thanks. 68.165.77.10 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Film article titles in Italics

Example

Hello all. Just recently I've noticed that species ar enow using italics in the title see Gryllus veletis etc. It seems tto be programmed into their infoboxes to produce an italicized title. What would anybody think about this for film titles? As a name which is italized in the article intro below, would this seem more consistent to also have the title of the page italicized in coordination? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking. Should the infobox automatically code to italicize the title? It already does. Should the article lead automatically code to italicize the title? I don't know how we could accomplish this. (If that's what you're asking.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the page title. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the linked article; he means the actual article title. I'm not sure how the infobox accomplishes this, or if it could handle something like Titanic (1997 film) which would only need to be partially italicised. It's an interesting idea, anyway. I'd support it in principle. PC78 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not the species infobox caption parameter that's showing? Because that is italicized from the parameter input. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is talking about the page title, which was italicized when it was created. And asking whether the page titles should reflect the italicized movie title - which, of course, would mean the mass move of thousands of article titles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you can create italicised page titles in such a manner. Presumably it uses some sort of coding to force italics, kind of like how {{lowercase}} decapitalises the first letter of a page title. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the templates used in the taxobox system. Turns out that they have developed a (rather intricate and cool) system wherein the template compares the genus etc. to the page title. If they match, then the following code is used to modify the dislayed title:

<span id=RealTitle style='display:none'>TITLE</span>

As a demonstration, I've used the code to modify this talk page's title. The code could be inserted into the film (and television, for that matter) infobox as a separate field. I think it would be best to do it that way so as to allow specific control over what gets formatted. I'll also look into whether or not this would meet the Manual of Style parameters. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move? I don't think so... wouldn't it just change the font to italics?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Best find out where we stand with the MOS before doing any hard work. I did a bit of digging: currently there is {{italictitle}} which appears to do the same thing (although it's unused), but an earlier template was deleted at TfD about seven months ago (here). PC78 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. (My erroneous first impression was that this would require a gazillion page moves.) But Ckatz demonstrates a very cool trick. Nice. Since it will only appear italicized on the article page and nowhere else, I don't foresee a big MOS problem. But, as PC78 suggests, that should be pursued first. My own feeling at the moment is that, if all is required is an infobox tweak, then it would be fine. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only problem would be one of project-wide consistency. If the title of film articles are to be italicized, then every other title which would normally be italicized in the body of a text -- books, albums, magazines, newspapers, journals, ship's names, etc. -- should also be italicized. Since this is the case, I would think that the decision should be made at a higher level of discussion than this, no? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ed, and raise the earlier concern of what happens to the disambig text - ie would Fim Title (1999 film) become Film Title (1999 film) or Film Title (1999 film)? Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I would go with Film Title (1999 film) as it seems more natural. As for where to start, one could see it as either a film/television consensus (since the two are related) or the wider one Ed highlighted. Ideally, one could go site-wide, but then it has already been started in one specific area, so... Probably what is best would be to first find out if there is a real interest in Film, as we're doing now. We can then take the ideas raised here and see what is involved in actually implementing it, then present it to Television and so on. (I don't mind handling the grunt work, as long as no-one is in a rush to expedite this.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes books, albums, magazines, newspapers, journals, ship's names I think would also make it more correct and in line with the italicized introduction to the article. This would be more correct I think; after all these names ar eitalicized throughout the encyclopedia in the link anyway!!. I don't think it would require any page moves, wouldn't the infoboxes or whatever control the font type? Perhaps a wider discussion is needed with the wider entertainment and arts group or village pump proposals? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think wider discussion would be a good idea, especially when handling disambiguated article titles. On a side note, Why is "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films" now "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films"? Is there runaway coding present? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of code in this discussion added by Ckatz. Just a demo. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK discussion moved to village pump. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Films categories

I have nominated this category for deletion; discussion is here should anyone be interested. PC78 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coraline

There appears to be a mixture of vandalism and other issues in the Coraline (film) article; perhaps more objective eyes could help out there. The other issues seem related to the sections on cast members and the plot summary, but it may be more than that. I don't have the time right now to take the steps necessary to deal with it (it might need to lead to a request for semi-protection, something IP-based contributors may not be allowed to do). So I thought I'd see if any project members, perhaps an admin, would be interested in helping get the article back in shape. For my part, I'm about to revert the article to this version minus any differences that version has in plot and cast summary. Full disclosure requires me to note that I created that version (complete with references BTW); given recent history it won't last long, regardless of its merits. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. 68.167.254.221 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

Template:Infobox movie certificates

As consensus for at least the last, what, two years, appears to be that movie certifications do not belong in film articles, except where controversial (which should then be covered with prose), the existance of the {{Infobox movie certificates}} template seems odd. It directly encourages going against this consensus. As such, I can find no valid reason for it to exist, and have nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 20#Template:Infobox movie certificates to offer your views on this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding Sound, Sound design, Sound effects editing and Dialog editing credit parameters to infobox film

May I strongly suggest that Sound, Sound design, Sound effects editing and Dialog editing credit parameters be added to the infobox film template ( most likely between labels 8 and 9 ), since these credits are at least as important as the editing credit (image), this being quite apparent in all awards for these credits (Best overall sound, Best sound editing, etc.).--Iswearius (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also posted at Template talk:Infobox Film#Adding Sound, Sound design, Sound effects editing and Dialog editing credit parameters to infobox film. Please direct any comments there. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FLC for Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography now open

The FLC for Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography has been started. I would welcome any feedback on anything that needs to be fixed to meet the FL criteria. If anyone could provide a copyedit of the lead I would appreciate it. Thanks and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

There is currently a peer review of the Friday the 13th franchise article. All comments are appreciated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

MPAA Ratings - why not in info box?

Hello, I looked at a few movies and did not see the MPAA ratings in the info box. Why is this information not included in the encyclopedia? 144.189.100.25 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the guideline on film articles, we do not "list" ratings. The reason is that what makes a film "R" in the US is not equivalen to what makes a film "18" (or whatever) in the UK. Every country has its own standards. Secondly, it simply list all of the ratings would just be indiscriminate, again, because we don't know the context beyond the ratings and what exactly about the film warranted an R as opposed to a PG-13 or something. If there is something to report on, like a film having a hard time with the MPAA in trying to get an R rating, but the MPAA keeps giving it an X, then we would report on that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bignole, and the shorter version is: This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Having a MPAA rating field would be akin to systemic bias toward an American setup. —Erik (talk • contrib)

Why not include UK/Ozz Ratings as well? Every other film site tends to include this information. Very disappointing.

Because we are not a film site, we are an encyclopedia. As such, we only include things that are pertinent to understanding the topic. A generic rating, whether it is from the MPAA or some other country, is not pertinent to understanding the topic (that's why we have links to those other "film sites" on the page, so that you can click them and check out information that is generally otherwise not suitable for Wikipedia).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Film posters/images on other wiki languages

I'm not that familar with rules around images, etc, so how do I go about adding an image from another wiki article in another language? For example, I recently created this article and the Russian wiki article has a film poster image on its page. How can I add that image to the English language article? Can I link to it directly? Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to upload it locally; the only problem I foresee is in attributing the source in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Strictly speaking, you'll have to use something other than that page as your source, so some deciphering of the Cyrillic may be in order. Steve ^{T • C} 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded images files from other Wikis but there is a catch, you need to know the terms in which the image was first obtained. If you could upload it as a non-free image to Wiki Commons, you might be able to work it back into your article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

I uploaded an image I found using Google's image search and added it to the infobox. Sorry it isn't larger but I was probably lucky to find any photo at all. I think there are a lot of unnecessary red links in this article. Given it's highly unlikely articles about these performers ever will be written, don't you think it's better to de-link them? LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "red links", there has been an "ebb-and-flow" in whether leaving them in place encourages an editor to create an article. I agree that if it is unlikely that due to the obscure nature of the artists involved, that leaving numerous red links is certainly distracting and tends to confuse newcomers into attempting to link to these "dead" links. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the replies and thanks to LM for finding a free pic. Seems too much red-tape IMO to bother getting images from other wikis! Regarding red links - they encourage article creation and should be welcomed. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Film People ?

Idiot question of the week: Is this project concerned only with films, or does it also deal with biographies of film people, writers, directors, producers and so on? Reason I ask is I just created an article on Stephen Friedman (producer of The Last Picture Show) but it's a stub and needs expanding but I can't find the right stub template and I wondered if you guys know where they are. Cottonshirtτ 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no idiot questions at WP:FILMS! That article would fall under WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Instructions for improving the article and related stub templates can be found on its main page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for the next Coordinator elections - Your thoughts wanted!

Well, the election period is all but upon us again, and before we head into the nominations period, a few proposals regarding the running of the next election have been made. Your thoughts on each of these are wanted and welcomed:

1. Proposed addition of another 2 positions, to bring the total number of coordinators to 9.
2. All of our prior elections have suffered from a relatively low number of nominees, often equal or close to equal with the number of spots open. This has always led to a request (granted every time so far) to leave the nominating period open during the voting. It would seem to make more sense to formalize this into the election rules so that the nominations will not be closed unless [number of seats]+X nominations exist by the close of the first two weeks. One proposal is that unless either 5 extra nominees or an extra number equal to 1/3 of the open seats, whichever is greater. (The latter would make more sense if the size of the coordinatorship continues to expand.) This would also have to occur before the end of the nominations period, because otherwise if a nomination could immediately lock out all others I could imagine a scenario where this is used tactically to shut persons out.
3. Formally grant the coordinators the power to appoint/co-opt additional coordinators as they feel necessary in order to fill vacancies. In practice, this has already occurred on an as-needs-be basis.
4. Are members happy with the current structure of lead and coordinators, or should this be put to a referendum?

The consensus amongst the current tranche of coordinators is split on #1, supporting #2 and #3, and waiting to hear from the membership regarding #4. However, we want to hear from our members directly between now and the end of the month (and beginning of the nominations period), in order to take action accordingly.

We look forward to your comments! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On #1, with the low voter turnout in conjunction with a certain reluctance for editors to put themselves forward for a nomination, I think it would be a mistake to expand the number of seats to 9 this term. This will only further discourage editors from voting, as they will rightly feel their vote won't make much of a difference to who gets in. On #2-3, this seems uncontroversial and logical. On #4, as one of the incumbents (though I won't be standing again), I'll recuse from commenting on the broader structure, beyond saying that having a lead coordinator has worked out very well so far. Steve ^{T • C} 08:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto (àla Sam Wheat in Ghost (film)) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Here's an idea: how about reducing the term length from six to four months? People might feel more inclined to stand for election if they felt the position was less of a long-term commitment. Regarding the number of coordinators, how about keeping the number flexible with a requirement that candidates must receive X number of votes? That way the vote doesn't become redundant if the number of candidates matches the number of coordinator positions. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the length of term has any bearing but it is worth a try to see if the commitment can be more manageable. Voting is still a concern as running a popularity contest is not necessarily the best way to pick a person for a position, thinking back to eight years of a particular administration where... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Apples and oranges - we're not electing one person, we're electing (at least) seven, and members aren't limited to one vote. Seems highly unlikely that good editors would somehow escape that process - our major barrier historically has been that many of our highly capable editors don't stand for the position. As for the term length, I personally feel that it's already somewhat pushing it to hold elections twice annually. Most of our coordinators have sought re-election, so it's debatable that the term lengths are an excessive commitment. Three elections a year starts to become inefficient, particularly when elections themselves take a month. (And we do need to give fair and sufficient time to run them, so it's hard to imagine significant changes in their duration, IMHO.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I reiterrate that if you really want "highly capable editors" then you recruit them, rather than going through a nomination, "campaign" and vote. I am also not sure if the length of the term is a determining factor. Again, just an opinion, and certainly not a firm one at that. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Original vs DVD titles

I tried asking this at Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (films) but got no reply, so I thought I'd try here:

When a theatrically released film is retitled for DVD release, which is the correct name for its article: the original theatrical title, or the DVD title? The specific example I have in mind is The Miracle Match, an article using the DVD title of a film originally released as The Game of Their Lives. My instinct is that the article should be at the original title--disambiguated to (2005 film) as there is a 2002 film with the same title. But I didn't find any guidance in the film naming conventions.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It should have the original title, with a note saying it was released as X Film Tile on DVD, or another country (sometimes films have different release titles in the UK vs. the US). I'd then have the alternative titles as redirects to the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the original title should predominate with a redirect to alternate titles. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Thirded...use the original release title with a note in the lead that it is "also known as" or was "released to DVD as." As Bzuk also notes, set up a redirect for the alternative title to the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I'll do as you suggested. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - and thank you for fixing all the redirects! Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned film articles

I just discovered that there is something called Wikiproject Abandoned Articles, which apparently identifies and improves articles that haven't been edited for months or years. I'm not quite sure how it works, but it seems to use a mechanical method to identify such articles, which run the gamut.

