![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Hello, a table has been created to display Academy Awards' winners and nominees more optimally, and feedback is requested here about adopting the table across all pages to establish consistency. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Amg movie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've submitted the project for Popular pages project, we can find what articles are being visited the most, and perhaps tackle them on that ground. Sound good everyone? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that the sections entitled "Cult of cuteness" and "Context" both sound like a thesis written for a film course and don't belong in this article? It also included a section that basically was nothing more than a Shirley Temple bio, so I removed it. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just as an exercise in preliminary research and editing, I have tackled an old article relating to a classic 1941 film. Here is the original version before editing: then and now. If anyone would like to review it, as it has gone beyond the stub form that it was in, I would appreciate you taking a look. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
...and has listed 20 films that he's liked since 1992. Not much earth-shattering about that expect that User:Bardego is now copy and pasting a boilerplate paragraph about Tarantino's liking into the reception section of all 20 films mentioned. It runs along the lines of "In a 2009 interview with Sky Movies, American director and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Quentin Tarantino regarded insert film here as one of the top twenty movies released since he became a filmmaker. [1]". Not only is "movies" the wrong word, but the source is from youtube and the user is peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning". I have reverted all of the additions but I would like someone else to take a look (I may be wrong but as much as I like Tarantino I don't think his opinion is that important, plus Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films since 1992). Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the user who has posted those claims. We discussed this on your talk page and now I understand what the problem was. I will go and delete whatever you missed. One more question, though: what is wrong with 'peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning'"?
P.S. I agree with you about Anything Else. Bardego ( talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
What follows is a basic description of what has transpired over the last month or so with the article for The Hurt Locker. For more (a lot) of details, please refer to the article's discussion page and edit history.
User:Inurhead has made several contributions to the article. Some were helpful, a lot were against consensus agreed upon by a handful of other frequent contributors to the article (myself included). Inurhead resorted to what most other parties considered as being uncivil, and accusing us all of being meat/sock puppets who were intent on deliberately constructing the article in a way which would dissuade readers from wanting to watch the movie. For doing so, Inurhead was blocked 2 or 3 times for edit warring.
Among his initial arguments was that the plot summary should consist solely of two sentences with secondary sources. After discussing several times as to why this did not have to be the case, Inurhead suddenly did a 180 and decided that the plot section needed to be MORE detailed and expanded it from about 600 words to 1100 words. Inurhead reasons that the plot summary should explore the "chracters and theme" of the movie and include every scene. From my interpretation, this is in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, which states that the summary should be a brief overview of the main events that happen "as is" on the screen, and should not exceed 700 words (unless agreed upon in a thorough discussion).
Inurhead states that the article should now contain a brief two-sentence overview of the film in a "premise" section, and that a detailed (1000+ word) scene-by-scene description of the film should be included in a "detailed plot" section, and, while disregarding what has been agreed upon in MOS:FILM, insists that this is the only acceptable way. By Inurhead's reasoning, this will give the reader the option of having a very brief synosis available to them if they don't want to read a plot summary. As far as I can tell, it suggests a new way of including plot summaries in film articles, so I'm presenting this proposal (on his/her behalf) on this talk page, rather than having such a discussion be restricted to one film article's talk page. Plus, any other feedback that would be helpful in preventing more potential edit warring on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It is entirely appropriate to come to WP:FILM and request an outside opinion. It is entirely inappropriate to come in and accuse someone of canvassing a particular opinion for having requested those opinions. It's probably much too late to cite WP:AGF, but it's pertinent when everyone is being accused of bad faith. There is a definitive style guideline through this project and for the record, User:Collectonian is a coordinator of this project and has been deeply involved in developing the style guidelines, and Bzuk has been just as deeply involved. If either of those people offer comments regarding the development of an article, I listen, since they are so very active re: film articles. I also see that Erik has been involved in this article for quite some time now and he is the lead coordinator of this project. The style guideline is there for a reason. I would suggest that making specious charges of sock puppetry and tag teaming to slant the tone of an article are not only bad faith claims, they are incendiary and thwarts any possibility of productive discussion. Just saying. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment moved to #Writing plot summaries
