This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
It looks like the pedantic devotion to WikiP's spelling rules (I am thinking of the One Flew O(o)ver the Cuckoo's Nest case from several months ago) have effected a films page again. The Trey Parker/Matt Stone film BASEketball has been moved to Baseketball. The films credits, posters etc. use the upper case lettering for BASE. A search on the web does turn up a few instances where the "ase" are lower case but not many. I do know that when the film shows up on my cable TV the use the uppercase lettering in all of the information about its air times. As with the instance above (FUBAR) I think that this should probably be moved back. However if everyone else is okay with the move to lower case then I won't make a fuss about it. Just thought that I would get the filmprojects input. MarnetteD | Talk 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Although Nouse4aname is correct that the applicable term would be trademark, neither copyright nor trademark is applicable here. Titles can never be copyrighted - even if the title is novel or unique. Film titles can be protected under trademark law -- but only when they become a series. One-shot titles are not protected under trademark law. So that issue is irrelevant. The problem I find is that the naming guidelines on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) don't address the issue of the oddball title. The guidelines at WP:NC do indicate that a article which uses a title should follow standard English (as was stated with the Invader ZIM example). My own preference would be to use the film title commonly written in source materials. And doing a quick search of article reviews, I saw that an occasional review (e.g., NY Times) used the lower case "Baseketball," but the vast majority of reviews (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Variety, etc.) used the "BASEketball." However, either way, BASEketball or Baseketball, the issue isn't very critical since redirects allow readers to find the article using either spelling. And the article uses the common usage title throughout the text. — CactusWriter | needles 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, some people made a film. They called it "BASEketball". Period. Over. Done. Go write an article or something and stop wasting everyone's time with this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to stir it up but the page was moved four years ago, and stayed like that for four years, there was no consensus to move it, so the move back is just a revert. If you want it moved you need to gain consensus for the move. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And I thought this discussion had been concluded - finally. But I'll state a position one final time. The lone objecting voice here keeps citing
WP:MOSTM, even though it clearly states at the top of the page Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. It further states that
some exceptions (like eBay and iPod) can depart from standard written English because of consensus. In
BASEketball, common sense and consensus have been exercised. The term is used because: 1) of use in numerous reliable sources, e.g.
LA Times,
Chicago Sun Times,
Washington Post.
Entertainment Weekly,
Variety and even
Califonia Supreme Court documents (page 10)] by the
WGA.; 2) It has been used in WP for the four years by the consensus of dozens of editors working on the article; and 3) The consensus of editors in this discussion. Clearly, consensus has been reached. This is not the death knell of the English language. Please use some common sense and move on. —
CactusWriter |
needles 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am proposing adding a "Marketing" component to MOS:FILM. Please see discussion here. Thanks! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else please have a look at this article? The sole cited source (indeed, the only source I could find from a Google search) describes the film only as a documentary, not propaganda - not surprisingly, of course, as the source is a North Korean news agency. While the film may well constitute propaganda to a Western audience, I'm a little concerned that labelling it as such is original research.
Also, the source mentions no year for the film; does it seem obvious that this is a "2008 film" from the context of the article? Cheers! PC78 ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. There are lots of articles in Category:Canadian cinema task force articles, but with a lot of them I just can't see the relation to Canadian cinema. What do Evolution (film), I, Robot (film) or Jersey Girl (2004 film) have to do with Canadian cinema, for example? -- Conti| ✉ 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The Film project's topic workshop is now running. Its purpose is to facilitate the production of good and featured topics, and everyone is free to propose topics to work on and sign up to work on existing topics. Even if you feel that your potential topic is very difficult, or don't feel that the topic is viable, feel free to propose it. The whole purpose of the workshop is to give proper visibility to potential topics. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking this reads more like a film student's thesis than an encyclopedia article? Nothing in the Background, Production, and Themes sections is referenced and much of it sounds like POV rather than factual information. I'm willing to work on it if others agree with me. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me if "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section are supposed to be references and, if so, how do you interpret them? Also, what does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is an odd situation at Talk:Milk (film). A discussion about the "meaning" of the film title keeps getting restored, and I don't think that it is a discussion of good faith, considering that the film is named after the protagonist. Can a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
A request was raised at {{ Future film}} about a parameter for differentiating between article and section. Just wanted to bring up the request here to attract more eyes and maybe some useful ideas. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
An unusual circumstance has arisen whereby The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a film abandoned by Terry Gilliam in 2000 and which satisfied general notability (largely due to the catalogue of mishaps that dogged its short production, and the documentary Lost in La Mancha), is now supposedly going to start up again. If this is the case, we will have two independently notable productions here; one completed, one not. An editor has substantially rewritten the above article to concentrate on the new production (whereas it used to look like this). I'm not sure I agree with that. As these are two separate productions ("The film will be reshot completely"), my own feeling is that we should have two separate articles, but I wanted to get some more input before touching it either way. Steve T • C 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I know it has been established that IMDb is unreliable, however, is this the same for their award sections? On Veronica Mars, there are several awards which are very hard to find, and IMDb is used to source them. The page is getting prepped for FAC, so I was wondering if the site would be accepted as a reliable source for awards. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(out)Would someone please point me to the reliable source that supports the statement that "it has been established that IMDB is not a reliable source"? Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Another question, what is the norm for awards? Do we write them under the year they were presented, or under the year they were for, e.g. the Saturn Awards for 2004 were present in 2005. Thus, under which year should I write them? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of categories, especially Category:Action films, are being removed from articles if categories such as Category: Adventure films amd Category: Western films are present. Although I can see the reasoning, those do not seem to be children of the Action films category. In one case, Spy Smasher (serial), both Action and Adventure categories were removed in favour of Category:Thriller films (Adventure wasn't appropriate for this film but then Thriller isn't either). I haven't found any guidance elsewhere, so can someone suggest when and where the Action category, and related categories, are appropriate? - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Are links to official trailers on youtube allowed? Mjpresson ( talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So you are now claiming that even if wikipedia has external links to other sites which provide a muc needed video clip we are somehow responsible for copyright elsewhere too? Thats the most copyright paranoic comment I've ever heard. Its absurd. Its like claiming that for a biographical article where there is only an external link to a general biography of that individual on a different site that there are copyright problems. YouTube clip or trailer links are frequently of major benefit to understanding films, particularly when you haven't seen the films, particularly as they are not permitted on our site. How can it possibly affect the wikipedia site? Isn't this policing going a bit far to the point that it is affecting the actual enjoyment and understanding of the subject by taking away virtually all the forms of related media we have? Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I figured Erik you didn't make it up, it wasn't specifically directed at you, rather the principle that we can somehow be held prosecutable for content on other websites. In reality I think its more about reputation that we don't want to be associated with copyright violations and non-free content rather than any legitimate claim to be actually violating law on the wiki site. I find this rather extreme, to say the least, and somewhat subjective and in regards to films video clips and images of a film is essential content and media. So under this copyright criteria, do you think it appropriate to remove any external links that may perahps have images of an actor or film which are copyrighted and not owned by the film company. Sorry I'm finding this rather odd. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree and am also aware of this. Where possible we should link to the best websites or "official" sources as much as possible rather than shady blogs or photobuckets. It will inevitably though be difficult to impose a mandatory ban on links to youtube for film articles, whoever uploaded them. Where possible I think "official" film trailers issued by the companies on their webistes is appropriate but this is not always possible, particularly for old films which are not quite public domain. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the more relevant question: why do we need to link to trailers? Surely an official site link is enough, unless the trailer itself is part of a critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about if there isn't an official site available and for articles where the trailers on youtube provide an essential part of the puzzle so to speak if it is discussed in the article or improves understanding of it further. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
A myriad of articles on individual Our Gang ( Little Rascals) shorts are currently a mess of POV, copyvios, and bad formatting. I am requesting assistance from other editors because we're talking about well over a hundred bad articles. Anyone wanting to help can go to Our Gang filmography - every article on an Our Gang short made from 1929 to 1944 needs to be reviewed and likely cleaned up or rewritten. I've already reviewed and revised Small Talk, Railroadin', Came the Brawn, and Unexpected Riches, and am currently working on the articles for other Our Gangs made in 1929. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. WP:Films has been known as a a relatively big project that has produced a tremendous amount of quality input, and explicitly rejected the introduction of C-class. Could the coordinators from this project (as well as other members, particularly those who are involved in assessment) please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles?
Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is at FAC here, in case you didn't see it, and is somewhat stalled, so more attention would be nice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have started a thread here to check if Filmfare Awards can be made recurring items on ITN as Grammy Awards & Academy Awards. Please pen down your thoughts. -- GPPande talk! 10:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Relax, this one is not about IMDb :-) Actually, I came here for some help. I realize things relating to Veronica Mars should be posted under WikiProject Films, it's just that you guys are so nice and helpful. Anyways, I have begun working on a season page (here: User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2), but I cannot figure out which awards are for which season of the series. Are all awards for 2006 handed out in 2007? Or is that only for some awards? I am confused, so some help would be nice. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Are Breakout (film) and Break Out (film) sufficiently ambiguous, or should they be disambiguated by year as well? PC78 ( talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
They're fine, but there should probably be a "This is the page...for this see that" at the top of the page, given that someone could easily mistaken one title for the other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This list is in dire need of a cleanup, if anyone here feels like tackling it. Despite the title, there seem to be an awful lot of cartoons in there. PC78 ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list of online review sites that are generally accepted as credible for use in discussing the critical and popular reception of a film? Otto4711 ( talk) 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome any input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There was some discussion here regarding the "country" parameter in {{ Infobox Film}}, specifically about the removal of generic links (such as United States) per WP:OVERLINK and the use of templates such as {{ FilmUS}}. It was suggested that piped links to a country's "Cinema of..." article (i.e. [[Cinema of the United States|United States]]) might provide a better alternative, and Giro put forward the idea of having the infobox do this automatically, much like it currently does with the "langauge" parameter.
To that end I have written the necessary code to handle this, and have a
working test version of the infobox in my userspace. Any raw country names entered into the infobox will automatically be rendered as a piped link, i.e. entering country = usa
(or similar) will display as
United States. I've set up the template to recognize most country names, certainly all those for which we have at least some film-related content; anything not recognized by the template will be ignored and displayed as is, meaning that existing articles won't be broken.
There are a few finer details to consider, namely:
But primarily we need to establish whether or not people think this is something worth adding to the infobox. PC78 ( talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point but again one of those proposals which are not really essential. Remember though that often the Cinema is linked in a template or at the beginning of the text in the article e.g The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a 1966 [Cinema of Italy|Italian] western film etc. Technically if you were to make the change it should be "Industry" rather than Country as it would look odd a Cinema of being labelled as a "country" even if it hiddne using pop ups. Whatever the case it should be made consistent, as with adding the Americanfilm template to the articles we agreed on for consistency. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#switch
parser, it's trivial to add new instances where we have omissions (as well as a tracking category for anything which falls into the switch default, in order to look for these omissions, as well as typing errors).(outdent) A couple of categorization issues I forsee (off the top of my head) are with Category:German films, where besides East and West Germany you also have seperate categories for the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, and also Category:Soviet-era Estonian films. The problem is not so much with obsolete countries, but with specific eras and regions within a country. With regards to redlinks and redirects, I have the following in the template:
PC78 ( talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've gone back and done some more work on this, implementing some of the things discussed above. I've added the appropriate categories for each country, as well as a tracking category for those articles which don't use this feature. Other changes are:
Does all of that sound OK, or is there anything that needs tweaking or changing? PC78 ( talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this appears to be a category for films about Tibet rather than films from Tibet, I have proposed renaming it to Category:Films about Tibet at CfD. Discussion is here should anyone wish to offer an opinion. PC78 ( talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on over at Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I am asserting that because the Canadian poster is far more recognizable to both US and Canadian movie goers while the US poster is only recognizable to US movie goers, it should be changed to reflect this, while there is opposition to this, arguing that because it is a US film, it should be used. Discussion can be found here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the article 2009 in film considered a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules would be greatly appriciated. 24.12.234.123 ( talk) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Do reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic really hold significance? Please see Old Joy. Zigzig20s ( talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
A user has been stonewalling progress in removing unsourced fancruft from Dr. Strangelove. Here is my preferred version, here is the version it has been reverted to. It would be great to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks in advance. -- John ( talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In other words, this conversation is premature at the moment. It might be applicable if no consensus can be reached about specific items, or if I actually "stonewall" a deletion or John "stonewalls" a item continuing on the list, but we ain't there yet.
John, the ball is in your court, and if you can manage to have the discussion in a civil way, without warping what's been said so that it favors your position, as you are prone to do, I would appreciate it. That means that something isn't "fancruft" until it is agreed by the participants that it's fancruft, and an editor isn't "stonewalling" until they actually refuse to discuss things.
Over to you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a something that has come up in recent converstation by an IP address and he does have some valid points. Here goes:
Why don't plot and cast need citations? If imdb isn't considered a reliable source why are there two links to it in articles. Isn't this hypocritical (that we have two links to it but are prohibited from using it as an official reference)? When I want to verify if someone was in a movie, I use IMDB, or Wikipedia. Or if I want to see what the movie was about, I use those two sources. Verification for cast and plot goes back to IMDB usually.
For example, theoretically one could have been the first one to make an entry about Biwi No.1, and then claim that Raj Kapoor was in this movie and then bitch and moan about anyone who tried to change the article to indicate otherwise because apparently the burden of proof is on the other person to show the creator of the entry that Raj Kapoor WAS NOT in this movie. And it's not easy to verify such information without resorting to IMDB. How do you propose we do something about this paradox? 64.154.26.251 ( talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody could elaborate further and explain this more fully Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
<ref>''Fight Club'' (20th Century Fox, 1999), directed by David Fincher, starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter.</ref>
but that information is already pretty much there in the article. Films also have credits to identify the roles so cast sections can be written based on them. It would be a good idea to cross-reference names with IMDb and elsewhere, such as Film Index International. For the example about Biwi No. 1 and Raj Kapoor, is it not possible to find another source? I mean, if it is verifiable, it should have been reported elsewhere. Remember that film articles do not have to use online sources; if you can cite a reliable print publication, it would be sufficient. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008
I think that's specious reasoning. When you say "in theory" plot elements can be verified, what does that mean? Here I am claiming that at the end of Jaws, we find out the shark is actually a dolphin. I've created the entry for "Jaws" and I put this in the page. And then when someone tries to correct me, I say, show me a reference that says it's not true. The argument from the other person like "Dude, come on, anyone who's seen the movie knows this" falls flat on its face because it's not verifiable directly. Now unless some of the higher level editors get involved and basically lock up the page, I'll keep claiming that I'm right about the dolphin theory. Instead, how about we accept that IMBD is a credible source. Even newspapers publish retractions and the Encyclopedia Britannica has been shown to be wrong on occasion (citation needed?). So why can't we accept IMDB, which has a group of people actually vetting the information, as a reliable source? 64.154.26.251 ( talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
64.154.26.251, you have to accept that the imdb is not seen by WP as a reliable enough source. If you want to claim that Jaws was a dolphin feel free to do that, then watch as fifty editors fight to revert you and you end up blocked for 3RR. In addition to the fact that imdb isn't reliable there is also the fact that we work by consensus, and as it is a fact that Jaws is a shark the consensus on the page for Jaws will keep that fact in, whereas if you try to change it to something that is patently false then others will revert you and you will end up blocked for vandalism. WP is not a free for all, there are rules, this is not 'Nam. You can try to be cavalier with facts but you will be found out. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
In working on the article Bride Service (film), I learned that there were 13 other stub articles for films by ethnographic filmmaker Tim Asch. At the AfD for Bride Service (film), it was suggested that any pertinant information for Bride Service (film) be merged into the Timothy Asch parent article. This would have made sense for one article... but not for all 14. I then realized that Wiki would be better served if all 14 stubs were combined into the one article List of Timothy Asch films, so I did just that... moving all the stubs, their comments and informations, their sourcing and their images to List of Timothy Asch films. Nothing is lost. However, I now request that these additional 13 stubs be deleted and have redirects set to the list article, as all their informations (terse though they were) are now included in that one article. There is no need for the 13 remaining stubs. Absolutely nothing is lost and Wiki is improved. These 13 are Dodoth Morning, The Feast, Yanomamo: A Multidisciplinary Study, Ocamo Is My Town, Arrow Game, Weeding the Garden, A Father Washes His Children, A Man and His Wife Weave a Hammock, Magical Death, The Ax Fight, A Man Called "Bee": Studying the Yanomamo, A Balinese Trance Seance, and A Celebration of Origins. I have not yet gained the skills to do this myself, and was advised by User:PC78 to bring it to Film talk. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Start date template about needing to use {{ Start date}} in {{ Infobox Film}}. Since this has systemic implications, I thought it would be relevant to bring this before the community for any clarification that may be needed. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This character list is currently up for AfD. I think it would be good to get further input as, if kept, I believe it will set a strong precedent for any single film to have a separate character list that repeats the plot of the film, which currently goes against existing project guidelines and methodology. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Slumdog Millionaire is a film by Danny Boyle, and from what I can tell from the press lately, it is a high contender for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I think it might be the first such contender as I have not seen talk about any other films, and it ranks quite highly on Rotten Tomatoes (a good sign). I had been developing the article before it really had any press, and since then, it's fallen by the wayside. I am a little too occupied with real life these days to do some serious article-building, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping out. Simply looking up "slumdog millionaire" on Google News Search now will get some worthwhile results, such as LA Times. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In Oldboy I am trying to make the main poster the Korean poster, since the film is from Korea. Another user is trying to make it the American poster. I have looked at numerous foreign film articles, and the majority of them all have the original poster from the country of it's origin. Adding an American poster for the article about a Korean film is like adding a French poster to the article for an American one.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Original posters from the country of origin should always be always be used where possible. I'm constantly having to revert people who add different lanaguage DVD covers to original theatrical posters Count Blofeld 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get the information how TCM works —Preceding unsigned comment added by I456.376.982 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This AfD could really use some comments. Its been relisted three times so far because of a lack of attention. Since it deals with future film, input from the film project would be especially useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For info, I've requested a bot to do this. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Over a year ago, an attempt was made to set a policy on the situations in which IMDb could be used as a reliable source (if any). The discussion is here WP:CIMDB. A heated debate on this has just started up again. Anyone wanting to contribute is invited to do so: here. GDallimore ( Talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If anyone isn't sick of the external link discussions as of late, see discussion about The Mummy including links like IMDb, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this level of subcategorization truly necessary? Category:2000s horror films doesn't seem to be that huge to the extent where it needs splitting further by year, but perhaps others feel differently? PC78 ( talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Done; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 20, should anyone care to give comment. PC78 ( talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't go further than be decade. Count Blofeld 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently reviewing Batman (film series) for GA status. Anything that you can do to help make the article even better is appreciated. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it frustrating when out of habit I click the bottom of the infobox and finding it not there. For exceptionally long articles it means scrolling down the entire page. Did nobody consider that not every editor always added two imdb links. so many articles we have like Pran Jaye Par Vachan Na Jaye which had the imdb link in the infobox, they are no longer connected to it. I'm not exactly over the moon with the change. Count Blofeld 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd hate for anybody to do it manually, they would be here until Christmas 2009. It is a must for a bot to do it I think. At times we could sure use a FilmBot operated by our project to run repetitive tasks whether it be stub sorting, infobox/nav box adding, category changes or link changes. Count Blofeld 14:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"plenty of consensus"? The RfC wasn't even closed at the time and there were a number of editors in the original discussion who disagreed with the idea. That was the reason the claimed consensus was rejected rightfully first time as it should have been during the second attempt if the admin only had bothered to look at the discussion. If it was only me who disagrees with the removal, and most importantly the way it was pulled off, I'd be happy to have no business with the whole thing any longer. -- Termer ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well to be honest I really didn't have the chance to offer my thoughts on it as I was busy editing elsewhere. Its not a major cause for concern and I see the arguments against two imdb links yes which doesn seem a little redundant. But me personally if I had the choice I'd keep the imdb and amg links in the infobox. Count Blofeld 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
not this thread nor any of the Infobox&IMDb related threads @ Template_talk:Infobox_Film have been started up by me therefore how can you say that it's only you who keeps going on about this. And again, me pointing out that there was no consensus [15] was confirmed after reading the discussion by Edokter. Since then nothing has changed other than the discussion has gone in circles and in one loop the links were removed by another such a "consensus report". Sorry that you feel my comments being unconstructive, that's fine if you thinks so. At the same time I think that the whole case of removing the links from infobox have been unconstructive that has not helped to improve WP in any way.-- Termer ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Last month, I started a discussion about adding a "Marketing" component to the style guidelines here. Discussion has slowed down since, I would like to "bump" it and see if other editors could share their thoughts about what should be included or not. In particular, I would like to see about merging "Tagline" into "Marketing"... so please chip in at the discussion on the style guidelines' talk page! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
An image of a theater marquee showing the title of Beverly Hills Chihuahua has been added to its article. Though it is a free image, I removed it as being purely decorative. Another editor disagrees, claiming that because it is free, such guidelines don't apply. I have started a discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills Chihuahua#Theater Image. Additional views would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Film Noir of the Week is written by film noir experts about film noir. The articles are written by published film noir writers. Some are college professors; and just about anyone that has done an audio commentary on noir DVDs have contributed to the website.
For example:
William Hare http://books.google.com/books?id=KAMpUVy8X94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+hare+film+noir http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1qRwXs4tUC&pg=PT1&dq=william+hare+film+noir
And has written articles on my web page for The Killers, Vertigo, and Hangover Square to name a few.
Eddie Muller http://books.google.com/books?id=iQwy1Ug_eQoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eddie+muller+film+noir Has written an article on NOTW on The Big Heat
Andrew Spicer is a college professor and wrote a three part series on British Noir.
Alain Silver co-wrote The Encyclopedia of Film Noir and is a regular contributor to DVD film noir commentaries.
Ed Sikov has written a number of books on film noir and film including , On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder and Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the 1950s. He wrote an article on Sunset Blvd on NOTW. He recently can be heard doing the audio commentary for the newly released Sunset Blvd. DVD.
There are many more published writers as well as some that use "handles" instead of their actual names but are usually involved in the film noir community (members of the Film Noir foundation, bloggers for Out of the Past film noir podcast for example).
The following were considered when posting an external link
For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. I feel that NOTW qualifies
Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). I feel NOTW qualifies. This isn't a blog written by one person (it's not written by myself, however I am an authority on the subject of noir. I lecture and publish print articles on the subject)
Now these external links have been up for years in some cases. Two editors in paticular have decided that these links do not meet with Wikipedia guidlines and dozens of external links have been removed. I began to restore them only to have them removed again. What's the consensous? Can they stay or go? Steve-O ( talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Yes, it is a conflict of interest. An external link does not need an editor's name on it for there to be a conflict of interest. Some editors can solicit their friends' websites; others can solicit reviews from their favorite film critics. These websites could have useful content, but we have to exercise caution and make sure that the agenda is solely to "spread free knowledge". If someone has a vested interest in disseminating their website, especially indiscriminately, then discussion needs to take place about the merits of the website. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and while there are many useful links out there, we try to use them to substantiate the article, not to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If other editors can review the website and objectively say that it is useful, then it could be used where it benefits the readership. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, all editors should acknowledge that once an edit is disputed, reverting it is edit warring, and if there's been a call for discussion, WP:BRD requires that the editor engage in discussion on the talk page or in a centralized place, such as here, and not communicate through edit summaries about the disputed edits. The article should remain in the status quo ante as regards the disputed edits until the discussion has either reached consensus, or a previous consensus has been shown to be applicable. In this case, neither of these things has occured: there is clearly no consensus here, and no previous discussion has been cited which reached an applicable consensus.
Further, this is not a situation where the project is harmed by leaving the links in place while the discussion goes on, so there's no immediate need for their removal while a consensus is reached. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PS. And as long as the site in general is good enough for guys like William Hare, Eddie Muller, Alain Silver, Ed Sikov who do contribute to it, the site is good enough for me including it pr WP:EL as a site of reviews on relevant films.-- Termer ( talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To me it looks like self promotion. WP:EL treats "blogs" and "personal web pages" as the same thing; there's no special distinction Count Blofeld 11:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a closer link at the reviews provided by the website:
I could go further, but judging from what I've looked at so far, only one person seems to be an authority in the review (Spencer Selby), and that was after a Google search. Per WP:ELNO's #11, most of these reviews are not by recognized authorities. Termer is also wrong about the lack of promotion. Steve-O clearly has his name attached to a number of reviews, and this was just scratching the surface. I will be removing these reviews except for Spencer Selby's. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a future release any more. I saw it last night at a cinema... I don't know how to change the WP assessment info. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know what has happened to the List of documentaries category by country? I have just noticed it has disappeared (turned to a red link).-- intraining Jack In 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've outlined an agenda to improve style guidelines. It includes points for future discussion. If you have any ideas about where the style guidelines could be tweaked or what could be added to it, feel free to pitch in. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would really like someones opinion regarding this List of documentary films. I have some questions that have been kind of bothering me.
Well that is it for now any impute would be greatly appreciated.-- intraining Jack In 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please have a quick look here? We're having a discussion about whether the "List of film noir" needs to be moved for grammatical reasons. I'm arguing it does because it lists many films (= plural). While film noir can be used in singular as a genre, the meaning of the list title is different (plural, refering to single films). One user wants to keep it on the singular, ... and then there is some disagreement about the correct plural.