I wonder if any thought has been given to trying to identify abandoned film articles. I seem to stumble upon them all the tme, and some are simply terrible. Early in my editing here I was on a "stub creation frenzy" and I regret to say that I created some terrible articles myself, which since have gotten little interest and fall into that category. Is there some easy way to identify film articles that have been abandoned? Stetsonharry (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out [1]. This should help lead you in the right direction. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Those articles aren't abandoned, they're abused! But you're right, that is a good place to start (after the atrocities I created myself). Thanks. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you just hate yourself hit the Disney film articles *evil grin* Tons and tons and tons of material available to make them FA level, but almost all of them are in the most hideous shape. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The [2] is pretty much a list of started but abandoned articles- many like Stensony and Collecty has characterized them. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Here's an abandoned film article horror story, one that would rival anything Hitchcock produced: Samuel Fuller (shreeeeeeeeek!) I tried dealing with some of its issues and just gave up. The irony is that apparently it was written by somebody who has a good appreciation of Fuller and all the needed source materials, but everything is tossed in skelter skelter, and written just terribly. What a famous director and I'll bet it's his No. 1 hit on Google. Makes you want to cry. It was tagged with "multiple issues" a while back and left to rot. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Side note: as noted in my posts in January at both the Actor/Filmmaker and at the Bio project, I've got quite a few articles that I found while I've been working on White Dog that I'd be happy to share if someone wants to work on Fuller's article. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, thanks for reminding me. Why not send me an email and we can get that started. I may have some other sources as well. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

209.247.21.77 made a lot of good changes to the article about Samuel Fuller. He removed all the multiple links (some names and titles were linked five or six times) and fixed the grammar and spelling errors. Then Collectonian reverted all the edits! Why, because they were made by an anonymous editor? I don't understand why constructive changes are reverted by editors who seem to think they can control articles. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes but not always, established editors do forget the simple log in, other times, true "anons" who prefer not to edit under a userid, do some excellent work, but in defence of anyone who has looked askance at the anonymous iP address, there have been a substantial number of vandals at work, hiding under the cover of anonymity. Regardless, if the changes or reversions were unwarranted, any other editor can use their initiative and restore "good-faith" submissions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

I don't see how anyone would think correcting grammar and spelling and removing excessive links is unwarranted. I think people need to take a close look at changes before they decide to click on "undo" just because that's easier to do. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could just trying asking me instead of coming here and making such bad-faith remarks. I reverted because I didn't see what he did improving the grammar, and felt the original writing was at least marginally better. Of course, you also are reverting my removal of inappropriate material from the Bob Ross article, so I can't help but wonder what your personal beef is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, not seeking to explain actions or providing rationales, but sometimes (I have to rely on the crutch of "sometimes") when editors do not fully explain their intentions and I am the worst at that, often just leaving a jaunty "tweaking" editorial comment, other editors will not see the actual improvements made. I have been chastised for leaving a cryptic note rather than a fulsome explanation. Not saying that this was the case in the aforementioned example, but I can see that the "undo" or "rollback" buttons can be very tempting to use, especially if making snap decisions or being pressed for time. FWIW, I agree with Collecty (who has not an "evil" bone in her/his/its spindly body) that the intentions were "pure". LOL (a BIG LOL) Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

I actually did attempt to use what I thought was an accurate and explanatory summary: "rv after bad copy editing and inappropriate changing of dates in existing tags" (which the IP above neglected to mention the person also did).[3] :-) As a semi-random side note on Fuller's article, considering he already has a prose career summary, is the filmography list really needed? Seems kind of redundant? (and doh, I forgot to email those documents...dur)...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly was not inferring anything as I am a true spectator here, I merely conjectured that the original anon may have made changes that were not readily apparent to the next editor. However, your explanation is more than sufficient in that editorial changes were required and again, the proviso, still remains, somewhere on this page, rather frankly stating: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Collectonian, your talk page doesn't accept edits from non-registered users, which pretty much explains why he couldn't try asking you instead of coming here. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He could have asked on the article page, or just asked above instead of making a bad faith presumption. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone has expended enough energy on this topic. Can we agree to move on... (there's nothing here, using the Jedi mind-trick). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Hmmmm . . . isn't it a bad faith presumption to presume someone was acting in bad faith? In any case, if you compare the two versions of the article you can see the edits that were made definitely improved the grammar and got rid of a lot of excessive links, like US Army, for example, which was linked every time it was mentioned, so I disgree with your edit summary "rv after bad copy editing". I think everyone who edits Wikipedia should see the documentary The Truth According to Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has a lot of good things to say about thinking twice before deciding someone else's work isn't as good as your own. "Bad copy editing" is pretty judgmental. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it is a difference of opinion between two editors as to the writing style/format/structure. Leave it at that, or make corrections, but this topic has devolved to reiterations of the same arguments; we've come to a "agree to disagree" impasse that really isn't germane to the issue. FWIW (didn't the Jedi mind-trick work?!) Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

I am immune to your Jedi tricks *mhua ha ha* :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Now watch what you say about Bob Ross! I knew him (which is why I don't edit his article) and he actually spoke in person in the same way he spoke on the TV shows. He was a very nice man. (Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion). :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Core films

I've been working on adding cast lists to film articles and started with the core films. I've come to the last one on the list that has no cast and wanted to bring up this question. Woman on the Beach, a 2006 South Korean film, is currently marked as part of the core film articles. However, the Jean Renoir film, The Woman on the Beach, is not. Is the core tag on the wrong film? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, as the titles could be easily interchanged. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

No, it's not a mistake. I know nothing of the Renoir film, but Woman on the Beach is one of the core articles for the Korean cinema task force. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

More than the film, Jean Renoir's work is certainly respected although due to his passing over 50 years ago, he is not as well-known to a present generation of film enthusiasts. In looking up the The Woman on the Beach, it appears to be the last film by Renoir in America, unfortunately, a poorly made Hollywood "hash-up" that fared poorly with critics and public alike. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Not even close to his last work, but yes, minor Renoir. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, the last film shot in the US by Renoir. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Movie title external links

A new template, Template:Movie title external links, was created by User:Lady Aleena that she says is a merging of "all the little" external link templates used in both film and television articles. She then began mass replacing these links in dozens of articles, replacing any existing EL templates, without any discussion nor consensus with either relevant project as to the appropriateness and validity of the template. I have TfDed it and reverted all of her implementations of it, for the reasons noted above and as I feel this template is inappropriate and encourages less discriminate in the selection of ELs links (including several that are not "standard" links for either types of articles), is not well formatted (indents with no bullets), etc. Comments at the TfD appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class discussion (revisited)

Back in June 2008, following extensive discussion and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team decided to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale (see results of the poll). This new class was introduced to bridge what was seen as a huge gap between Start-Class and B-Class. It was decided that the adoption C-Class would not be compulsory, and individual WikiProjects were free to decide not to. In July 2008, a two-week discussion here at WikiProject Films ended in a concensus not to adopt C-Class in our assessment scale (see discussion). Since then, however, C-Class has had six months to establish itself, and many of us will no doubt be familiar with it from its use in other WikiProjects. We are therefore in a better position now to decide whether or not the adoption of C-Class will be of benefit to this project. Here are the main arguments for and against adopting C-Class:

Arguments for C-Class

• The introduction of stricter assessment criteria for B-Class has created a vacuum which can be filled by C-Class. At the end of June 2008 this project had 1,339 B-Class articles; by the end of September 2008, following a reassessment of all B-Class articles, this number had dropped to 251 with many downgraded to Start-Class. At present we have roughly the same number of B-Class articles as we do GAs.
• Approximately 1% of our articles are rated B-Class or above; by contrast, roughly 90% of our articles are rated either Stub-Class or Start-Class. There is a huge difference between a short Stub-Class article (example) and a developed Start-Class article (example). Given that we have such diversity across such a large number of our articles, the introduction of C-Class would make assessments more representative of an article's content.
• C-Class is now used by almost all other WikiProjects, and is now considered the "norm". Besides ourselves, WikiProject Military History is the only major project to have opted out of using C-Class.
• Because our task forces are generally shared with other WikiProjects, several of them already have C-Class articles due to their assessments elsewhere. Adopting C-Class here would lead to a greater consistency with our task force assessments.
• It can be a lot of work to turn a Start-Class article into a B-Class article due to the wide gap between the two. The gaps between Start/C and C/B would not be so big, giving editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
• The adoption of C-Class does not necessarily need to prompt a mass reassessment of articles, though how users wish to spend their time is entirely up to them. However, and regardless of what decision is made here, a "tag & assess drive" for this project is already under consideration and is likely to take place in the near future, and any such reassessments can be done then.