Article is currently tagged for this project, but does it fall under our scope? PC78 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be on there. On the pages for songs, they have the succession of number one hits, so why not do the same with movies? -- Crazy4metallica ( talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
At the present time we have Category:American drama films and Category:American comedy films but not Category:American comedy drama films or, alternatively, Category:American dramedy films. Does anyone agree with my feeling there are enough American films in the comedy-drama genre to warrant creating a category for them? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Manos:The Hands of Fate for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! The actor bio for Ilyass Derfouf has been edited by an anon IP for some weeks now, adding in information about this actor's agency and who he'd like to work with in the future. I see this as spam and non-encyclopedic and have reverted these edits (see the edit history). I then get the changes reverted by the IP with the edit summary of "Do NOT sabotage our work", etc (again, see the edit history). I've left numerous warnings on the talkpages of the IP addresses, but to no avail. I've never had to deal with this sort of thing until now - what do I do? Thanks! Lugnuts ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have blocked the creator indefinitely for continuing to insert her misinformation into the Venice Film Festival articles, also considering a history of edits such as these: [4] [5] decltype ( talk) 06:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion, but now that we are in it, I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss getting rid of the lengthy "Plots" that are burdening the film pages of Wikipedia film articles. It would serve multiple purposes. It would get rid of the "original" unsourced writing per Wikipedia policy, it would streamline the articles making it easier to digest them on small handheld devices, and it would get rid of intentional or unintentional plot "biases" where a writer "flatens" a plot with dull words, selectively omitting key scenes or moments in a film, or intentionally or unintentionally giving a total plot breakdown filled with spoilers. It would be more encylopedic to merely include a synopsis or premise. Inurhead ( talk) 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This article includes a Soundtrack section that simply lists the titles and lengths of the instrumental tracks I assume are included on the soundtrack album. Given the film is not a musical with songs that are a key component of the plot's development, is this considered appropriate? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be edit warring between two editors at The X-Files: I Want to Believe. I'm touch-and-go in the next few hours... can other editors take a look at what's going on and break up the ongoing skirmish? Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to do the update suggested here? Also left a note at WikiProject Middle-earth. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Are they necessary? Take Template:CinemaofFrance for instance. It's used in every article about a French film (as far as I can see), and links to every "French films of YEAR" article out there. So a film from 2009 will link to the list of films from 1910 and so on. This seems like link-overkill to me. Also, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:American films, where the US version of the template was deleted. There is Template:CinemaoftheUS, but that template is used rather differently. I'd prefer if the other templates were looking and used like that, without the links to every single year, and only used in articles directly relevant to the cinema of the corresponding category, instead of being used in every article on every film from that country. -- Conti| ✉ 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors could wander over there. "Personal life" is far too long in my view, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. Stetsonharry ( talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Super High Me is the current collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, a wikiproject that focuses on the relationship between cannabis and society. Not sure if WikiProject Films has a collaboration as well, but I thought I would point out the possibility for two wikiprojects to work together to impove the article as much as possible. Any help would be appreciated, especially since the article should meet WP Films' policies and procedures. Feel free to contribute in any way possible! Might be a nice break from working on more serious film articles. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How many coordinators does the project have? If it's 5 or more, why bother with voting? There are only 5 editors running so obviously they're all going to be elected no matter how many votes they get, right? LargoLarry ( talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#Was Garbo beautiful? regarding wording in ALT text that could use some other comments. Thanks! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.