Maybe you could simply come by, tell us what you think and thereby solve this discussion? Hey, you'd be our hero!! :o) And the more, the merrier... Thanks!!!!! -- Ibn Battuta ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since films is the project that would be most affected by this, it should be noted that there is are several on-going discussion regarding whether IMDB should be a citable source or not at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I realize this page is not intended to be a forum used to discuss specific films, so if anyone who is familiar with The Hours (I probably have seen it a dozen times or so) is interested in discussing the ending of the DVD version of the film, please contact me at my talk page. Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Disney Movie Rewards?! What do other users think? I would take it straight to AFD, but I feel I might be missing the (reward) point... Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Buena Vista Worldwide Home Entertainment is linking its Disney Movie Rewards program to the new Walt Disney Pictures release "Meet the Robinsons," the division's first-ever theatrical tie-in.
Members of the loyalty program, which rewards buyers of Disney DVDs, can now earn additional "points" by mailing in their ticket stubs from the movie. The more than 700,000 consumers who have joined the program since its October launch collect points, generally by buying DVDs, and then can redeem them for merchandise and digital products. Typical prizes include DVDs, games, books and collectibles.
"We always strive for ways to innovate the home entertainment industry and add value for the loyal fan base who love our DVDs," said Gabrielle Chamberlin, senior vp marketing, North America, for Buena Vista. She said Disney Movie Rewards "drives interest in our (DVD) releases and rewards members with things ... that only Disney can bring."
Direct link for ease: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Movie Rewards. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I now know how I found that article in the first place - it formed a category of all things to group some films together! I've listed it at CFD here. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Just an opinion, but if any photograph of a reel is going to be used to represent film, I would advise it being a 35mm reel, since that is the format for which the majority of professional films are made. The Photoplayer 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If anything, I prefer the present image. Simple, clean, and effective. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 10:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember me? The guy who wrote two GAs about Singaporean movies ( I Not Stupid and Homerun)? I have written a third GA-to-be: I Not Stupid Too. The article is currently on peer review; members of this WikiProject are invited to review the article. Any and all feedback is appreciated. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 09:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on the article for the film Hancock. I was wondering if anyone owned the DVD or Blu-ray disc? If so, would you want to help me out by jotting down anything useful from the featurettes so they could be implemented into the article? I think I could get my hands on the DVD eventually, but the Blu-ray disc also had two additional featurettes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought some people might be interested in this. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have run up against an editor who wishes to include trilogies that do not yet exist or which may never exist. As I do not want to run up against 3RR I would appreciate some fresh eyes on this. User:Happy Evil Dude wishes to count the new Batman films (2005), Ghostbusters and xXx as trilogies despite there being no third film. He wants to frame the last two Bond films and a future film as a trilogy (despite Daniel Craig stating yesterday that there is no Bond film in his current future plans). He wants to include the Chronicles of Riddick and two unmade sequels as a trilogy, along with Transformers (which has yet to get to two films). Also of contention is the French Connection which despite having the roman II in its sequel he wishes to label as a trilogy. I know some hate lists like this (as they will never be complete) but I feel that to stop these things from filling with OR that a clear criteria must be adhered to, and films which may have a second or third film made cannot be included. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor in question rolled past 3RR and I have warned him and he appears to be holding off on re-adding. For the moment the matter appears settled. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Scartol has significantly improved the Wikipedia article for Barton Fink and aims to get it promoted to Featured Article status. He has requested a peer review, and I invite all interested editors to share their thoughts on shaping the article for the better. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Date Movie is given a B class rating. The article doesn't contain a single reference, the plot is way too long, and there's a lot of unnecessary details. Mjpresson ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently editing the List of documentary films over here to hopefully become a FL one day. I would like to know if anyone can help me out in writing the Opening paragraph(s). The opening paragraph is very important in lists so if more people that can provide their skills I think it will turn out better.-- intraining Jack In 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I would completely avoid an A-Z list. It is best organised by year and fits in with all our lists by country and all the other genres. If you are developing it I would strongly advise to organise by year and split by decade. The Bald One White cat 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Dgoldwas, who created SoundtrackNet and ScoringSessons.com, is adding information about scoring sessions and links to his website to numerous articles. Is this information usually considered a legitimate part of film articles? I don't recall seeing it except in those articles where he's adding it, and I'm wondering if this borders on self-promotion. Any thoughts? Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Some statistics: Soundtrack.Net is linked at 307 pages (not all articles) and ScoringSessions.com is linked at 76 pages (mostly articles here). I do not think it is bad to have information about how a film was scored and where it was scored. It seems more of a concern that the ELs include reviews by the editor himself, and I am not sure if he has established authority to make his reviews count either as a reference or as an external link. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above refers to a strain on the Wikipedia servers. Maybe some of it is due to the existence of templates like Template:David Frankel with only three credits and Template:Sam Mendes Films with only four. Shouldn't a director (or any individual, for that matter) have a sizable body of work before warranting a template? Thanks for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps restoring The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader even though filming was not able to begin in October 2008 and may begin filming in early 2009. Can others take a look? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader now redirects to a section of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is the article about the book. I agree with Eric that a film article shouldn't be created until filming has begun. Imagine if articles about films like Evita or the remake of The Women had been created the moment it was announced they were going to be made - it would have taken 10+ years' worth of updates before they finally were accurate! :) LiteraryMaven ( talk) 18:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who are interested and may have missed it, a proposal has been made to increase the width of the infobox. Discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Film#Width!. PC78 ( talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's that time of the year again... there are a lot of awards and nominations popping up, and it is pretty impressive to see anonymous IPs come out of the woodworks to make these (admittedly easy and unchallenged) additions. I was wondering, though, what other editors thought of how to best present such detail. When I look at the articles for films who have been gathering plenty of accolades, there is excessive white space in the related sections. Some examples: Slumdog Millionaire#Awards & nominations, Milk (film)#Awards and nominations, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film)#Awards and nominations. It is worth noting that while Milk has the most listed, it uses a collapsible section. Do we need a way to standardize the presentation or at least come up with some best practices? For example, we can encourage conversion to prose, either now to perhaps redirect the trend or after the awards season when the articles are a little quieter. We could also pursue a table design that could accommodate awards and nominations better and fill the extra white space. Thoughts on this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I have a bit of a problem visualizing the independent lists of submissions for awards to a section in an article for a specific film, and it wasn't the use of green/red won/lost templates that I was objecting to as much as it the whole concept of color coding wins and losses. Having said that, allow me to withdraw my suggestion of something different than the same-old, same-old, or suggesting some congruence with a project than deals with the people who make films. This would be why I have not tried to become more active in this project. My experience has been that the opinions of those not a coordinator get dismissed fairly quickly. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie ( talk · contribs) put this together for awards from Shakespeare in Love. It combines the wins and nominations under a group of awards, and each group of awards is separated by a bold line. What do other editors think? A few points to ponder... how should we handle references for awards? For something like the Academy Awards' Best Picture winner, it is likely to go unchallenged, though, for smaller awards, readers may seek references. I think that we should go ahead and back everything with references anyway, but how should it be presented? Next to the general award name? As a separate "Ref." column? Also, for "Category", does anyone have a preference whether to have the full title like "Academy Award for..." or not? Lastly, regardless of how we figure out these points, I think one flexibility that should be given is for the colors, though we can say to keep it neutral or light. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I get lost trying to find the various comments from above (blame vision disability), so I'll just make a couple general comments. If the tabling is done correctly (and presumably by whatever guidelines are written), then wins and nominations should be separated within each award category. The references would simply have to be dependent on whatever is available, if it available as a combined source, great, if nominees and winners are separate, then the references would have to be adapted. I would think it would be simple enough to state that ideally, wins and nominations should be referenced from a single source when possible. I did think that at some point, most had agreed that color coding win/nominations (the actors hate being called losers, so why should we?) was disliked. Maybe I misread it. Color would further complicate the coding. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I see things have moved on a bit today, so I'll try and throw in my 2¢ for the various points that have been raised. :)
rowspan
. With that in mind, I'd prefer to keep the tables unsortable for aesthetic reasons.rowspan
to eliminate the unnecessary duplication of references. No reason why all awards shouldn't be referenced, but I think we're all in agreement there.class=wikitable
. Beyond that I don't think it's something we need to comment on one way or another, though we might actively discourage the use of red and green in the "Outcome" column.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
It looks like the pedantic devotion to WikiP's spelling rules (I am thinking of the One Flew O(o)ver the Cuckoo's Nest case from several months ago) have effected a films page again. The Trey Parker/Matt Stone film BASEketball has been moved to Baseketball. The films credits, posters etc. use the upper case lettering for BASE. A search on the web does turn up a few instances where the "ase" are lower case but not many. I do know that when the film shows up on my cable TV the use the uppercase lettering in all of the information about its air times. As with the instance above (FUBAR) I think that this should probably be moved back. However if everyone else is okay with the move to lower case then I won't make a fuss about it. Just thought that I would get the filmprojects input. MarnetteD | Talk 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Although Nouse4aname is correct that the applicable term would be trademark, neither copyright nor trademark is applicable here. Titles can never be copyrighted - even if the title is novel or unique. Film titles can be protected under trademark law -- but only when they become a series. One-shot titles are not protected under trademark law. So that issue is irrelevant. The problem I find is that the naming guidelines on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) don't address the issue of the oddball title. The guidelines at WP:NC do indicate that a article which uses a title should follow standard English (as was stated with the Invader ZIM example). My own preference would be to use the film title commonly written in source materials. And doing a quick search of article reviews, I saw that an occasional review (e.g., NY Times) used the lower case "Baseketball," but the vast majority of reviews (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Variety, etc.) used the "BASEketball." However, either way, BASEketball or Baseketball, the issue isn't very critical since redirects allow readers to find the article using either spelling. And the article uses the common usage title throughout the text. — CactusWriter | needles 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, some people made a film. They called it "BASEketball". Period. Over. Done. Go write an article or something and stop wasting everyone's time with this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to stir it up but the page was moved four years ago, and stayed like that for four years, there was no consensus to move it, so the move back is just a revert. If you want it moved you need to gain consensus for the move. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And I thought this discussion had been concluded - finally. But I'll state a position one final time. The lone objecting voice here keeps citing
WP:MOSTM, even though it clearly states at the top of the page Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. It further states that
some exceptions (like eBay and iPod) can depart from standard written English because of consensus. In
BASEketball, common sense and consensus have been exercised. The term is used because: 1) of use in numerous reliable sources, e.g.