Arguments against C-Class

• The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
• Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
• The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
• This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
• There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
• More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So that we can determine consensus here in WikiProject Films, please say—giving reasons—whether you support or oppose the addition of C-Class to the Films assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after three weeks, that is, on March 1, 2009. Thanks in advance for your input, PC78 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. We implemented C in the anime/manga project back when it was introduced. It has not been a huge hassle at all, and discussion on the differences between Start, C, and B went pretty easy and are pretty clear. It has really helped members of the project see where articles stand, and helped us see which ones are nearly B and can be quickly fixed up. I've long bemoaned that Films didn't implement C as there are tons of articles out there that are currently "Start" which just are more. We also did a reassessment drive to deal with the reclassing of articles. It took time, sure, but it was a great way to really make sure all of our assessments were up to date and, done systematically, it is not that difficult. Suffice to say, YES! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. We began using this in WP:ACTOR and have not undertaken a widespread re-assessment, but reassess as it comes up. Implementing the intermediate C-class isn't difficult and really does help close the gap between Start and B-class. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support for all the reasons I gave in my outline above. I think we have ample room to accomodate C-Class, and I think it would be a big win for the project if we did so. Reassessing articles is only a waste of time if you think that assessments in general are. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   1. Well actually I don't mind as long as the articles in improve in the long run. If you feel that this is essential to bettering the project in the long run and will increase the rate in which articles are developed then I see no problem. Personally though I see C class as something of a no mans land but I guess I've become accustomed to working hard at developing articles from start to a good B class without a stop over! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

      1. To clarify a little, I am of the opinion that we currently rate our Stubs and Starts a bit harshly. I believe that if we were to assess them more progressively over three classess, then we would have a much better idea of where articles were at with regards to quality. Right now, a Stub-Class article might just be a single line of text or it might have some decent content, but this isn't reflected in the assessment. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Support. Just IMHO, but I think incremental improvements that provide a viewable result (increase in rating), is encouraging to editors. I understand that films are their own project, but I don't see a problem in following the same rating system as the rest of Wikipedia. I don't have any policy or guideline links to back this up - but given the nature of this question, it seems opinion matters. — Ched (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Sure, I don't see the harm. I hope it will encourage editors to bring articles above "start" class, where many articles languish indefinitely. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
6. I think it's a fine idea. At the same time, I must note that assessment isn't a science, and it can be one of the most frustrating aspects of Wikipedia. I'll give you one example: I wrote an article about director Kirsten Sheridan; because she's young, it easily encompassed all available reliable information about her online. Every single assertion is footnoted, it's well written, and it follows the right structure. Yet it was rated "Start" in its quality (which shouldn't be confused with importance), not B-class. So, go figure. --Melty girl 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Alhough it brings not much additional value, other wikiproject uses C-class so Wkiproject Films should be compatible with them. --Snek01 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, for the simple reason that the critera to make a "B"-graded article was upgraded. The gap between a "Start" and a "B" is now too great. Add in the fact that C-class is used in other wikiprojects, and the decision to support that here as well seems like a good idea. Often, articles improve slowly, a line or two at a time. This provides incentive. Jusdafax (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I've been convinced by the use of C-class elsewhere that it's a benefit. With the standards for B-class articles steadily increasing, having C-class makes sense. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Ambivalent support -- see my comment below. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
11. There is quite a big gap now between Start-class and B-class with the introduction of the B-class criteria and I think this project would benefit from implementing C-class. I have not seen any problems on any other projects which I am member of that have implemented it, such as WP:EURO and WP:WPSCH, and from personal experience there it has actually made it easier to assess articles with it being difficult to decide in the past between Start and B. I don't see any series adjustment or confusion issues with implementing C-class, articles can just slowly be re-assessed as normal and eventually all articles at C-class would be marked as C-class. If anything I think confusion will arise more from large projects deviating from WP:ASSESS, particularly when different projects give different grades to the same articles, which can happen at the moment. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry for being the one to oppose, but I still don't think that the extra class is needed. There indeed has been a large decrease in the B-class articles after other editors and I went through and determined that many didn't meet the project's criteria. Bringing an article up from Start to B isn't too amazingly difficult, and if the instructions our project provides are followed, many editors should be able to improve the article to the next class. When going from Stub to Start, it is relatively simple to add a few sections of information and add some basic parameters including an infobox and categories. Going from Start to B, takes more work in adding more information and sourcing material. B to GA takes more in covering more about the topic and ensuring everything that should be sourced is. Going on to A and FA, takes even more dedication and fine-tuning to improve the article. With each successive step an article takes, it does get successively more difficult. But as it is currently set up, it appears the process is divided up well enough for determining an article's quality. We are still in the early years of the project, when looking to the long-term potential of Wikipedia. Sure, we'll have some limited articles in the higher levels (B and above), but as we continue to refine our guidelines, point editors in the direction of sourcing materials, and have more and more examples of quality articles, these will continue to grow. As stated before, if consensus does agree to approving C-class, then I'll work in implementing it. However, I believe our current setup is fine. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with Nehrams 100% and I'm not sorry. I think it would likely confuse things with films from what we are accustomed to. Many editors will not know when an article becomes a C lass after a start but at present we all know what constitutes a B-class level. Besides I think we should be concentrating more on developing the articles not spending unneccesary time in reasssessing them all with no material gain. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm also reluctant to support yet another assessment class. How does this help or improve the project? (Aside from "everyone else is doing it"?) I don't feel that strongly about the matter one way or another, but focusing any significant amount of time or effort on sub-B assessment seems an exercise in largely wasted effort, especially since it is fairly easy to bring any article to B-class fairly rapidly with the aid of the B-class checklist, our style guidelines, and the resources department. I'd rather see more effort focused on efforts to target and improve B/GA/A/FA and Core articles, frankly. (Assuming that we're not herding cats! :) ) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   1. As I understand it, the proposed tag & assess drive will specifically target the sub-B articles; I thought you were all for doing the drive? While having checklists, guidelines and such is all very nice, these things don't in themselves write articles. It takes individual editors to dig up sources and put in the time and effort to make a B-Class (or better) article, and I wouldn't say that was "fairly easy" or could be done "fairly rapidly" (we'd have much more of them if it were). Are the sub-B articles not the ones in greater need of improvement, as opposed to the B/GA/A/FA articles? PC78 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

4. As I have previously indicated, a use of "contest" or "competition" approaches to creating Wikipedia articles does not necessarily foster better or more refined material. I would rather encourage editors to contribute by other means than by having a subjective classification system. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

   1. So it's assessments in general that you're opposed to? ;) PC78 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

      1. Personally, I have never been either opposed or in favour of assessments (note the Canadianism in my spelling) and although the use of peer reviews are important, I have already commented that editing in Wikipedia to gain a form of gratification is already prevalent. The first objectives of the project were to create accurate, verifiable and authoritative sources of information in a new electronic encyclopedia. Validating quality of research or writing was to come about through the efforts of many editors collaborating and sharing their resources. I still contend that this premise is the hallmark of the Wikipedia effort. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
5. I think the current setup is just fine. Actually, that's a lie—I'd get rid of A-class, at least in its current form, but that's not likely to happen, so let's ignore that for now. I'm just not convinced that adding an assessment class between Start and B is really necessary, given that for most film articles not an overwhelming amount of work is required to bridge that gap, especially with the resources the project has at its disposal (the rapidly-improving article guidelines, for example). Steve ^{T • C} 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. Discussion extended for a further week due to a lack of participation. Come on folks, let's hear some opinions! :) PC78 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
2. IMPORTANT At my suggestion, next march milhist members will be asked to weigh in on three separate issues at the same time that we elect our coordinators. Unless something changes between now and then, one of the issues we will take up concerns the adoption of C-class into our assessment scheme. I feel that it is necessary to be open and honest with FILMS on this matter since our project was cited above as being the only other remaining project to have not embraced C-class officially. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Reposting for another week to make sure everyone gets their say, but will definitely close on March 1! I would like any concensus for change to be as concrete as poossible. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Note that consensus is actually obtained when a decision is acceptable to all rather than abiding by a majority vote. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
5. I have no strong feelings either way about this (though I opposed it before). Hence my lack of a preference. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
6. <* In my best Jim Mora voice *> "What's that? Ah -- Opinions? Don't talk about -- opinions? You kidding me? opinions? I just hope we can get another FA" OK, so that wasn't the exact quote. The longer I'm here, the more opinions I'm forming. Sooo ... There should be more consistency across the board! Period! Fullstop! If there's class C in other parts of Wikipedia, then films should have it too. Ya got folks re-writing Fiction notability, ya got folks yackin about WP:RS/N, ya peeps screaming about hidden user pages (not going there!), and ya got your flagged revisions/BLP - well, OK - I'll admit that one needs the extra TLC. If we gots your stub, start, C, B, A, GA, FA everywhere else - why should films be any different than the rest of Wikipedia. Well, sorry to hem-and-haw about it, but if ya wanna know what I really think - just ask me on my talk page LOL. You folks have a great day ;) — Ched (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
7. If the film group wants to add the C-class, that's fine. However, I believe it misses the issue. It only adds another somewhat meaningless level to our classification system. Whether an article is rated Stub, Start, C or B doesn't matter muich to me because these classifications seem arbitrary and subjective. They bear a "Yeah, that looks about right to me" kind of a tag. That is, they aren't peer-reviewed. When I look at a film article and find a GA or FA rating, I feel the information is of a high quality. When I see an article with any other classification, I read it with a large dollop of salt. The problem is - as indicated by Melty Girl (support#6 above) - we have plenty of small articles which are well-written, correctly formatted and properly sourced - but which can never reach "peer-reviewed" status without substantial bulk. This hinders the perception about the reliability of our articles. Essentially, it says, if it's small, it's crap. If the film group wants to add another rating, we should consider instituting a peer-reviewed level for small articles. This compares favorably with tree-based encyclopedias, where the majority of articles are short stubs, but because of the peer-review process, we accept the quality as high. If we want to improve the quality of film articles, we should have a rating which states "It might be a small article, but we stand behind its quality." — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At least part of that concern might be at least somewhat mitigated by updating the template to force an article to "Start" or "C" if the B class checklist isn't completely or has a certain number of nos. This is being done with anime/manga articles with at least some success since most folks who would give an article a "vanity" B don't realize or care about the checklist. Combine that with encouraging editors to submit articles to our "request an assessment" page for B class ratings. Another way to help would be to start the launch of the C with a project driven reassessment drive, in which all Stub-B articles are checked and reassessed per the guidelines by project members. As for small articles never being able to achieve peer review status, says who? We have several "small" articles (sub 20k) which are GA and FA class. Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is less than 16k and yet is a GA article (and only failed FAC because it needs a copyedit). It has nothing to do with length, but quality, though yes, some editors seem to think otherwise (as shown with the issue Melty girl dealt with on that article). Biographies also tend to be a different animal all together, and really aren't a good example to look at for this discussion (we are talking about film articles after all, and that one isn't even in the project). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure

I have been asked to close this discussion as a fairly neutral voice - I am an admin and member of this wikiproject, but I am fairly ambivalent about this particular issue. I believe that there is no overall consensus on this issue at this point, although I feel that there may be some room in which to work. The opposition appears to be centred around the perceived ease of raising an article from start to B-class and the possible confusion of adding an additional class between the two. Both arguments have merit, although it may be worth mentioning that many articles are improved line-by-line rather than in one single effort; those in support seem to suggest that a stepping stone between the two is no bad thing. I fear that this discussion may be a little too abstract as expressed at the moment. Those in support may care to provide a dummy C-class assessment guideline - this may move the discussion along, and perhaps ease some of the concerns expressed. I apologise for offering no firm conclusion, but I shall not provide one where there is no consensus. I leave room here for further discussion. I shall formally close this when any discussion is complete. Best wishes everyone, Rje (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:2000s black and white films

I have listed this category at CfD; see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 25#Category:2000s black and white films. It has been suggested that Category:Black and white films might best be broken down into subcategories for every decade, so some more input would be appreciated. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction split discussion

There is a discussion being held here, and I would like as many fresh opinions as possible. Note: This is not necessarily for the split being discussed, but is also about any kind of split. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes for clarity, the discussion is at Talk:Pulp Fiction (film)#Splitting and, the discussion appears to be concerning NARH's desire to split out the development section into a separate article[4]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image dispute at Braindead (film)

There's a dispute over at Talk:Braindead (film), and I would like some more opinions on this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 in film

There are two movies in the top box office list, which are Taken and Earth, and they are #1 and #4 respectively. Both of them have garnered a LOT of money, but each brings up these concerns:

• Taken
  • Taken was released in 2008 world-wide excluding USA, and was released in USA this year, meaning that all oversees grosses belong to 2008 in film (because this article is 2009 in film, not 2009 in USA film industry).