This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xan dar 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Whenever I quote a review in the critical reception section, I identify both the reviewer and his or her publication by name. In response to an edit I made to Fela!, User:Ssilvers sent me a message saying in part, "I don't see why you want to include non-notable names in the response section . . . this is an encyclopedia. We present the most notable information about a subject. If a critic is not well-known, mentioning his/her name just clutters up the article . . . The article is not about critics, it's about the show, and this person's name is irrelevant to the show. If his/her notable newspaper reviewed the show, it's necessary to identify the news source, but identifying the non-notable reviewer by name does not add anything."
Although his comments refer to a musical theatre article, I feel they apply to film articles as well. Out of curiosity, how do film project participants feel about what I think is a relatively minor issue? If a critic isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own, should his or her name not be mentioned when quoting him or her, or should credit be given where credit is due? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Tags have been placed on three adaptations ( 1941, 1953 and 1960) of Poe's poem to merge them back into the main article. Personally, I'm against the merger and have helped expand the 1941 version (it was Jules Dassin's first film). I admit the 1953 version looks a bit weak - can anyone help in expansion of these articles? Discussion can also be found here. Thanks! Lugnuts ( talk) 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
is this image actually Ewan MacGregor? It looks very little like this one. It probably is, but it seems to me like he's changed quite a bit. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Rambo#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This needs major expansion, but I don't know where to find more info. Anyone wanna help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in a HK movie task force and revamping articles / creating new ones? Most related articles, if they actually exist, suffer from a strong lack of editorial quality and are badly structured, with people randomly adding on information as they see fit.
Mprey ( talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some comments on merging T-1000 ( discussion) and List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas ( discussion)? TTN ( talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a requested move for The Dark Knight (film) at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#Category:Actors to portray superheroes regarding this category as well as discussion regarding further categorization. Please take a look and add any comments you might have. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Capitalism: A Love Story is being released to the public soon, and judging from the political climate these days, the article seems like a possible battleground (which Wikipedia should not be). There will probably be off-topic discussions as a result (just had to revert an off-topic comment recently), and I ask various editors to keep an eye on the article and its talk page to make sure that discussions are fully focused on improving the article. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is currently underway to determine if Nala (The Lion King) should be merged/redirected to The Lion King. Additional views at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I proposed some MOS wording for dealing with awards in an article. My proposal can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed wording for "Awards and honors". Please comment and share opinions. Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at the above mentioned link regarding analysis of factual information and how it relates to the film's critical reception. Additional views and thoughts would be appreciated. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone at Talk:Rocky IV asked about the film being categorized as an American anti-communist propaganda film. Category:American anti-communist propaganda films seems to have other dubious entries. This reminded me of discussion about categorizing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a propaganda film, which I opposed; discussion can be seen here (beware, tl;dr). It seems inappropriate to categorize films like Rocky IV and similar films (particularly from the 1980s as "propaganda" films because I believe that the best application of this label is for wartime films. Outside of such films, such classification is less obvious and not as readily propaganda-driven. Do others have an opinion on how to approach categorizing such films, such as alternate categories? Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I created Ladies of Leisure by clicking on a red link in the Frank Capra films template. After I saved it, I checked "What links here" and discovered Ladies Of Leisure, which consists of one sentence. Do I need to nominate it for deletion, or is there an easer way to get rid of it? Or should I just leave it? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{db-histmerge|Ladies Of Leisure}}
to
Ladies of Leisure.
Erik (
talk |
contribs |
wt:film)
16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For my own education, did you redirect Ladies Of Leisure by clicking on the "Move" tab and then typing in the new name Ladies of Leisure, or did you accomplish the redirect another way? Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the page List of 3-D films and feel tempted to make this into a sort-able table (see my talk comments on that page), but this is a non-trivial undertaking because of the large numbers of films listed there ... so I am not about to undertake this process unless there is some consensus on this.
I also note that on this and related pages, "3D" "3-D" are used interchangeably. However, as I noted on the related talk pages, there seems to be much more legitimacy to "3-D" and propose that a global edit to find all instances of "3D" and replace with "3-D" ensuring of course that no grammar or other errors are inadvertently introduced.