LA Times,
Chicago Sun Times,
Washington Post.
Entertainment Weekly,
Variety and even
Califonia Supreme Court documents (page 10)] by the
WGA.; 2) It has been used in WP for the four years by the consensus of dozens of editors working on the article; and 3) The consensus of editors in this discussion. Clearly, consensus has been reached. This is not the death knell of the English language. Please use some common sense and move on. —
CactusWriter |
needles 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am proposing adding a "Marketing" component to MOS:FILM. Please see discussion here. Thanks! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else please have a look at this article? The sole cited source (indeed, the only source I could find from a Google search) describes the film only as a documentary, not propaganda - not surprisingly, of course, as the source is a North Korean news agency. While the film may well constitute propaganda to a Western audience, I'm a little concerned that labelling it as such is original research.
Also, the source mentions no year for the film; does it seem obvious that this is a "2008 film" from the context of the article? Cheers! PC78 ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. There are lots of articles in Category:Canadian cinema task force articles, but with a lot of them I just can't see the relation to Canadian cinema. What do Evolution (film), I, Robot (film) or Jersey Girl (2004 film) have to do with Canadian cinema, for example? -- Conti| ✉ 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The Film project's topic workshop is now running. Its purpose is to facilitate the production of good and featured topics, and everyone is free to propose topics to work on and sign up to work on existing topics. Even if you feel that your potential topic is very difficult, or don't feel that the topic is viable, feel free to propose it. The whole purpose of the workshop is to give proper visibility to potential topics. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking this reads more like a film student's thesis than an encyclopedia article? Nothing in the Background, Production, and Themes sections is referenced and much of it sounds like POV rather than factual information. I'm willing to work on it if others agree with me. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me if "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section are supposed to be references and, if so, how do you interpret them? Also, what does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is an odd situation at Talk:Milk (film). A discussion about the "meaning" of the film title keeps getting restored, and I don't think that it is a discussion of good faith, considering that the film is named after the protagonist. Can a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
A request was raised at {{ Future film}} about a parameter for differentiating between article and section. Just wanted to bring up the request here to attract more eyes and maybe some useful ideas. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
An unusual circumstance has arisen whereby The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a film abandoned by Terry Gilliam in 2000 and which satisfied general notability (largely due to the catalogue of mishaps that dogged its short production, and the documentary Lost in La Mancha), is now supposedly going to start up again. If this is the case, we will have two independently notable productions here; one completed, one not. An editor has substantially rewritten the above article to concentrate on the new production (whereas it used to look like this). I'm not sure I agree with that. As these are two separate productions ("The film will be reshot completely"), my own feeling is that we should have two separate articles, but I wanted to get some more input before touching it either way. Steve T • C 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I know it has been established that IMDb is unreliable, however, is this the same for their award sections? On Veronica Mars, there are several awards which are very hard to find, and IMDb is used to source them. The page is getting prepped for FAC, so I was wondering if the site would be accepted as a reliable source for awards. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(out)Would someone please point me to the reliable source that supports the statement that "it has been established that IMDB is not a reliable source"? Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Another question, what is the norm for awards? Do we write them under the year they were presented, or under the year they were for, e.g. the Saturn Awards for 2004 were present in 2005. Thus, under which year should I write them? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of categories, especially Category:Action films, are being removed from articles if categories such as Category: Adventure films amd Category: Western films are present. Although I can see the reasoning, those do not seem to be children of the Action films category. In one case, Spy Smasher (serial), both Action and Adventure categories were removed in favour of Category:Thriller films (Adventure wasn't appropriate for this film but then Thriller isn't either). I haven't found any guidance elsewhere, so can someone suggest when and where the Action category, and related categories, are appropriate? - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Are links to official trailers on youtube allowed? Mjpresson ( talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So you are now claiming that even if wikipedia has external links to other sites which provide a muc needed video clip we are somehow responsible for copyright elsewhere too? Thats the most copyright paranoic comment I've ever heard. Its absurd. Its like claiming that for a biographical article where there is only an external link to a general biography of that individual on a different site that there are copyright problems. YouTube clip or trailer links are frequently of major benefit to understanding films, particularly when you haven't seen the films, particularly as they are not permitted on our site. How can it possibly affect the wikipedia site? Isn't this policing going a bit far to the point that it is affecting the actual enjoyment and understanding of the subject by taking away virtually all the forms of related media we have? Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I figured Erik you didn't make it up, it wasn't specifically directed at you, rather the principle that we can somehow be held prosecutable for content on other websites. In reality I think its more about reputation that we don't want to be associated with copyright violations and non-free content rather than any legitimate claim to be actually violating law on the wiki site. I find this rather extreme, to say the least, and somewhat subjective and in regards to films video clips and images of a film is essential content and media. So under this copyright criteria, do you think it appropriate to remove any external links that may perahps have images of an actor or film which are copyrighted and not owned by the film company. Sorry I'm finding this rather odd. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree and am also aware of this. Where possible we should link to the best websites or "official" sources as much as possible rather than shady blogs or photobuckets. It will inevitably though be difficult to impose a mandatory ban on links to youtube for film articles, whoever uploaded them. Where possible I think "official" film trailers issued by the companies on their webistes is appropriate but this is not always possible, particularly for old films which are not quite public domain. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the more relevant question: why do we need to link to trailers? Surely an official site link is enough, unless the trailer itself is part of a critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about if there isn't an official site available and for articles where the trailers on youtube provide an essential part of the puzzle so to speak if it is discussed in the article or improves understanding of it further. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
A myriad of articles on individual Our Gang ( Little Rascals) shorts are currently a mess of POV, copyvios, and bad formatting. I am requesting assistance from other editors because we're talking about well over a hundred bad articles. Anyone wanting to help can go to Our Gang filmography - every article on an Our Gang short made from 1929 to 1944 needs to be reviewed and likely cleaned up or rewritten. I've already reviewed and revised Small Talk, Railroadin', Came the Brawn, and Unexpected Riches, and am currently working on the articles for other Our Gangs made in 1929. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. WP:Films has been known as a a relatively big project that has produced a tremendous amount of quality input, and explicitly rejected the introduction of C-class. Could the coordinators from this project (as well as other members, particularly those who are involved in assessment) please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles?
Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is at FAC here, in case you didn't see it, and is somewhat stalled, so more attention would be nice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have started a thread here to check if Filmfare Awards can be made recurring items on ITN as Grammy Awards & Academy Awards. Please pen down your thoughts. -- GPPande talk! 10:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Relax, this one is not about IMDb :-) Actually, I came here for some help. I realize things relating to Veronica Mars should be posted under WikiProject Films, it's just that you guys are so nice and helpful. Anyways, I have begun working on a season page (here: User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2), but I cannot figure out which awards are for which season of the series. Are all awards for 2006 handed out in 2007? Or is that only for some awards? I am confused, so some help would be nice. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Are Breakout (film) and Break Out (film) sufficiently ambiguous, or should they be disambiguated by year as well? PC78 ( talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
They're fine, but there should probably be a "This is the page...for this see that" at the top of the page, given that someone could easily mistaken one title for the other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This list is in dire need of a cleanup, if anyone here feels like tackling it. Despite the title, there seem to be an awful lot of cartoons in there. PC78 ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list of online review sites that are generally accepted as credible for use in discussing the critical and popular reception of a film? Otto4711 ( talk) 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome any input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There was some discussion here regarding the "country" parameter in {{ Infobox Film}}, specifically about the removal of generic links (such as United States) per WP:OVERLINK and the use of templates such as {{ FilmUS}}. It was suggested that piped links to a country's "Cinema of..." article (i.e. [[Cinema of the United States|United States]]) might provide a better alternative, and Giro put forward the idea of having the infobox do this automatically, much like it currently does with the "langauge" parameter.
To that end I have written the necessary code to handle this, and have a
working test version of the infobox in my userspace. Any raw country names entered into the infobox will automatically be rendered as a piped link, i.e. entering country = usa
(or similar) will display as
United States. I've set up the template to recognize most country names, certainly all those for which we have at least some film-related content; anything not recognized by the template will be ignored and displayed as is, meaning that existing articles won't be broken.
There are a few finer details to consider, namely:
But primarily we need to establish whether or not people think this is something worth adding to the infobox. PC78 ( talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point but again one of those proposals which are not really essential. Remember though that often the Cinema is linked in a template or at the beginning of the text in the article e.g The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a 1966 [Cinema of Italy|Italian] western film etc. Technically if you were to make the change it should be "Industry" rather than Country as it would look odd a Cinema of being labelled as a "country" even if it hiddne using pop ups. Whatever the case it should be made consistent, as with adding the Americanfilm template to the articles we agreed on for consistency. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#switch
parser, it's trivial to add new instances where we have omissions (as well as a tracking category for anything which falls into the switch default, in order to look for these omissions, as well as typing errors).(outdent) A couple of categorization issues I forsee (off the top of my head) are with Category:German films, where besides East and West Germany you also have seperate categories for the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, and also Category:Soviet-era Estonian films. The problem is not so much with obsolete countries, but with specific eras and regions within a country. With regards to redlinks and redirects, I have the following in the template:
PC78 ( talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've gone back and done some more work on this, implementing some of the things discussed above. I've added the appropriate categories for each country, as well as a tracking category for those articles which don't use this feature. Other changes are:
Does all of that sound OK, or is there anything that needs tweaking or changing? PC78 ( talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this appears to be a category for films about Tibet rather than films from Tibet, I have proposed renaming it to Category:Films about Tibet at CfD. Discussion is here should anyone wish to offer an opinion. PC78 ( talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on over at Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I am asserting that because the Canadian poster is far more recognizable to both US and Canadian movie goers while the US poster is only recognizable to US movie goers, it should be changed to reflect this, while there is opposition to this, arguing that because it is a US film, it should be used. Discussion can be found here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the article 2009 in film considered a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules would be greatly appriciated. 24.12.234.123 ( talk) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Do reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic really hold significance? Please see Old Joy. Zigzig20s ( talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
A user has been stonewalling progress in removing unsourced fancruft from Dr. Strangelove. Here is my preferred version, here is the version it has been reverted to. It would be great to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks in advance. -- John ( talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In other words, this conversation is premature at the moment. It might be applicable if no consensus can be reached about specific items, or if I actually "stonewall" a deletion or John "stonewalls" a item continuing on the list, but we ain't there yet.
John, the ball is in your court, and if you can manage to have the discussion in a civil way, without warping what's been said so that it favors your position, as you are prone to do, I would appreciate it. That means that something isn't "fancruft" until it is agreed by the participants that it's fancruft, and an editor isn't "stonewalling" until they actually refuse to discuss things.
Over to you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a something that has come up in recent converstation by an IP address and he does have some valid points. Here goes:
Why don't plot and cast need citations? If imdb isn't considered a reliable source why are there two links to it in articles. Isn't this hypocritical (that we have two links to it but are prohibited from using it as an official reference)? When I want to verify if someone was in a movie, I use IMDB, or Wikipedia. Or if I want to see what the movie was about, I use those two sources. Verification for cast and plot goes back to IMDB usually.
For example, theoretically one could have been the first one to make an entry about Biwi No.1, and then claim that Raj Kapoor was in this movie and then bitch and moan about anyone who tried to change the article to indicate otherwise because apparently the burden of proof is on the other person to show the creator of the entry that Raj Kapoor WAS NOT in this movie. And it's not easy to verify such information without resorting to IMDB. How do you propose we do something about this paradox? 64.154.26.251 ( talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody could elaborate further and explain this more fully Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
<ref>''Fight Club'' (20th Century Fox, 1999), directed by David Fincher, starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter.</ref>
but that information is already pretty much there in the article. Films also have credits to identify the roles so cast sections can be written based on them. It would be a good idea to cross-reference names with IMDb and elsewhere, such as Film Index International. For the example about Biwi No. 1 and Raj Kapoor, is it not possible to find another source? I mean, if it is verifiable, it should have been reported elsewhere. Remember that film articles do not have to use online sources; if you can cite a reliable print publication, it would be sufficient. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008
I think that's specious reasoning. When you say "in theory" plot elements can be verified, what does that mean? Here I am claiming that at the end of Jaws, we find out the shark is actually a dolphin. I've created the entry for "Jaws" and I put this in the page. And then when someone tries to correct me, I say, show me a reference that says it's not true. The argument from the other person like "Dude, come on, anyone who's seen the movie knows this" falls flat on its face because it's not verifiable directly. Now unless some of the higher level editors get involved and basically lock up the page, I'll keep claiming that I'm right about the dolphin theory. Instead, how about we accept that IMBD is a credible source. Even newspapers publish retractions and the Encyclopedia Britannica has been shown to be wrong on occasion (citation needed?). So why can't we accept IMDB, which has a group of people actually vetting the information, as a reliable source? 64.154.26.251 ( talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
64.154.26.251, you have to accept that the imdb is not seen by WP as a reliable enough source. If you want to claim that Jaws was a dolphin feel free to do that, then watch as fifty editors fight to revert you and you end up blocked for 3RR. In addition to the fact that imdb isn't reliable there is also the fact that we work by consensus, and as it is a fact that Jaws is a shark the consensus on the page for Jaws will keep that fact in, whereas if you try to change it to something that is patently false then others will revert you and you will end up blocked for vandalism. WP is not a free for all, there are rules, this is not 'Nam. You can try to be cavalier with facts but you will be found out. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
In working on the article Bride Service (film), I learned that there were 13 other stub articles for films by ethnographic filmmaker Tim Asch. At the AfD for Bride Service (film), it was suggested that any pertinant information for Bride Service (film) be merged into the Timothy Asch parent article. This would have made sense for one article... but not for all 14. I then realized that Wiki would be better served if all 14 stubs were combined into the one article List of Timothy Asch films, so I did just that... moving all the stubs, their comments and informations, their sourcing and their images to List of Timothy Asch films. Nothing is lost. However, I now request that these additional 13 stubs be deleted and have redirects set to the list article, as all their informations (terse though they were) are now included in that one article. There is no need for the 13 remaining stubs. Absolutely nothing is lost and Wiki is improved. These 13 are Dodoth Morning, The Feast, Yanomamo: A Multidisciplinary Study, Ocamo Is My Town, Arrow Game, Weeding the Garden, A Father Washes His Children, A Man and His Wife Weave a Hammock, Magical Death, The Ax Fight, A Man Called "Bee": Studying the Yanomamo, A Balinese Trance Seance, and A Celebration of Origins. I have not yet gained the skills to do this myself, and was advised by User:PC78 to bring it to Film talk. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Start date template about needing to use {{ Start date}} in {{ Infobox Film}}. Since this has systemic implications, I thought it would be relevant to bring this before the community for any clarification that may be needed. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This character list is currently up for AfD. I think it would be good to get further input as, if kept, I believe it will set a strong precedent for any single film to have a separate character list that repeats the plot of the film, which currently goes against existing project guidelines and methodology. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Slumdog Millionaire is a film by Danny Boyle, and from what I can tell from the press lately, it is a high contender for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I think it might be the first such contender as I have not seen talk about any other films, and it ranks quite highly on Rotten Tomatoes (a good sign). I had been developing the article before it really had any press, and since then, it's fallen by the wayside. I am a little too occupied with real life these days to do some serious article-building, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in helping out. Simply looking up "slumdog millionaire" on Google News Search now will get some worthwhile results, such as LA Times. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In Oldboy I am trying to make the main poster the Korean poster, since the film is from Korea. Another user is trying to make it the American poster. I have looked at numerous foreign film articles, and the majority of them all have the original poster from the country of it's origin. Adding an American poster for the article about a Korean film is like adding a French poster to the article for an American one.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Original posters from the country of origin should always be always be used where possible. I'm constantly having to revert people who add different lanaguage DVD covers to original theatrical posters Count Blofeld 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get the information how TCM works —Preceding unsigned comment added by I456.376.982 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This AfD could really use some comments. Its been relisted three times so far because of a lack of attention. Since it deals with future film, input from the film project would be especially useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For info, I've requested a bot to do this. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Over a year ago, an attempt was made to set a policy on the situations in which IMDb could be used as a reliable source (if any). The discussion is here WP:CIMDB. A heated debate on this has just started up again. Anyone wanting to contribute is invited to do so: here. GDallimore ( Talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If anyone isn't sick of the external link discussions as of late, see discussion about The Mummy including links like IMDb, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this level of subcategorization truly necessary? Category:2000s horror films doesn't seem to be that huge to the extent where it needs splitting further by year, but perhaps others feel differently? PC78 ( talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Done; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 20, should anyone care to give comment. PC78 ( talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't go further than be decade. Count Blofeld 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently reviewing Batman (film series) for GA status. Anything that you can do to help make the article even better is appreciated. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about anybody else but I'm finding it frustrating when out of habit I click the bottom of the infobox and finding it not there. For exceptionally long articles it means scrolling down the entire page. Did nobody consider that not every editor always added two imdb links. so many articles we have like Pran Jaye Par Vachan Na Jaye which had the imdb link in the infobox, they are no longer connected to it. I'm not exactly over the moon with the change. Count Blofeld 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd hate for anybody to do it manually, they would be here until Christmas 2009. It is a must for a bot to do it I think. At times we could sure use a FilmBot operated by our project to run repetitive tasks whether it be stub sorting, infobox/nav box adding, category changes or link changes. Count Blofeld 14:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"plenty of consensus"? The RfC wasn't even closed at the time and there were a number of editors in the original discussion who disagreed with the idea. That was the reason the claimed consensus was rejected rightfully first time as it should have been during the second attempt if the admin only had bothered to look at the discussion. If it was only me who disagrees with the removal, and most importantly the way it was pulled off, I'd be happy to have no business with the whole thing any longer. -- Termer ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well to be honest I really didn't have the chance to offer my thoughts on it as I was busy editing elsewhere. Its not a major cause for concern and I see the arguments against two imdb links yes which doesn seem a little redundant. But me personally if I had the choice I'd keep the imdb and amg links in the infobox. Count Blofeld 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
not this thread nor any of the Infobox&IMDb related threads @ Template_talk:Infobox_Film have been started up by me therefore how can you say that it's only you who keeps going on about this. And again, me pointing out that there was no consensus [15] was confirmed after reading the discussion by Edokter. Since then nothing has changed other than the discussion has gone in circles and in one loop the links were removed by another such a "consensus report". Sorry that you feel my comments being unconstructive, that's fine if you thinks so. At the same time I think that the whole case of removing the links from infobox have been unconstructive that has not helped to improve WP in any way.-- Termer ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Last month, I started a discussion about adding a "Marketing" component to the style guidelines here. Discussion has slowed down since, I would like to "bump" it and see if other editors could share their thoughts about what should be included or not. In particular, I would like to see about merging "Tagline" into "Marketing"... so please chip in at the discussion on the style guidelines' talk page! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
An image of a theater marquee showing the title of Beverly Hills Chihuahua has been added to its article. Though it is a free image, I removed it as being purely decorative. Another editor disagrees, claiming that because it is free, such guidelines don't apply. I have started a discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills Chihuahua#Theater Image. Additional views would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Film Noir of the Week is written by film noir experts about film noir. The articles are written by published film noir writers. Some are college professors; and just about anyone that has done an audio commentary on noir DVDs have contributed to the website.
For example:
William Hare http://books.google.com/books?id=KAMpUVy8X94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+hare+film+noir http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1qRwXs4tUC&pg=PT1&dq=william+hare+film+noir
And has written articles on my web page for The Killers, Vertigo, and Hangover Square to name a few.
Eddie Muller http://books.google.com/books?id=iQwy1Ug_eQoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eddie+muller+film+noir Has written an article on NOTW on The Big Heat
Andrew Spicer is a college professor and wrote a three part series on British Noir.
Alain Silver co-wrote The Encyclopedia of Film Noir and is a regular contributor to DVD film noir commentaries.
Ed Sikov has written a number of books on film noir and film including , On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder and Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the 1950s. He wrote an article on Sunset Blvd on NOTW. He recently can be heard doing the audio commentary for the newly released Sunset Blvd. DVD.
There are many more published writers as well as some that use "handles" instead of their actual names but are usually involved in the film noir community (members of the Film Noir foundation, bloggers for Out of the Past film noir podcast for example).
The following were considered when posting an external link
For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. I feel that NOTW qualifies
Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). I feel NOTW qualifies. This isn't a blog written by one person (it's not written by myself, however I am an authority on the subject of noir. I lecture and publish print articles on the subject)
Now these external links have been up for years in some cases. Two editors in paticular have decided that these links do not meet with Wikipedia guidlines and dozens of external links have been removed. I began to restore them only to have them removed again. What's the consensous? Can they stay or go? Steve-O ( talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Yes, it is a conflict of interest. An external link does not need an editor's name on it for there to be a conflict of interest. Some editors can solicit their friends' websites; others can solicit reviews from their favorite film critics. These websites could have useful content, but we have to exercise caution and make sure that the agenda is solely to "spread free knowledge". If someone has a vested interest in disseminating their website, especially indiscriminately, then discussion needs to take place about the merits of the website. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and while there are many useful links out there, we try to use them to substantiate the article, not to turn Wikipedia into a directory. If other editors can review the website and objectively say that it is useful, then it could be used where it benefits the readership. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, all editors should acknowledge that once an edit is disputed, reverting it is edit warring, and if there's been a call for discussion, WP:BRD requires that the editor engage in discussion on the talk page or in a centralized place, such as here, and not communicate through edit summaries about the disputed edits. The article should remain in the status quo ante as regards the disputed edits until the discussion has either reached consensus, or a previous consensus has been shown to be applicable. In this case, neither of these things has occured: there is clearly no consensus here, and no previous discussion has been cited which reached an applicable consensus.
Further, this is not a situation where the project is harmed by leaving the links in place while the discussion goes on, so there's no immediate need for their removal while a consensus is reached. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PS. And as long as the site in general is good enough for guys like William Hare, Eddie Muller, Alain Silver, Ed Sikov who do contribute to it, the site is good enough for me including it pr WP:EL as a site of reviews on relevant films.-- Termer ( talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To me it looks like self promotion. WP:EL treats "blogs" and "personal web pages" as the same thing; there's no special distinction Count Blofeld 11:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a closer link at the reviews provided by the website:
I could go further, but judging from what I've looked at so far, only one person seems to be an authority in the review (Spencer Selby), and that was after a Google search. Per WP:ELNO's #11, most of these reviews are not by recognized authorities. Termer is also wrong about the lack of promotion. Steve-O clearly has his name attached to a number of reviews, and this was just scratching the surface. I will be removing these reviews except for Spencer Selby's. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a future release any more. I saw it last night at a cinema... I don't know how to change the WP assessment info. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know what has happened to the List of documentaries category by country? I have just noticed it has disappeared (turned to a red link).-- intraining Jack In 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've outlined an agenda to improve style guidelines. It includes points for future discussion. If you have any ideas about where the style guidelines could be tweaked or what could be added to it, feel free to pitch in. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would really like someones opinion regarding this List of documentary films. I have some questions that have been kind of bothering me.