• Earth
  • Earth hasn't even been released in 2009, yet it was released in 2007 in Western Europe, and in 2008 in the rest of Europe and Asia, and in 2009 will only be released in USA and Brazil. It's already on the chart, yet none of the 79 million dollars mentioned in the article was garnered in 2009, ALL of it was garnered in the two years prior. How does this merit a spot on the article? Raaggio 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think in general these articles tend to lean very much towards the United Staes and Canada, when instead their focus should be more global. Based on what you have said I would think that there is good reason for moving these two film to the 2008 article. I'm not really involved with these articles, though. Have you raised your concerns on the article talk page? PC78 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of WP:FILM, and haven't really edited a lot of movie articles, but I am in love with movies. I am one of those geeks, which annoys people because they go all crazy during Oscar season. Well, anyway, I was looking for movies to download, and wanted new films, so I checked the 2009 in film article, because there was a complete list of 2009 films. However, I see that it includes some 2008 films. To answer your question, yes, my concerns were brought up on the talk page, but no one has answered, so I checked here. Is there a way to establish a consensus so that those 2008 movies remain off the list, regardless of what Box Office Mojo's list says. Box Office Mojo's list is the one utilized in the article, but I bet there are a lot more lists that actually only use 2009 films. Raaggio 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If better references indicate that the film was first released in another year, then those references should be used. The BOM reference ultimately can only reference money totals, which may not be correlative with the original release year all of the time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any 2008 films listed at 2009 in film. Are you talking about another article? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken is from 2008 and Earth is from 2007. Raaggio 01:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP and overlong plot summaries.

Please see the discussion here. A user utilising several anon IPs (86.148.109.115, 86.165.82.109, 81.157.88.230, 86.132.132.78 86.145.113.100) keeps reverting articles to have extremely long plot summaries. Usually the user only did this on video game articles, but has recently started on a film article, My Name Is Bruce (example here. It appears this user is watching my contributions, as they often start reverting an article shortly after I edit it. Most recently this has happened to MNIB and Conflict: Desert Storm II. User does not communicate. AIV won't semi-protect the affected articles (not enough recent activity) and I don't particularly want to edit war. The user is not a sockpuppeteer, only using one IP at a time, AFAIK. The user doesn't qualify for IP-reporting as that needs a number of blocks, as no-one has bothered to block the IP before. I don't really know what this behaviour falls under, but I think it may be aimed at making me hesitant to edit. This is a general call for advice and/or assistance. Thanks. Geoff B (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the IP addresses you cited appear to have a lengthy history of editing, and some of the activity isn't that recent. I wouldn't let this inhibit you from contributing to articles. You needn't engage in an edit war, just wait a day or two after inappropriate changes are made and revert the article back. If a particular article is changed on a regular basis, you can request that it be semi-protected, meaning only registered users can edit it.

I find people like this tire of their games and disappear sooner or later. Don't let them stop you from doing what you enjoy. Keep editing! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography FLC

If anybody has the time, I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look at the Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography FLC nomination. Its near the end of its nomination period and likely only needs one or two more reviews. Please take a look and see if you notice any issues or agree/disagree with the issues already raised. Thanks and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

I can't recall what the decision was about moving film articles from the (this time) Spanish titles to English titles when User:NWill was doing this before. Could someone refresh my memory? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They need to be existing translations for the title which have been commonly used and accepted within the English-speaking territories - otherwise ad-hoc translations are technically OR. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner

Is is appropriate to tag manga based movies with the project banner? I was reverted as spam (WP Banners are spam??) on Talk:Sukeban Deka (article covers movies, TV series, manga, and anime) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While you shouldn't have been reverted as spam for adding the banner, in general no. Anime/manga articles usually just have the anime/manga banner unless it is a standalone film article (and then the film banner would be appropriate). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the circumstance - articles which have significant discussion of the films should be tagged. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Quick question: How can I sign up to get the Project's Newsletter delivered to me? Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You can sign up by going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach#Delivery_options and adding your signature to the delivery option you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie has changed their links!

See Amg movie discussion. LA (T) @ 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate moves of films with foreign titles

User:NWill has been making inappropriate page moves again, something that was a problem for us back in January (see past discussion here). I've already reverted Princesa and Princesas as they both popped up on my watchlist, but there are probably others that need examining. PC78 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) to several film lists

I would like to split List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) to several lists for each film. I would like to know if that would be wise and if that would constitute to a deletion proposal. The problem with this, after I split it from List of Pixar awards and nominations , is that it will grow over time too much and result in a very long and heavy list. It is now over 70,000 kb big and constitutes to a split. Can someone tell me his opinion about the splitting.

Thank You, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIZE only stipulates the size of an article's "readable prose". If there's no prose, then it doesn't matter. HTML code and all that other sourcing information takes up space, and frankly, 70k is nothing for a list article. But, I think that the only article that needs to exist is the second one you listed, the one where Pixar is the winner. Each film should cover their own awards, we don't need an aggregate page that lists a list of all of the awards each film has won. It should be on the film pages, and if need be, a subpage of each film page (though, given the state of most of those pages, they could handle the additional weight).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast respons. Ok, so your saying List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) should be deleted, List of Pixar awards and nominations should be kept and a list for each film should be created like :List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations. Did I get it right?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see a need for the "feature films" page. It's far too details, and if Pixar continues to have the same track record it will be too long for even a list. Plus, it's just repeating information that should be on the film pages anyway. As for the general "awards and noms" page. I would personally rename it just "awards" and only list the ones that Pixar actually won. Let the individual film pages take care of housing the "nominations" of the films. Should each film have a separate subpage for their awards, it depends on the page. Most of those film pages are so bare that transplanting the tables in the "feature films" page to their respective film articles would actually do the film pages good because it would provide them with some decent information (albeit in a list form). It's going to be a judgment call on whether the transplanting of the a specific film's table would actually do the film page more harm than good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How about legal stuff? I would like to create a page for WALL-E awards and nominations. The history of the new list which has contributers from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and again from List of Pixar awards and nominations would result in legal gfdl problems when List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) gets deleted. Is there a way to move history parts? I don't know how this would be done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bunch of crap. Nothing is deleted permanently from either Wikipedia or the internet. People crying "it violates the law for the GFDL" are just trying to use their last resort to keep a page from being deleted. Pages are deleted all of the time, and no individual editor owns the rights to the page. By default, the second you edit Wikipedia you are giving all of your copyrights up to a creative commons license, to be done with as is seen fit. Otherwise, you'd have people crying "he deleted my edit by replacing it with his own words". It is impossible to tell who "owns" what on any given page given the high traffic of copy editing that takes place. Don't worry about the GFDL. If the pages should be deleted, then just open up an AfD and present all of the facts as they are. In this case, there is no reason to have two pages detailing the same information (which "feature films" and the other page virtually do, just in a different format), and each individual film page should be the original houser of these tables.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it is easier for the reader of a topic to see all the information in one location. As previously mentioned, once an article becomes too large or unwieldy, splitting off "daughter" articles is a ready solution. Although, a caution: only do it if you feel it is necessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

That is why there is List of Pixar awards and nominations, we do not need the "feature films" page. It's irrelevant, and bordering on redundant. A "central location" excuse only gets you so far, and we only need one page for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of WALL-E awards and nominations is up for featured list

List of WALL-E awards and nominations is up for featured list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E/archive1. Any comments on the nomination would be helpful and highly appreciated. WALL-E is the animation of the decade and deserves good pages about it. Thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of documentary films

Hi All, We need team of people to help out on the List of documentary films, As you can see the I am in the process of converting this list into a table. It is a very time consuming job that I have spent hours on and it is only half way there. If anyone can help out it would be much appreciated. Can this be listed on the open tasks at the film portal?. Thanks for reading.--Banrockstation (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how good of an idea this list is. Category:Documentary films would probably contain all of the entries in this list but the major difference is that the category is automatically kept updated with each new article while this list may be very difficult to maintain. I also believe that the list article provides little added benefit to the reader over the category. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a fair enough statement, I do disagree though. It is quite up to date with the category's. Once the table is complete I think it will be quite easy to maintain and compare to the category's to get it up to speed with them. Although you might be quite surprised as to how up to date with the category's is actually is. It adds benefit by listing all Documentary's on Wikipedia by alphabetical including year, director and producer. Besides that most of Wikipedia's list's are behind that of reality so this is no exception meaning they need to be updated all the time. It is worthy of being on Wikipedia in every respect of the article criteria. I do believe however it does need some more editors to help out once and a while.--Banrockstation (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at that category link you provided. This (alphabetical)list is way larger than that, in fact you could probably use the alphabetical list as a guide to fix the category's that have not been assigned.--Banrockstation (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What I mean when I mention the speed of updating the list is that, for example, new documentary film articles only need to have the line [[Category:Documentary films]] added to the article itself and the category is automatically updated whereas the list needs to be manually updated; even this manual update will only happen if and when someone notices the new entry. Similarly, if the article's category declaration is removed for whatever reason (deletion etc), the category is again automatically updated whereas the list will not be. This list, I find, is too broad in scope and of little benefit as such.

But then again, I think I'm digressing too much. You came to ask for help and I'm jumping into an AfD discussion. I'll leave it at that, this is just my opinion of these kinds of lists. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is not larger than the category if you take into account the important fact that the category contains sub-categories. For example, the sub-category Category:American documentary films alone contains over 1100 entries. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you duplicating work or effort? If so, maybe the article is unnecessary in the first place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Um I don't know, it will look pretty cool when it's done though.--Banrockstation (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"...pretty, pretty..." (paraphrasing Gollum in Lord of the Rings) FWiW, be careful of the pretty things (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

LOL my precious.--Banrockstation (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Banrockstation, I am your father... (further bastardizing the oft misquoted [Luke], I am your father.) LOL, don't go over to the dark side. Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

		The Special Barnstar
		To Bzuk, Thanks for making me laugh LOL:) Banrockstation (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Filmography Question

J/w...if an actor's only footage in a film is previously shot from another film, does it go in the filmography?

Example: Shawnee Smith's article lists her as appearing in both Saw IV and Saw V, when all we saw of her was footage from Saw III.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes if the actor is credited for that role. In Smith's case, IMDb shows her as being credited for Saw IV and V so I don't have a reason to oppose those films being listed as part of her filmography. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine to me, too. I'm 99% certain that Burt Reynolds filmed his cameo for the 3rd Smokey & the Bandit film during the second one. Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be listed, and notated as "archive film" or something similar in the notes section. An actor can also be listed if the role is technically "uncredited" as long as there is a cite for it. You can also ask actor questions at WP:ACTOR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the appearance of an easily recognizable actor enough of a "cite"? Bruce Willis has a substantial role in The Astronaut Farmer but receives no screen credit. In this instance it obviously is he on the screen, so the fact he portrays the role doesn't need to be referenced, does it? LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd put it in but if it was questioned, I'd try to find a reference for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

could we have a {{canadian film stubs}}

I am a newbie and possibly this has already come up <my appologies if it has already been thought of and dismissed> it would be great to have a canadian film stub template. Cheers l santry (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The stub already exists in the form of {{Canada-film-stub}} Please see Category:Canadian film stubs for more info. Happy editing. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I found it :) l santry (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, if you wish to propose new stub templates of any kind, the place to ask is Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch and User:75.33.204.197

Maybe someone can tell me who's right and who's wrong...

The facts are these...