Finally, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Index page, I see the admonition to find "hidden" "Index of" pages. So this leads me to suspect that the List of 3-D films should really be renamed Index of 3-D films.
I am sure that there are other issues that arise from members who were previously unaware of the existence of this page.
Finally, with the imminent emergence of next generation 3-D film and television technology, this and related 3-D pages will become increasingly prominent and important in the coming months and years.
Enquire ( talk) 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to let everyone in this project know that Wizards has a GAR. You can find it here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just curious about the current viewpoint on the inclusion of various series templates on film articles before I bring up a discussion for WT:ACTOR. Someone has added a new group to the template {{ Hannibal}} to include the cast and has added the template to all the articles for actors listed on the template. I guess I'm looking for feedback on how to proceed with something like this. I know there's been discussion about some aspects of template use here. For WP:ACTOR, I really don't think this is a good trend, and a couple of us (actually Rossrs and myself) have tossed around the idea of some project style limitations that might include recommendations for size of article re: spinning off filmographies and now, perhaps the ever-increasing barrage of templates, so some input would be great. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (Sorry about the wrong template thing, whoever fixed it.)
The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion to split or rename Batman (film series) found here. Since this seems like an unusual case, additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why we have Category:Western (genre) films but List of Western films: 1930s, List of Western films: 1940s, List of Western films: 1950-1954, etc. don't use the term "genre" after "Western"? Why not just Category:Western films? It looks odd with (genre) in the middle of it. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently I have been planning to trim down the plot section for Lars von Trier's Antichrist since it has grown longer than the 400-700 words suggested in WP:MOSFILM. Many of Trier's films are divided into chapters, and in the current version the chapters are incorporated in the plot section as H3 subheadings. Dogville uses the same structure, while Manderlay has the chapters listed first, followed by the plot. Breaking the Waves doesn't mention any structure but that is probably because the plot section is very brief. Pulp Fiction also uses subheadings, but it is a bit different since the film is made up of several stories, while the Trier films have one coherent story each and the plots wouldn't be confusing to read without divisions. I know that book plots aren't divided by chapters on Wikipedia, and from an aesthetic point of view I think it looks better without all the headings. But at the same time it could be proper to still mention the structure somewhere in the articles, and that they should follow a uniform style. Is there any consensus concerning this? Any suggestions? Smetanahue ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please take a look at the merge discussion to determine if Samuel L. Jackson's filmography should stay removed from the article or not. The discussion has gone stale, and the article would benefit from having the discussion closed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article List of overweight actors in United States cinema for deletion. Discussion may be found here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I often use wikipedia as a source to get information about movies that I'd like to watch. One of the bits of information that I'd like is to know what the movie is rated and why it received that particular rating. I don't see this on any of the articles. Could someone let me know why? Or am I missing something? Dincher ( talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing to create a new article with the characters of lion king. I see no use for having an article about nala, zazu, etc. Also, it would be useful to include other minor characters in it.