Well that is it for now any impute would be greatly appreciated.-- intraining Jack In 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please have a quick look here? We're having a discussion about whether the "List of film noir" needs to be moved for grammatical reasons. I'm arguing it does because it lists many films (= plural). While film noir can be used in singular as a genre, the meaning of the list title is different (plural, refering to single films). One user wants to keep it on the singular, ... and then there is some disagreement about the correct plural.
Maybe you could simply come by, tell us what you think and thereby solve this discussion? Hey, you'd be our hero!! :o) And the more, the merrier... Thanks!!!!! -- Ibn Battuta ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since films is the project that would be most affected by this, it should be noted that there is are several on-going discussion regarding whether IMDB should be a citable source or not at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I realize this page is not intended to be a forum used to discuss specific films, so if anyone who is familiar with The Hours (I probably have seen it a dozen times or so) is interested in discussing the ending of the DVD version of the film, please contact me at my talk page. Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Disney Movie Rewards?! What do other users think? I would take it straight to AFD, but I feel I might be missing the (reward) point... Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Buena Vista Worldwide Home Entertainment is linking its Disney Movie Rewards program to the new Walt Disney Pictures release "Meet the Robinsons," the division's first-ever theatrical tie-in.
Members of the loyalty program, which rewards buyers of Disney DVDs, can now earn additional "points" by mailing in their ticket stubs from the movie. The more than 700,000 consumers who have joined the program since its October launch collect points, generally by buying DVDs, and then can redeem them for merchandise and digital products. Typical prizes include DVDs, games, books and collectibles.
"We always strive for ways to innovate the home entertainment industry and add value for the loyal fan base who love our DVDs," said Gabrielle Chamberlin, senior vp marketing, North America, for Buena Vista. She said Disney Movie Rewards "drives interest in our (DVD) releases and rewards members with things ... that only Disney can bring."
Direct link for ease: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Movie Rewards. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I now know how I found that article in the first place - it formed a category of all things to group some films together! I've listed it at CFD here. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Just an opinion, but if any photograph of a reel is going to be used to represent film, I would advise it being a 35mm reel, since that is the format for which the majority of professional films are made. The Photoplayer 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If anything, I prefer the present image. Simple, clean, and effective. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 10:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember me? The guy who wrote two GAs about Singaporean movies ( I Not Stupid and Homerun)? I have written a third GA-to-be: I Not Stupid Too. The article is currently on peer review; members of this WikiProject are invited to review the article. Any and all feedback is appreciated. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 09:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on the article for the film Hancock. I was wondering if anyone owned the DVD or Blu-ray disc? If so, would you want to help me out by jotting down anything useful from the featurettes so they could be implemented into the article? I think I could get my hands on the DVD eventually, but the Blu-ray disc also had two additional featurettes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought some people might be interested in this. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have run up against an editor who wishes to include trilogies that do not yet exist or which may never exist. As I do not want to run up against 3RR I would appreciate some fresh eyes on this. User:Happy Evil Dude wishes to count the new Batman films (2005), Ghostbusters and xXx as trilogies despite there being no third film. He wants to frame the last two Bond films and a future film as a trilogy (despite Daniel Craig stating yesterday that there is no Bond film in his current future plans). He wants to include the Chronicles of Riddick and two unmade sequels as a trilogy, along with Transformers (which has yet to get to two films). Also of contention is the French Connection which despite having the roman II in its sequel he wishes to label as a trilogy. I know some hate lists like this (as they will never be complete) but I feel that to stop these things from filling with OR that a clear criteria must be adhered to, and films which may have a second or third film made cannot be included. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor in question rolled past 3RR and I have warned him and he appears to be holding off on re-adding. For the moment the matter appears settled. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Scartol has significantly improved the Wikipedia article for Barton Fink and aims to get it promoted to Featured Article status. He has requested a peer review, and I invite all interested editors to share their thoughts on shaping the article for the better. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Date Movie is given a B class rating. The article doesn't contain a single reference, the plot is way too long, and there's a lot of unnecessary details. Mjpresson ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently editing the List of documentary films over here to hopefully become a FL one day. I would like to know if anyone can help me out in writing the Opening paragraph(s). The opening paragraph is very important in lists so if more people that can provide their skills I think it will turn out better.-- intraining Jack In 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I would completely avoid an A-Z list. It is best organised by year and fits in with all our lists by country and all the other genres. If you are developing it I would strongly advise to organise by year and split by decade. The Bald One White cat 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Dgoldwas, who created SoundtrackNet and ScoringSessons.com, is adding information about scoring sessions and links to his website to numerous articles. Is this information usually considered a legitimate part of film articles? I don't recall seeing it except in those articles where he's adding it, and I'm wondering if this borders on self-promotion. Any thoughts? Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Some statistics: Soundtrack.Net is linked at 307 pages (not all articles) and ScoringSessions.com is linked at 76 pages (mostly articles here). I do not think it is bad to have information about how a film was scored and where it was scored. It seems more of a concern that the ELs include reviews by the editor himself, and I am not sure if he has established authority to make his reviews count either as a reference or as an external link. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above refers to a strain on the Wikipedia servers. Maybe some of it is due to the existence of templates like Template:David Frankel with only three credits and Template:Sam Mendes Films with only four. Shouldn't a director (or any individual, for that matter) have a sizable body of work before warranting a template? Thanks for your input. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps restoring The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader even though filming was not able to begin in October 2008 and may begin filming in early 2009. Can others take a look? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader now redirects to a section of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is the article about the book. I agree with Eric that a film article shouldn't be created until filming has begun. Imagine if articles about films like Evita or the remake of The Women had been created the moment it was announced they were going to be made - it would have taken 10+ years' worth of updates before they finally were accurate! :) LiteraryMaven ( talk) 18:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who are interested and may have missed it, a proposal has been made to increase the width of the infobox. Discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Film#Width!. PC78 ( talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's that time of the year again... there are a lot of awards and nominations popping up, and it is pretty impressive to see anonymous IPs come out of the woodworks to make these (admittedly easy and unchallenged) additions. I was wondering, though, what other editors thought of how to best present such detail. When I look at the articles for films who have been gathering plenty of accolades, there is excessive white space in the related sections. Some examples: Slumdog Millionaire#Awards & nominations, Milk (film)#Awards and nominations, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film)#Awards and nominations. It is worth noting that while Milk has the most listed, it uses a collapsible section. Do we need a way to standardize the presentation or at least come up with some best practices? For example, we can encourage conversion to prose, either now to perhaps redirect the trend or after the awards season when the articles are a little quieter. We could also pursue a table design that could accommodate awards and nominations better and fill the extra white space. Thoughts on this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I have a bit of a problem visualizing the independent lists of submissions for awards to a section in an article for a specific film, and it wasn't the use of green/red won/lost templates that I was objecting to as much as it the whole concept of color coding wins and losses. Having said that, allow me to withdraw my suggestion of something different than the same-old, same-old, or suggesting some congruence with a project than deals with the people who make films. This would be why I have not tried to become more active in this project. My experience has been that the opinions of those not a coordinator get dismissed fairly quickly. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie ( talk · contribs) put this together for awards from Shakespeare in Love. It combines the wins and nominations under a group of awards, and each group of awards is separated by a bold line. What do other editors think? A few points to ponder... how should we handle references for awards? For something like the Academy Awards' Best Picture winner, it is likely to go unchallenged, though, for smaller awards, readers may seek references. I think that we should go ahead and back everything with references anyway, but how should it be presented? Next to the general award name? As a separate "Ref." column? Also, for "Category", does anyone have a preference whether to have the full title like "Academy Award for..." or not? Lastly, regardless of how we figure out these points, I think one flexibility that should be given is for the colors, though we can say to keep it neutral or light. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I get lost trying to find the various comments from above (blame vision disability), so I'll just make a couple general comments. If the tabling is done correctly (and presumably by whatever guidelines are written), then wins and nominations should be separated within each award category. The references would simply have to be dependent on whatever is available, if it available as a combined source, great, if nominees and winners are separate, then the references would have to be adapted. I would think it would be simple enough to state that ideally, wins and nominations should be referenced from a single source when possible. I did think that at some point, most had agreed that color coding win/nominations (the actors hate being called losers, so why should we?) was disliked. Maybe I misread it. Color would further complicate the coding. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I see things have moved on a bit today, so I'll try and throw in my 2¢ for the various points that have been raised. :)
rowspan
. With that in mind, I'd prefer to keep the tables unsortable for aesthetic reasons.rowspan
to eliminate the unnecessary duplication of references. No reason why all awards shouldn't be referenced, but I think we're all in agreement there.class=wikitable
. Beyond that I don't think it's something we need to comment on one way or another, though we might actively discourage the use of red and green in the "Outcome" column.