Daeg Faerch played young Michael Myers in Halloween. For H2, the sequel, Daeg was originally signed on to reprise young Michael. Unfortunately, he was deemed to be too big to play young Michael, so he was recast. Daeg has said on his MySpace that he would like to see his footage appear in the film as a cameo appearance.

Thus, User:75.33.204.197 is adding H2 to Faerch's filmography, and writing in that there is a possibility that he will still be in the film, despite no official statement besides Daeg's wishes. Is he right? --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Faerch is not in the film. Unless Zombie makes an official statement saying that he will reuse some old footage of Faerch (which doesn't seem likely, but you never know), he should not be credited for "H2".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source to indicate so (and I wouldn't regard the actor's MySpace account as a reliable source, considering that he's only expressing a wish), then it must be regarded as original research. What's more, since the actor is still alive, there are potential BLP concerns which make verifiability that much more important. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he is not actually in H2, he isn't listed as an actor. A comment can be made if there is verifiable sources that can confirm his possible appearance, but that seems doubtful at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

A section of this article labeled "Interpretation" consists of a single quote by an unidentified "SJD." I hesitate to be bold and delete it, but does anyone know who this is? Should the section be eliminated? A great deal of time was spent on the awards section, but the rest of the article is in dire need of improvement. I haven't seen the film yet, otherwise I would tackle it. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't verifiable to a reliable source, then it can be regarded as original research, and should be deleted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

List of <genre> films: <decade>

2000

In the List of science fiction films: 2000s article I got tired of scrolling down the long list, so I set up a small ToC for linking to years within the decade table. This seems to work reasonably well. I couldn't locate an existing template to automate this, but I think we could build a new template could also be used on pages like List of action films of the 2000s. For example, each of the individual years can be linked via:

[[#{{dr|d|y|{{{1}}}|0|n}}|{{dr|d|y|{{{1}}}|0|n}}]]

where {{{1}} is a decadal prefix (like '200'). Example: 2000 for decade '200', year -1 (last year of prior decade, based on calendar starting in non-existent year 0). What do you think? If you agree, what should the template be called? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think on balance it would better to just break up the table by each individual year. It would make the article easier to edit, for one thing. PC78 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem then is maintaining column width consistency throughout the page. The browsers don't always respect the width settings in a style statement.—RJH (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about this; it's a good idea, and while I would personally prefer to split the tables I also have no problem using such a template. I would suggest using normal sized text and adjusting the colour and width to match the table, though. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Horrorfilm3.png needs attention

I noticed the icon-image File:Horrorfilm3.png is used on 90 pages on en.wikipedia.org, mostly film stubs, but also on a few portal and list pages. See http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Horrorfilm3.png&w=_100000#end .

It is currently hosted on Commons, but I think someone US-based needs to upload it locally on the English wikipedia because it is a derivative of an image that is still copyrighted in the country of origin, Germany. I cannot do this because I am bound by the European copyright laws. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NosferatuShadow.jpg for details.

But, there exists File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.jpg which is a large sepia-tinted version and that is hosted locally on en:. To that file I just added this tag:

{{Do not move to Commons|until at least 2029 ([[Fritz Arno Wagner]] died in 1958)}}

in order to prevent someone moving it to Commons (where it would get deleted due to being copyrighted in Germany). I hope this heads-up helps. 84user (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

On what basis are you assuming that the cinematographer holds the copyright to the film and its images? This is virtually never the case. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose it should be changed to until at least 2019 (w:de:Henrik Galeen died 1949) on the basis of this discussion on the German wikipedia. There a user reported a rights discussion with the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung, where they said copyright is held by the chief of each of the director-scriptwriter-composer triplet (es gelten als Haupturheber das Dreigestirn Regisseur-Drehbuchautor-Komponist). The Stiftung said it is indeed unusual to use all the creators, so it would only be 2028 in the worst case if Fritz Arno Wagner's copyright is assumed. 84user (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're making presumptions on the opinion that crew members retain copyright. There is no way to know the answer as to whom it belongs to without doing some research, because generally film copyrights are owned by corporations and the rights are frequently traded or sold over the decades. Even with big Hollywood films, it's not uncommon for a different studio or company than the one which produced it to own the rights today. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Film project coordinator elections

How much weight is placed on the votes candidates receive? According to her contribution history, User:A20anna joined Wikipedia one week ago but she is voting for practically everyone. Shouldn't editors have a longer history with Wikipedia in general and the film project in particular to be eligible to vote? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banners for this project and its task forces have have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on the upcoming Superman reboot

Because this talk page is filled with veteran Wikipedians, I thought this would be a reasonable place to ask this question. What's the difference between a film "reintroducing" Superman and a film "rebooting" Superman. They seem the same to me. But with this discussion taking place, some editor disagrees. Your help would be appreciated. Wildroot (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists naming

I have been having big problems recently of naming awards lists:

• Should it be named "List of awards and nominations received by ..." or "List of ... awards and nominations"
• Should lists of awards per award ceremonies be named example:" 34th Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards" or "Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards 2008"

I'm for naming the awards ceremony by its number and the awards list by List of awards and nominations received by...

Please add a guideline so there would be consensus on list naming.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For your first question, is it a list of awards that an actor has received, or is it a list of awards presented by an organization? For the second question, you should have "List of" or something similar in the article title because without these words, it implies prose form, not a list form. For example, there could be a prose form article about the recent Academy Awards with a quick rundown of the main winners, and a link is provided to the raw list of awards and the nominees that qualified for them. I think that we have some Featured Lists of film-related topics that can be referred to for best practices; see WP:FL#Awards. Proposing how to handle film-related lists in the guidelines would be a good idea. Maybe make an official proposal at WT:MOSFILM? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 34th Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards part of the question, I raised a similar query a while ago. The outcome was to call the article on how the award/festival styles itself and have the other wording (eg Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards 2008) as a redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we have that as a naming convention? Because many lists in Category:2008_film_awards are named "....Awards 2008". Please put a guideline so the names would be consistent.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have to put together something for the guidelines right away. We could gather more opinions here to solidify the consensus. Do you know if there are any names that frequently pop up in naming these lists? Maybe they could be contacted for come to this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:NWill creates many pages title as ....YEAR. He has also done many moves against the naming conventions: [5]

User:Rambo's Revenge pointed out that consensus has been reached: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films).

User:PC78 has reverted or moved many pages to their correct titles.

That's as far as I know.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have? PC78 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Apocalypse (Asylum film) to The Apocalypse (film) , Alibaba Aur 41 Chor (2010 film) to Alibaba Aur 41 Chor, BLAST! (movie) to Blast! (2008 film), His People (film) to His People ‎ Witches (Korean Band) to Witches (band) , The Atomic City (1952 film) to The Atomic City, ... I thought you would be interested.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. But IIRC I haven't moved any awards lists. They aren't something that I have much involvement with, so I don't have any real opinion regarding a naming convention for them. PC78 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Debate about the proper title of a film

Second and third opinions would be appreciated over at Talk:Žižek! with regards to that film's actual name and whether the article should be titled Žižek! or Zizek!.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about character spoofs and non-studio portrayals

Characters notable enough for stand-alone articles sometimes also are subject of SNL et al. spoofs. Is it appropriate to list such spoof/satirical portrayals in a character infobox's list of "portrayals"? Is a spoof of a character the same thing as portraying the character itself? Does this content go in a "portrayal"s section or "reaction/commentary" section?

On a related note, should an infobox/the article include coverage of an amateur (i.e. fan) production if that coverage includes commentary on the actor's performance of that character?

These questions derive from a conversation about James T. Kirk, and the extent to which we include coverage of a fan production's performance (with commentary from a reliable source) and John Belushi's spoof. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. Plus, an infobox should not be listing appearances (unless you're referring to a list of the actors who portrayed a character, in which case I would still say "no"). It's not an official portrayal, but someone pretending to portray the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So you'd suggest the inclusion cutoff (for actors, yes; not a list of appearances) is whether the performances are studio-/license-holder-sanctioned? --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, the only time I can think of that there would be an exception to this would be Never Say Never Again, as this is not an "official" Bond movie in the idea that it was made by the compnay who own the film rights, but it is in effect still James Bond.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bignole and Sgeureka> I agree with your conclusions, however Arcayne (talk · contribs) has deleted all of the "spoof" characters within the Captain_Kirk section without citing references. Can you think of any good reason to include non-studio actors within the "Portrayed By" section of a character biography?24.115.224.131 (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

None come to mind, because they are not "portraying" the character, they are making fun of the character. Just like how if an actor makes a cameo as "the character" in another film (whether in a spoofing manner themselves, or being serious), it wouldn't go in the "Portrayal" or "Appearances" section, but in the "Cultural Impact/Pop Culture" section. The reason being is that these are not "real" portrayals, but actually portrayals based solely on a character's popularity/notoriety. That's why they are put in a different section, and any actor "playing" them are not considered to have truly played the character. Otherwise, for most live-action characters you'd be forced to include every stunt person that "portrayed" the character while they were thrown through a wall. Yes, they were the character, but they really were not portraying the character...just portraying the character's body.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the addition of Cawley was based on the citations present supporting the characterization, and not a personal preference. In fact, i am unaware of any other fan productions that actually have a serious portrayal of Kirk. Aside from Kirk (and now Pine), no one else has played Kirk outside of a Shatner impression.

I am unsure of the guidelines as to including child portrayals of fictional characters. I know there is gray area in that, but just like - in the provided example of Kirk - we don't list his different ranks via the series or novels, it is my understanding that we list those parts which are key in understanding the character in the role that we know them, not the parts which led to the role in which we know them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we all having this discussion on two different pages?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't the foggiest; I think a newer contributor keeps listing both as multiple arguments on defense of their position. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... List of actors who have played James Kirk. PC78 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is continuing, without resoluton in Talk:James T. Kirk. Uninvolved editors may want to drop by there to give a fresh perspective. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie Ratings

I believe that the film rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) should be included in the Infobox for Film. Do other people believe this too? And how would we edit the infobox to add this? --TFunk (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the past (you can find more info over at WP:MOSFILMS). Basically is boils down to a couple of things, WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We cannot just include US ratings, because this isn't American Wikipedia. That being said, we cannot indiscriminately include all english speaking countries' ratings, because they don't rate films the same way we do. What would be considered "R" over here might not be that bad over in Australia, or it could be worse. Without context as to why a film received a particular rating, even labeling it "R" holds no actual value, because we don't know what exactly the MPAA saw that made the film go from being a PG-13 rating to an R.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the movie ratings infobox was recently deleted for these very reasons. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Film ratings have a peculiar history all their own dating back to the Hays Code. Every jurisdiction also seem to have their own rating systems, often at odds with other board's classifications. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

It is best to perceive rating information as noncritical information on their own. Bignole covered why ratings cannot truly stand on their own in the article, and the best way to cover ratings is to do so with real-world context. If filmmakers fight with the ratings board over a rating for their film, that can be covered. If the rating of a film is noticed to be different from the previous films of a franchise (think Die Hard), that can be covered. If there was editing done to make sure that the film can target a broader audience with a lighter rating, that can be covered. If a film is the highest-grossing film of a specific rating, that can be covered. And so forth. I saw the issue of the rating come up on a separate article earlier this week, so I am thinking that it may be worth pursuing a section in the guidelines to detail the consensus. That way, we don't have to repeat it ad nauseum. Anyone in favor of that? Or too much instruction creep? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; this issue crops up on a regular basis both here and at Template talk:Infobox Film, and it's senseless having to repeat the same arguments over and over. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had created a section on the MOS page since one of the last discussions, but apparently we haven't. I'm in favor of putting an official section there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Started discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Ratings section. Feel free to weigh in there! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There was one, but it was removed sometime during one of the recent (as in last year) updates, along with some other "things not to include" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas Chain Saw Massacre article