I believe only simba and timon and pumba are notable enough to hold their own articles, unlike the others. What do you all think? Ricardoread ( talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Three actor filmography templates have been listed for deletion. Please read and comment here, here, and here. A director template containing two films has been listed for deletion here. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. After a comment at a template for deletion discussion, it seemed a good time for WP:ACTOR to develop a guideline that can be referenced regarding the use of filmograph templates on actor articles. Because one of the obvious uses for such a template would be to place them at the bottom of the various film articles that would be included, I thought perhaps members of this project might like to comment. The proposal is at WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion to move short subject to short film can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this question really isn't related to Wikipedia, but a lot of the film project people seem to know enough about films that maybe one or more of them will be willing to answer it. The other day I read an interview with Tyler Perry, and he said that after he and Oprah Winfrey saw Precious, they were so moved by it they decided to become executive producers of it because they hoped that by putting their names on it they could attract a bigger audience. What I don't understand is, how can somebody become an executive producer of a film after it's completed? Thanks for your help. LargoLarry ( talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request a review of Friday the 13th (2009 film), as I'm about to nominate it for FAC in the near future. I've done one pass of copy editing already, but since I've been the primary editor on the article I know I often overlook things that make sense to me. I'd like to request some new eyes look for any other copy editing issues, review the alt text (I'm not very good with it), and any other issues that might be found. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over at Talk: The Blair Witch Project#Budget over what number should be included for the budget of the film in the infobox. Additional opinions are requested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There's an effort at WT:External links#Professional_reviews_2 to ban any and all links to professional reviews of films other creative works in ==External links==. If you have an opinion, please consider sharing it at that page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What do people think of this article?! Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and add as a category. And add Cocksucker Blues. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Saw this list last night and my instincts are to delete as well. I'm sure many films have not been released on dvd, and for no particular reason other than a general lack of interest or demand. Trivial and non-notable, IMO, and probably unsourceable to boot (those Amazon links really won't do). Not everything needs listing. List of lost films is legitimate enough, though. PC78 ( talk) 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Amsaim came up with the idea to exand out the current {{ Infobox Academy Awards}} with a "Infobox African Movie Academy Awards" (per Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/African Movie Academy Awards scratchpad area). However given the large size of Category:Film awards a very large number of infoboxes could then ensue.
My suggestion is to have just a single infobox that allows for any award organisation (not just the US-centric of The Academy Awards alone) - see test of Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards and test area of its talk page Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards. Thoughts anyone David Ruben Talk 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I"m pretty new at editing, so I'm hoping that somebody can explain when documentaries can be added to a topic. Given that they often contain significant information on a topic, I don't see why they should be seen as any less legitimate a source for further information then published texts.
For instance, Noam Chomsky has a filmography that includes all the documentaries he's been in, but Howard Zinn doesn't (even though according to IMDB he's been in numerous films)
"liberalism" and "conservatism" have a "further reading" section - why not a "further viewing" section"? Or a general "for more information" section?
The only way to attach Kenn Burn's National Parks series to the entry on National Parks would be as an external link, which I have the feeling is frowned upon.
thanks for any insights
Simsimian ( talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if someone else would watchlist Scream Awards as well. The awards ceremony has been held, but it hasn't been aired yet. Anonymous editors are consistently changing the winners. decltype ( talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi , I'm going to start a new article about Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema that is a major part of Iranian cinema. I have a problem in finding a proper name for that. Is Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema a good title? Bbadree ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Recruiting any and all WikiProject Film participants to assist with improving the Pineapple Express article, which actually receives quite a few hits (no pun intended!) on a daily basis. The article is currently the collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, but I am hoping WikiProject Comedy and WikiProject Films members can assist since they are more familiar with the formatting rules and requirements for film articles to reach 'Good' status. While the article is off to a good start, hopefully we can all work together to improve the article! Thanks so much! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This morning I merged Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as the article has lacked demonstrable notability and had been tagged for lacking it since February. All sourced content was merged. A sporadic discussion spanning back 4 years had random "I like it" keeps for keeping separate, and valid discussion for merging. Discussion at Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise) shows that it was merged before, then split as a birthday present (WTF?) and then discussed for remerge just not done. No valid content was lost during the merge, just unsourced or fansourced material However some have objected to the merge, so additional eyes on the merge and perhaps continuing the discussion on the franchise talk page may be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimknut has done some outstanding work in rewriting this article and it's currently up for nomination as a featured list. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As we continue to hammer out the details for the Tag & Assess drive, the coordinators have suggested some changes to the talk page film banner as well as to the assessment class structure. For the banner, there is consensus to remove several of the improvement parameters (namely, the "needs cast", "needs plot", and the newly added "needs production" (which has hasn't been fully implemented yet). I suggested keeping the "needs infobox" and "needs image" parameters as some users may be more likely to address these concerns, especially since it is more clear-cut then, say, adding a plot or production section. Is there any opposition to remove the cast/plot/production banners? Should any be kept, or should the image/infobox parameters be removed as well? These parameters can guide editors to improve various areas of the article, but it can also be a hassle in tagging articles as well as removing the parameter when the item has been added/expanded.