This is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a video game image for the The Texas Chain Saw Massacre article. The discussion can be seen at Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre#Game image. More opinions are necessary to determine a good consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken and Earth

In the article 2009 in film, Taken and Earth are on the top of the B.O. lists. However, Earth (2007 film) is from 2007 and Taken (2008 film) is from 2008. Why are they on the top of those lists? Raaggio 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that both were not released in the United States until 2009, which the opening of that chart's section notes is the decider for listing a film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. FWiW, another example of the diabolical United States-centric Wikipedia focus (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

In this case, I'm inclined to agree. It purports to be a world list but uses US release dates, presumably not allowing any films that weren't released in the US at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How dare you agree with me, a lowly colonial!? I wanted you to be prodded into a prolonged, meaningless discourse relecting on the follies of the great unwashed (myself) doing anything in this wikywacky universe. FWiW (a very biiig LOL) Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

:-P~~~~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

'ta. FWiW, Nice to see your name up for a Film Projects' Coordinators' role. In a moment of exuberance, I think I may have voted for you. Bzuk (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

Since it's not easy to track box office figures overseas other than what Box Office Mojo reports, I'm not surprised this list relies on US release dates. BTW Raaggio, did you forget you already raised this issue above 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No I did not, but usually when I ask a question somewhere in Wikipedia, we establish a consensus. All you guys have done is agree on something that is WRONG with the article. Shouldn't we RIGHT it. Raaggio 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You see, people continue to ignore when something is wrong, just point it out, and leave it alone... look how you guys haven't answered. Raaggio 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox actor changes proposal

Three updates and changes proposals to this template have been made at WT:ACTOR#Infobox actor changes proposal. Any comments are welcome. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Design for Living (film)

I recently started this film article. Please expand/improve it if you can. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover this article had not existed already. I have expanded the plot and added some production notes and critical reception. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

list link being added to all pages?

Special:Contributions/Erik9. Editor is adding the 'list of film by year link to all 'see also' sections. However, this isn't particularly relevant to any particular film. Would someone mind explaining this to the editor? I don't see consensus here for such a massive series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion, here, it was mentioned (by the nominator, amongst others) to delete the template and add the year link in the "see also" section. I wont get on my soapbox about the fact that most of the delete votes came from non film-project memembers... Lugnuts (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I reverted a bunch of those (before I saw the templates for deletion you just posted) and told the editor that there should already be a category "YEAR in American films" (or something like that) on each film page. Putting an indiscriminate link in a "See also" section is not, and should not have been suggested, the way to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well I suggested it as a sensible alternative to the removal of navigation brought about by the hasty removal of the previous template so get over yourself. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the "See also" practice. I disagreed with the {{American films}} template (as I usually disagree with templates that are not directly related to the article, as in having a link directly to that article). The "See also" sections seem more flexible. Maybe if we could come up with best practices, we could populate these sections more thoroughly. For example, Allmovie lists "similar works" to a film that we could cite objectively. Also, at Apt Pupil (film)#See also, I listed similar films based on my research for that article so far. It could set a new initiative in encouraging cross-navigation where it would not normally exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If they were similar, but I don't think that List of American films of 1926 for The Frontier Trail, when we have Category:1926 films already in place. Otherwise, if include stuff like that we might as well get rid of categories altogether. I mean, I see List of Holocaust films directly relevant to Apt Pupil, but is it necessary to have both that and Category:Holocaust films?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, you aware that we don't have a Category:American films of 1926?? If we had a Category:American films of 1926 then it wouldn't really be needed as much. The fact is we don't we only have Category 1926 films which are completely mixed with all world films some of them in english titles and if users are looking to explore American films by year they certainly are not ideal as the lists are. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we couldn't have a category, or that we couldn't wikilink "1926 film" in the lead, like we do "American". The point is, the "See also" section is supposed to be for related pages. The 100s of odd films produced in 1926 are not related to that one above in any other capacity than they were released in the same year. That's not the same as having a similar storyline, or subject matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is not a simple way to filter by multiple categories. For The Frontier Trail, it's categorized as an American film and as a 1926 film. Linking to the list seems acceptable in a tangential way because it's unlikely that such a list would be directly linked in the article body. Per WP:CLN, categories, lists, and navigation templates "should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." So it seems like a matter of how to determine best practices for each method. For example, for navigation templates, I think we are fairly comfortable with director templates and franchise templates. I don't think we have ever had any true dialogue about the "See also" sections. May be worth pitching around some ideas, such as how to keep it fairly objective or limited in size. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I liked the link in see also. I know there's the category one, but it leads to a different page/category list than the one in see also did. Not that I'm gonna get my shorts in a knot either way .. just IMHO — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really really hate it when I see those links shoved on a page, and remove them with extreme prejudice. Same for the "related/similar" films which is purely OR and pointless). Let the cats do their job and don't clutter articles with see also that don't meet any the actual guidelines for see also's. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with having these lists in a "See also" section; linking to a single, relevant list is preferable to having a nav template linking indiscriminately to all lists. Categories and lists are meant to be complimentary, not to mention that List of American films of 1926 and Category:1926 films are two entirely different things. At the end of the day, how is this any different (or less useful) than the links to "Year in film" articles that are commonplace in many film articles? PC78 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should review WP:SEEALSO and consider how it can apply to articles under the scope of WikiProject Films. When it comes to individual films, I think that most useful items are already linked either in the article body or in navigation templates (especially for films under a franchise). What's left are tangentially related items that may not easily find a place in either the body or a template. Candidate list-based items tend to be chronological, topical, geographical, or a mix of these three. For the most part, high-level items tend to be linked in lead sections (e.g., "Sunshine is a 2007 British science fiction film...") so these are not as great of a concern. (Remember that the "See also" sections are where {{Portal}} templates are encouraged to go, so "high-level" is not "bad"!) We can drill down below this level and identify more closely related items like List of American films of 1926 to benefit readers. In my opinion, these items tend to receive less attention, and I think that the proliferation of {{American films}} was a failed attempt to address that. With "See also" sections, we have greater flexibility that we can couple with moderation through guidelines.

For tangentially related films, I think that the best way to avoid a slippery slope is to subscribe to a source that can make connections independent of us editors. To me, Allmovie seems to be the best bet with its "similar works" feature, though other suggestions are welcome. (Though I think that IMDb may be too dynamic and uncontrolled!) By citing "a brief explanatory sentence" for related items, we can provide navigation to articles that may not have been explored otherwise. There are nuances to address, such as the number of items, but since we have never really address "See also" sections directly in the past, we can do so now and successfully with the right measures. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is Category:1926 films IS NOT American films of 1926. Sure they might be stacked in the US favour but a lot of them ARE NOT American. I can't believe people are kicking up a fuss about the only slim line of linkage we have left, to include a specific link to the year in film. People voted to remove the templates please be reasonable and allow Erik9 to continue his good work making evry article consistent with a direct link to the year in film. Categories DO NOT provide information on cast and director etc like the specific lists do. Quite frankly I'm extrmeely tried with this discussion over American films and lists. We should surely have far better things to do at improving articles rather than trying to removing every possible effort of navigation. And yes if we treat films as film history, a comprehensive guide by year is completely relevant, especially one that links directly to that year in an encyclopedic guide.

If people object so much to see also which in all honesty I find a little exaggerated as it did seme pretty harmless, the best thing would be to ensure the specific American lists are categorised in the main year categories. This mean if people click on 1926 films they can directly access the American list and not have to filter through the main category. Agreed? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not suer where in that TfD linked above there was established consensus to inject a pointless link into all see alsos. I see the nom's suggestion, but little support for it. I also have yet to see a good argument for the inclusion in the see also, which should be related links, not links based on coincidence or circumstance. Such a link does nothing to offer context or greater knowledge to the reader. As such, I move that we remove such links, instead inlining them as Doczilla suggests above, or category it all, which would be far more useful in many ways. ThuranX (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not either-or. WP:CLN clearly says, "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and Navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems" (emphases mine). Categories can address chronologically related items in one sense (1926 films, American films); embedded lists address them in another (List of American films of 1926). There is no coincidence or circumstance involved; only editorial discretion on how close a related link should be. WP:EMBED#Related topics (navigational lists) supports links to related topics, higher order (which seems to be the main concern here), and lower order. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification to discuss new layout for guidelines

Hello, I am proposing a new layout for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. See discussion here. Everyone's thoughts are welcome! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Future film template

Hello, I would like to revise the documentation for using the {{Future film}} template. I think that it should solely be used in stand-alone film articles per our threshold set by the notability guidelines for future films. Thus, it should not be included in sections of broader articles, like some other templates can be used. This is what I wrote in the documentation:

The template is intended to be used at the header of a stand-alone article about a film that is in production, per the notability guidelines for future films. Films that have not yet begun production should not have their own articles since it is never guaranteed to begin. Details about development and pre-production can exist in sections at the source materials' articles or the filmmakers' articles, but since films are not guaranteed to move into production, such sections should not be treated as a surefire endorsement that the films will be made. Thus, {{Future film}} cannot be used as a temporal template because planned films may very well be stranded, and articles where these sections exist should not be cluttered by the template.

For lists of films, the template {{Future films list}} can be used to mark the section of films that have yet to come out.

PC78 disagreed with the wording, believing that the template can be used in sections. I can't think of an instance where it would be applicable when the layout of the article(s) comply with WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILM. As the documentation reflects, {{Future films list}} can be used for dynamic lists like List of computer-animated films#Upcoming films. Others' thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about clearly stating it in the lead of the article, or at the section in question, that it is a future film so there will be no need for this template at all. :) Garion96 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead of an article is supposed to state that anyhow. I never understood the point of these templates, either. --Conti|✉ 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder why the template is necessary, but as long as it exists, I believe Erik's proposed revision is worded well. Just change the second sentence to read "Films that have not yet begun production should not have their own articles since there is no guarantee they will be made" because as it stands now it's not gramatically correct. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue I had with this change is that it gives us two nearly identical templates with the only real difference being that one is for articles and the other is for sections. I don't really see how this is an improvement on what we've had up until now, i.e. a single template for both articles and sections. If, as Erik proposes above, we want to say that the template shouldn't be used for certain articles, then that's perfectly fine, but I don't really see how the extra template facilitates this. The relevant section of List of computer-animated films#Upcoming films would be fine if tagged with {{future film}}, whereas {{future films list}} is somewhat inadequate for lists such as British films of 2009 where upcoming films are not segregated into a seperate section. PC78 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point in how some lists, like the example you provided, would not necessarily tolerate such templates. It was probably too swift of an action on my part to create {{Future films list}} to compensate for the removal of {{Future film}} templates from articles' sections. Some others above question the usage of {{Future film}} at all. I am accustomed to the presence of it, but I am fine with dialogue about its necessity. Just that if we do keep it, it seems appropriate to use the template for individual film articles because we are operating under the assumption that they are being actively made and that there is a very high probability of them being released. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there will (most likely) always be new computer animated films. So basically a template on List of computer-animated films#Upcoming films will stay indefinitely. That sounds like a really bad idea. Do people really like this template so much? A dialogue about this template might be a good thing. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the computer animated films article, but bear in mind that {{future film}} is part of a series of such templates. PC78 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Got to start somewhere. :) There are wikiprojects who don't use infoboxes, so this wikiproject (if there is consensus) can decide not to use {{future film}} anymore. Garion96 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite an extensive list of templates exist at Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Future timing-related messages. As long as such templates are temporal in nature (contrasting their usage at places like lists' "Upcoming" sections), I do not see a compelling reason to deprecate the {{Future film}} template. We could revise the template's language to be more useful, and we could fine-tune documentation to address nuances of of whether or not a film has been "released". Ultimately, the presence or lack thereof of this template seems to be a proper placeholder item to show if a film is available to the public or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With your last statement I really don't agree. A template is never a proper placeholder item to show if a film is available or not. The actual text in the article, specifically the lead should do that job. Garion96 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about specific placeholder text? I think the presence of the template answers the question more quickly of whether or not a film is publicly released. When it comes to 2009 films, for example, there are many more unreleased films than released films (at least, I think it's a safe bet to say so). I think that the way most lead sections are written (particularly if they are more than a couple of sentences), release information generally comes toward the end. The template just answers the public release question quickly -- if it's there, no. If not, yes. WP:NDA says, "These [temporal templates] alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia." In the case of films, coverage definitely ramps up toward their release. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, prose is always better than a template. Basically I find the whole idea of these template useless. I believe they originated at the Madrid bombings article. In cases like that it makes sense. But to have this template on film articles (or basically almost every other article) I don't see the use. Of course the article can change, 1: it is a wiki. 2: That's why it states in the lead "blah blah is an upcoming film". But I also think it is safe to say that we agree to disagree here. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

These templates originated from Template:Current, which is used (or is supposed to be used) in articles that are being edited massively due to being a current event. Somehow, that resulted in the creation of various "current" templates that were being put onto every article that can be, in some way, considered current. That, in turn, resulted in the creation of "future" templates that were put onto articles that, in some way, are about something that is going to happen in the future. Why we need any of that, I have no clue. The reason to use Template:Current does not apply at all to any of the "future" templates. As you say, the very first sentence of every film article should indicate whether a film has already been released or not, which makes the entire template redundant, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendetta: a christmas story and cast a vote if interested. LargoLarry (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for future note, Film related discussions are noted conveniently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Woman on the Beach and {{DEFAULTSORT}}

User:Studerby has added a {{DEFAULTSORT}} to Woman on the Beach so that it sorts as "Woman On The Beach", claiming that this is neccessary for correct category sorting; this sort of thing appears to have been done en masse elsewhere. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to sort this title correctly you would want to ignore the "on the" completely and sort it as "Woman Beach", yes? Which would mean that "Woman On The Beach" is no more correct than "Woman on the Beach". Am I right here or barking up the wrong tree? PC78 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a distinction between "Woman On The Beach" and "Woman on the Beach" when it comes to category sorting. I was under the impression that {{DEFAULTSORT}} helped address titles that started with articles, like A Star is Born or The Thing. Looking at the documentation, though, I do not see a clear explanation of using the template either way. Maybe ask the editor to clarify how it improves category sorting? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is in the capitalisation, i.e letters are sorted ABC...XYZabc...xyz, not AaBbCc...XxYyZz (if you see what I mean). I've already raised the issue on the user's talk page, so I await a response. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at All pages with titles beginning with Woman on to see treatment of similar titles. Also, WP:CAPS advocates lowercase for such words, so I am not sure why Woman on the Beach should be reclassified as Woman On The Beach anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Year of release

I believe this has been discussed before but I don't recall the outcome. If a film premieres at a film festival in 2006 but doesn't go into theatrical release until 2007, in which year is it categorized? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's best categorized as a 2007 film because film festival screenings do not equate public releases. Films do not usually get attention until they are publicly available, either in limited or wide releases. Exceptions would be if films never have a public release... falling back on the year of the film festival premiere would be acceptable, then. Of course, in any case, both the film festival premiere and the theatrical release should be detailed in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... then in that case it would seem tht The Pawnbroker would be considered a 1965 and not a 1964 film. It opened at the Berlin Film Festival in 1964, but didn't go into general release until 1965. Rod Steiger was nominated for teh 1965 best actor award. IMDB has it as a 1964 film, as do we at the moment, but I think that probably needs to be changed to 1965. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. May I ask why we focus on 'year of release', rather than 'year of completion'? Most films are released in different territories at different times, routinely spread over more than a year - this introduces quite a bit of ambiguity. Does 'year of release' apply by default to the first territory in which the film goes on general theatrical release, no matter where that is? And does it apply to general theatrical release only, or also broadcast, or video? And there seem to be other gray areas with year of release (for example, if a film screens once each in multiple key cities across one territory, as part of a touring festival, does this count as a "release" or a "festival premiere"?). 'Year of completion' is considerably less ambiguous, because a film is normally completed at one fixed point in time, which remains true of that film anywhere and everywhere, regardless of its subsequent commercial adventures in various parts of the world. Most festival programmes and catalogues indicate 'year of completion', I believe, not 'release'; and I had thought that's also the approach taken by IMDB. A random example would be Varda's Jacquot de Nantes, completed in 1991 / screened at fests 1991 and 1992 / and opened on general release in various territories, at various times, in 1992 and 1993. IMDB lists it as a 1991 film (as does Varda herself at www.cine-tamaris.com/catalogue.php; and as does the Oxford History of World Cinema). So maybe it's better to assign a film to year based on when it was completed, not when it was released. What do you reckon? Thanks!--Maduro five (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine because awards and all other reliable sources refer to it by year of release, not year of completion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - this being the policy here, is it best to date a film by its first general release in any territory, or by its first general release in its home territory? Also, should we consider theatrical release only, or does release in any medium count, for the purposes of dating a film? And in cases where the year of production differs from the year of release, should we note this in the article somehow? (I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that are obvious to everyone else...) Thanks! --Maduro five (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date clarifications

I've started a discussion to clarify WP:FilmRelease. Please consider offering your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release Date clarification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback on Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Hello all. I put Star Trek I up for PR and a reviewer there suggested that the article (73KB) was too long. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to look through it and suggest places that could be trimmed. if necessary? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully expected to look over the article to see an overlong plot section, but what you have is remarkably concise. As for the rest, I don't think the article is too long at all, though if you could get over your distaste for fourth-level subsectioning it would go some way to altering the perception of the article as too long. At a push, the set construction breakdown could be lost without detriment, but the first port of call should probably be a further copy edit to eliminate redundancies. Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know it needs work on that end... as to my fourth level heading hating, what do you think could be broken down? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be completely honest and say I can't read the whole article right now, but a quick scan reveals that the "Filming" and "Post production" sections are the most likely candidates for further sectioning. The latter, for example, could be split between the visual effects and editing; specific aspects of principal photography (e.g. locations) I'm sure could be identified to split the former (though its second paragraph is also ripe for moving to one of the development sections or the "Post production" section). Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is too long, just long winded. I think there is an issue with succinctness. Plus, most of that "Phase II" stuff isn't directly relevant to the film article. Some of it is, but it seems regurgitated from the "Phase II" article. You could trim that significantly and just leave a link to "Phase II". The Rotten Tomatoes thing, remove it. 28 reviews is hardly representative of critical response from modern reviews. You can use the reviews they have, but it's misleading to present a sampling number that cannot possibly be generalized back to the critics of today.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I weighed in at Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The Motion Picture/archive1 and suggest others reiterate their comments there, too. Helps to centralize various editors' thoughts for this particular topic so good ideas aren't lost in this WikiProject's archives. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved the bulk of this conversation over to the PR. Steve ^{T • C} 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated The Boondock Saints for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian merge

There is currently a discussion occurring at Talk:Chase Meridian#Merge discussing whether the article should be merged to List of Batman supporting characters#Love interests. Additional views appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request: machinima

Resolved

 – Got a copyeditor, passed GA. — TKD::{talk} 07:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I have a GA nomination (machinima) on hold, and the reviewer and I would appreciate an extra pair of eyes. I've copyedited it, but I've also worked on the article constantly for the last eight weeks, so, if someone could give the prose an additional look, I'd be grateful. Thanks. — TKD::{talk} 04:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch editing his article

Daeg admitted on a (now deleted) post on his MySpace that he was editing Wikipedia under User:75.33.204.197, which he is still doing. Should anything be done about this?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Report the action to WP:ANI. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

TfD nomination of Template:Rogerebert

Template:Rogerebert 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) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Films shot in Super 35

Category:Films shot in Super 35, which you created, 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Code

I was going to be bold and move this article to Pre-Code films but thought perhaps I should see if others agree that's a better title before I changed it. Any thoughts? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Pre-Code era or Pre-Code Hollywood? Either of them seem better than Pre-Code films as they represent a broader topic within which examples of pre-Code films can be provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Pre-Code Hollywood if it's rewritten to broaden its focus. I'm not sure what the creator or subsequent editors had in mind but, as it stands now, the article - which to me reads more like a thesis for a film course than it does an encyclopedia entry - focuses a lot on Post rather then Pre-Code Hollywood. There's also a long list of alleged pre-Code stars I think is questionable, since the majority of them made some films in the early 1930s but really achieved fame after the code went into effect. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion - given it covers so much that has nothing to do with the pre-Code era, should it just be merged with Hays Code? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be another solution. I recommended Pre-Code Hollywood because Google Books Search shows that it can be a central topic in its own right. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, I recommend choosing whatever you think fits best of the options we've discussed. If there is an issue with the renaming, we can handle it as it arises. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I retitled the article to Pre-Code Hollywood and slightly rewrote the opening to reflect the change. I'm going to remove those sections that relate to films made once the code was in effect, since they seem out of place here. The article still is in need of TLC, especially in the area of references. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Allmovie name

Fellow editors … {{Allmovie name}} is a clone of {{Amg name}} with enhanced documentation, since it's currently protected from editing. <Sigh!>

I'm using these examples as a checklist for regularizing the templates' documentation files … how should we clean up the legacy/duplicate templates like {{Amg movie}}/{{Allmovie title}}?

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)}

I've redirected {{Allmovie name}} to {{Amg name}} – it's better to discuss renaming the existing template rather than creating an identical template under a new name. I would support a rename FWIW, though I would prefer {{Allmovie person}} as the distinction between "title" and "name" is a little ambiguous. It would be desirable to have all these templates follow a similar naming pattern, so a more general discussion may be needed. PC78 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect because it lost the documentation file, Template:Allmovie name/doc … if you can unprotect {{Amg name}} and add this doc file, then I also support the rename as {{Allmovie person}}, although I'm ambivalent about XYZ name v XYZ person, and they seem to be equally preferred … also, please see my comment on Template talk:Amg name. — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a change to a protected template like {{Amg name}} then you can do it yourself by leaving a note on the talk page and tagging it with {{editrequest}}. Creating duplicate template in such a manner is really not how things are done, so {{Allmovie name}} should be re-redirected, as should {{Allmovie title}}. I'll have another look at this tommorrow when I have more time. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thnx! I'll do that Real Soon Now! :-) — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've CSDed both. People want to discuss renaming the existing, fine, but just making new versions purely because they can't edit the existing one is no better than POV fork. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done … when the dust cleared, we were left with {{Amg name}} and {{Amg movie}} — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie vs Amg templates

Fellow editors …

There is duplication and confusion in names for the allmovie (previously All Movie Guide) family of templates … these examples show that there is no consensus for "Label name" versus "Label person", or for "Label title" versus "Label show" … these templates are virtually identical:

{{Amg name}} and {{Allmovie name}}
{{Amg movie}} and {{Allmovie title}}

However, some have clear instructions and examples, while others are not so easy to figure out, or have obsolete instructions and examples because the data base or URL format has changed.