For the class structure, we suggested that due to the recent removal of the future/upcoming templates, it may be best to phase out the Future-class. Currently, any articles that have not had their release are tagged with Future, and then are later changed to an appropriate class after the release. Instead of this setup, all articles would be assessed based on the length, grammar, writing, etc. of the article instead of its release date. Erik pointed out that if the class was removed, the article should still not be nominated for GA/FA if it had yet to be released (especially since material changes extensively at the release of a film and as home media is released). In addition, we suggested removing the A class due to lack of participation in reviewing the articles. We currently have three A-class articles, one of which is at FAC. If the class was removed, we would either downgrade the current A-class articles or keep them at their status (with the hopes that they would eventually make their way to FAC). The last class change suggestion was adding the C-class. Since its inception, a variety of projects have chosen whether or not to use the class (which would fit between Start and B-class). In the past, we've had two discussions which resulted in not using the class (the first resulted in the decision not to adopt it, and the second resulted in no consensus). Before we start the drive we need to determine if the class should be used (in which case we'd need to modify the setup and provide better assessment guidelines), or not (there would be no changes and we'd stick to the present five-class Stub/Start/B/GA/FA structure) so that we don't have to reassess our articles again if we decide later to do the opposite.
Before we start the drive, it would be a good idea to hear what others think, so we can make changes if necessary. Please weigh in with any opinions you have, as this will determine how our banner, classes, and drive will be organized for the long-term. It would be best to respond quickly, so any changes can be implemented and the drive can finally start. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above proposed banner changes. Cirt ( talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup, the banner changes seem uncontroversial. Steve T • C 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support all (lose needs plot/cast/prod, keep needs infobox/image) since I've proposed it myself before. :) PC78 ( talk) 07:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to use C-class, and to do away with A-class usage. Cirt ( talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've long been a critic of 'A'-class (in this project anyway—the MILHIST lot seem to have taken it to heart). The criteria for an article's passing its 'A'-class review is so vague, and can be read as being so close to that at WP:FACR, that it's probably redundant anyway for us. This, coupled with the disinterest of project members in performing these internal reviews, means I'd be happy to see it scrapped. As for 'C'-class: I'm neutral on its adoption. I'm not entirely convinced that anyone other than Wikipedia editors even notice tags other than GA or FA, which leads me to think that article tagging is nothing but make-work sometimes, but I'm sure this has been had out before so I'm not going to argue the toss. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class. No good reason why future films can't be assessed properly, and A-Class only works if it has the necessary support (which it doesn't at this project). C-Class will fill a big gap in our current assessment scale, IMO. PC78 ( talk) 07:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class for the reasons mentioned above. I particularly agree that there's a big gap between Start and B class, so that many articles are developed well past Start qualifications but don't meet B classification yet. - Krasnoludek ( talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with an editor over red links on Donald Duck filmography. He wants to remove them since he thinks red links are bad for the reader, basically because of the colour red (danger and stuff). I don't agree per WP:Red link and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans where it was reported that removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. The red links on this article are, albeit slowly, turning in blue links. See for instance this recent edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks are good. Don't delete redlinks. Convention is long-standing and well-established on this issue. Powers T 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The following was originally in the Wikipedia talk:Red link page, which was probably a bad place for it, so after a recommendation, I moved it here, though it might be just as in place in a talk page about bots. (The post doesn't have to be film-specific, that's just the instance that came to mind.):
I've noticed Wikipedia frequently contains lists with some blue links, but other items in the lists don't have links (red or blue), even though they'd be perfectly appropriate. The links were likely not created for a few different reasons: The article may not have existed at the time of the article creation and the author(s) understandably didn't want to clutter the list with red links, the article name may have been tough to guess (such as Film Name (Year of Film) instead of just Film Name) and they didn't bother looking it up, the appropriate link may be buried in another article ( Book Name#Film Adaptation), or they simply didn't bother linking even though they could.