I think that {{Allmovie person}} should redirect to {{Amg name}}, updated with the current documentation for {{Allmovie name}}, which should also be redirected there.

Can we reach a consensus on names and documentation?

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)}

 Done … when the dust cleared, we were left with {{Amg name}} and {{Amg movie}} — 138.88.91.205 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture

The article Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture underwent an AfD discussion which resulted in no consensus but the possibility of merging, and there is now discussion to merge. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I love that movie. Wildroot (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Academy Awards lists for film series

I noticed 84.196.123.161 (talk · contribs) and NWill (talk · contribs) adding lists of Oscar nominations and wins to Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) and Indiana Jones franchise. The only precedent I can think of for this is The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, but unlike those it is a bona fide major Oscar film, unlike most genre movies. Has anyone got any opinions? Should LOTR follow suit since it is just one award? Alientraveller (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* My observation is that given how the rest of these articles treat things such as critical response and box office on a holistic basis, to table out a list of Academy Awards and no other awards lends bias for the one award and excludes all others. Personally, I don't see it as neutral. I'd also add I'm not crazy about the table in the LoTR article either, although the LoTR article at least pays lip service to some other awards in text. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that award lists are appropriate for film series articles. Awards are not aggregated easily for comparison between films in a series, unlike critical reception where it can be seen in a brief form how films compared in being received. Box office information has brevity, too. Awards can't be compiled in such a condensed form, and I think mere counts lacks too much context. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying for the coordinator position

Hello, everyone! The coordinators who were elected recently expressed an interest in establishing a small threshold to be able to run for a coordinator position with WikiProject Films. This interest stems from a recurring situation in the past two elections in which a new editor, since indefinitely blocked on both occasions (the latter for sockpuppetry), attempted to game the system to become a coordinator. Thankfully, in both situations, while we assumed good faith as much as possible for the candidacies, we were able to determine that the candidacies were not with the best intentions. We propose a threshold of having 500 edits prior to the announcement of new elections, and we would like to know if this threshold is acceptable to the community. We do not think that this threshold affects viable candidates; we hope that this will deter novice editors who see the coordinator position as some claim to fame and power. I remind everyone there is no particular privilege bestowed upon a coordinator; those who become coordinators are those who oblige themselves a little more actively than others in discussions pertinent to WikiProject Films. Like WP:FILMC says, "Experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group." We will discuss topics at WT:FILMC, so anyone is welcome to visit and to weigh in about WikiProject-related issues. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

500 sounds a bit low to me. Otherwise, I like the idea of candidate requirements. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe have a combination of edits and number of days/months editing WP? Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems somewhat complicated to outline (and to assess of a candidate). What would you propose? I was thinking about keeping requirements minimal to be more in line with Wikipedia's approach of openness. Like I mentioned at WT:FILMC, we can self-police ourselves at elections by evaluating candidates' qualifications and asking them questions about the extent of their involvement with discussion or film-related articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the problem is big enough for us to have to do anything, but whatever we do we need to keep it simple: the idea is to deter newcomers with little or no editing experience, but we don't want the process to seem overly bureaucratic to the point where we start scaring others off. Alternatively, we might perhaps reserve the right to disqualify anyone who engages in such activities as canvassing, voting for themselves and abusing sock accounts, all of which occured in the recent election. PC78 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there a problem in the last election where newcomers wanted to act as coordinators? I would assume that any "lack of qualifications" would be brought up automatically by others during an election that we wouldn't need to have any hard set rules.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see this candidate and his sockpuppet investigation. Same editor ran around with sockpuppets. I guess we are being mildly reactive to the situation, which is why I don't want to pile on too many requirements. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We also had a very new editor who also threw her hat into the ring, but rather sensibly then withdrew when I and other editors questioned whether she thought it a good idea in proper context. While this was an optimal outcome, it generally is (in my experience) atypical, and best avoided through a simple requirement minimal enough to be surpassed by any significantly contributing editor, but stringent enough to avoid blatant inexperience, vote-stacking, sockpuppetry, etc. Something similar to the voting requirements for Foundation elections might be in order - 500 edits and 3 months. It is trivial to look at a contribution history, if need be, and determine qualification on these criteria in a matter of seconds. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Interesting. My assessment of that was the user seemed to be intentially gaming the system (even attempting to falsify information about their editing history *quick glance*). Has there ever been any serious contributors who were just too green really be able to handle the abilities, but attempted to get nominated? My opinion is that, "how can you assign a minimum to anything"? It's so arbituary. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the reasoning behind it, but I'd argue that you're not likely to find someone who is a "newb" get voted into a coordinator position by any other means but sockpuppetry. I saw that because, looking at the elections, you typically see a good portion of the same veteren editors (or almost veterns) assessing each candidate and weeding out anyone not particularly qualified enough. That's my assessment. I wouldn't oppose requirements, I'm just not sure how necessary they would be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The concern stems partially in the ratio of coordinators and slots. In the last election, we had more candidates than slots, but if we had nine slots instead of seven as proposed originally, there may have been unfavorable wins by default. I think this was a bigger issue with when Creamy3 was a candidate because there were more slots available than candidates. Thankfully, we did not have to deal with a post-election mess as Creamy3's intent was exposed, and after the election we co-opted Nehrams2020. (This was two terms ago, not the previous term.) So I don't know if we plan additional slots for the next election, but more slots than candidates basically defeats the purpose of a pool of editors supporting who they think is most qualified. Having this threshold to qualify helps address that, I think. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent and EC) In ideal conditions where the number of nominees clearly exceeds the number of positions, I would understand your rationale. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in any of the prior elections. Furthermore, a look at the records will indicate that there have been non-sock editors who - for reasons unclear, be it lack of research, excessive good faith, or who knows what else - have in fact voted for these candidates. This is a great concern when there may only be 8 candidates for 7 positions, or worse. In the case of the second election (IIRC), Creamy3 actually was technically voted in, but had been indef blocked just prior to the closing of the votes, and thus we were able to easily deal with the situation. It may not be so easy in the future. We can discuss the specifics of what the requirements should be, but I think there is a consensus that there needs to be something. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I was about to say pretty much the same as Erik; ultimately the best way to combat this issue is to get more people to stand for election and make it a genuine contest between favorable candidates. PC78 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Slumdog Millionaire

I would appreciate if I could get some opinons on the length and scope of sections dealing with criticism in the above article. To me, this looks as though severly undue weight is given to a minority view. WP:UNDUE states that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all". The film has received critical acclaim (94% fresh on RT) and numerous major and notable awards for it to have such an extensive amount of criticism coverage, especially when compared to the ever so brief section on "Praise". As a point of interest, one subsection of criticism contains an unreasonably extensive explanation of the improbability of the characters being able to speak English as clearly as they did in the film.

I was unaware that the film was considered controversial in any circles but, even if it is, I believe that the amount of criticism in that article needs to be drastically reduced in order to comply with WP:NPOV. A reader unfamiliar with the film may come across this article and get the incorrect impression that this was a notably controversial work and that the majority view agrees with that assertion.

I have no intention on deleting large chunks of text before getting second thoughts on how (in)correct I may be so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your concern with the article. Before we consider removing any material, I think we need to adjust the tone of the sections. I think that "Reactions from the Western world" could be expanded to include multiple significant viewpoints, since the section seems short. Secondly, I think that all reception-related sections need to be vetted for weasel wording. There are too many instances of "some" <people> throughout. For example, under "Criticism by filmmakers", it cites three Indian filmmakers' perspectives, so it should avoid the weasel wording of "some Indian filmmakers" and just represent these three filmmakers' views. Also, criticism-related wording needs to be revised to be more explicitly negative, because "film criticism" is either positive or negative. The word is erroneously seen as negative, so this should be cleaned up as well. I recommend starting discussion at Talk:Slumdog Millionaire, and I will cross-post my comments there so we don't have a full-fledged discussion of a specific film on this WikiProject talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th (franchise)

The Friday the 13th franchise article is up for FAC, please come voice your opinions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friday the 13th (franchise)/archive1. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The nomination has been archived as not promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Shane (film)

Persistent IP editors have been adding nonsense[6], inaccuracies [7], and absurdly long lists of trivia [8] to the article, and on the talk page one of these IPs has been spoofing me.[9]. Some more eyes on this article (and administrator action, if warranted), would be appreciated. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I watchlisted the article temporarily. If the matter persists, I recommend filing a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've alrady gone that route, and to AN/I, to no avail. It is frustrating that malicious and repeated vandalism(I'm referring to the Talk page stuff) goes on and that nothing is done to correcdt it. I'm now out of reverts in terms of fixing all the issues on this page, and as far as the talk page is concerned, well, I guess there will just be vandalism and spoofing there because no administrator can be found who will semi the talk page.(: Stetsonharry (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be some admins who watch this talk page... anyone able to review the situation and assess what can be done regarding protection? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see that two of the IPs have been blocked for 24 hrs, so hopefully this will rectify things. We shall see. Thanks. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Feature film

Feature film is a rather terrible article. Maybe someone wants to have a go at it? JACOPLANE • 2009-04-8 22:17

Categorizing according to nationality

If a director was born in Belgium but has become a naturalized American citizen, is he categorized as a Belgian or an American film director? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What does he consider himself to be or what is he referred to in reliable sources? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources I've found mention he was born in Belgium and is now a naturalized American citizen, but none describe him as either Belgian nor American. Unfortunately, I don't know him well enough to ask him what he considers himself. :) At present I have him generically categorized as a film director and theatre director, i.e., without specifying a nationality. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the film's he's done? Are they American or Belgian? A starting point, anyway. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking at WT:ACTOR, too, since filmmakers are in their scope. (I don't have a good answer myself.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He became a naturalized citizen in the 1950s, and all his work has been in the States. I'll follow Erik's suggestion and see if I get any feedback there. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can give you the greatest vacillating answer in the world. :) Some people would classify him as Belgian-American, while some would say something ambiguous such as "born in Belgium, he became an American citizen in 195x" or "is a Belgian born American director". There is a constant shift in language on Daniel Day-Lewis, since he's English born, but gained Irish citizenship in more recent years. Sometimes it reads as "a British actor", while some seem to detest and remove the description of British. Personally, I'd lean toward "an American film director, born in Belgium and naturalized in 195x..." or "is a Belgian born American director". This is one of those gray areas where one form of wording is probably as valid as another. I certainly hope that sheds light on it. [insert ambiguity icon here]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I described him as a Belgian-born naturalized American in the opening of the article. My question concerns the categories that are listed below the article. It is there that I'm unsure as to whether Belian or American apply. Sorry if I wasn't clearer about this in the first place. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across the article for Costa Gavras yesterday and noticed he was categorized in both the French and Greek film director categories. And when I created this category, I included both of his nationalities there too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You can have both nationalities, for example Michael Curtiz is listed both as an American and Hungarian director, but he was already an established director in Hungary and the rest of Europe before moving to America. Same with Miloš Forman who was a prominent director in Czechoslovakia before becoming American. But if all his films are made in America as an American citizen, I'd say he's only an American director. Put him as an American director and add him to Category:Belgian Americans. Smetanahue (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)