As far as I know, the current solution is to do a brute force look-up of each individual item with Wikipedia search and Google searches limited to the wikipedia domain, checking to see if there's an appropriate link that can be created and then making them, but that often doesn't get done. (I've certainly passed up opportunities to do it and procrastinated on the ones I have done.) So, is there some kind of automated way that (higher ranking, technically gifted) Wikipedians could do it? What I'm thinking is a sophisticated bot that would produce recommendations for link creation, that could then be created en mass once approved. The bot would look for lists or accept lists given to it (often filmographies and lists of works and titles), produce a list of links that would need to be manually checked, and then, presto, lotsa links with much less work. ...OK, maybe it wouldn't be so quick, and obviously something like this would still require considerable work (and as for the technical requirements of such a bot, if Rambot could work it's magic, then surely something like I describe is possible.). The current status quo leaves many thousands of articles without appropriate links to approved articles and without some sort of semi-automated process, the work will be slower or neglected altogether. Is something like what I describe viable, been considered and rejected, or just a pipe dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.145 ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I definitely feel that red links for notable names and almost ALL films/TV series and such should be linked in advance, in preparation for the day and time that someone takes the initiative to create said articles. On film infoboxes, sometimes this is taken to an extreme, linking cinematographers, editors, and producers that most likely will never meet notability guidelines per Wikistandards. But directors, writers, actresses/actors, and titles should always be linked.-- Cinemaniac 86 Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. — Erkman27 ( talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)
Should article names of foreign/non-English films be in English or their native language? Wikipedia's general naming policy seems to be that English should be used except when the literal translation wouldn't mean the same thing. Does this apply to films, or is there a more specific policy in regards to films or other media that I've missed? Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has twice been redirected to The Boat That Rocked, but the author has reverted insisting that it needs to be a seperate article. It should be sufficient to cover any details about the US recut in the main article. It would be good if someone else could take a look at this. PC78 ( talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Another undone redirect. According to the article, the film is currently at the casting stages so it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF. Worth taking to AfD? PC78 ( talk) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello crew! The Hong Kong action cinema article related to this project has been nominated for Feartured Article removal. If you have comments regarding the FA review, discuss it on the review page. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to change a sentence in the plot description for Fight Club (film) because I believe it to be false and I don't want to see false information stay on a featured article. I failed to gain any consensus for a change on the talk page and I have basically given up on trying as the editors that are watching the page won't even dicuss the issue (See Talk:Fight Club (film)#Plot inaccuracy. I have decided to leave the issue alone and move on to other more productive editing, but I thought I would post my concern on this talk page since someone here may also be interested in this issue and may have more time to create a better consensus than myself. Cheers. Remember ( talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Input on this article at its AfD would be helpful. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a template for use in the External links section of articles with multiple different commonly-used movie links.
For example, here are some common templates we use:
There are many more at Category:Film external link templates - but those 4 are some of the ones that almost all movies have pages for.
I propose we create a combined template, modeled after {{ CongLinks}}.
Thoughts? Cirt ( talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that New York Film Academy - Film School and New York Film Academy - Acting School be merged into New York Film Academy--oddly, the two sets of articles aren't linked together already. Would it make more sense to have one article for the whole set? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to notify the project that a new editor has added Template:Razzie Award for Worst Picture to a number of film articles. At the same time, Template:Razzie Award for Worst Actor was added to actor bios, but I am removing those based on the consensus from WP:ACTOR that removed unilaterally the parameter for Razzies from Template:Infobox actor and filmographies. Although there was a small amount of disagreement regarding awards parameters in general from the infobox, no one agreed that the Razzies were appropriate, even if the awards had remained. Thus, if Razzies weren't appropriate for infoboxes and filmographies, I believe the consensus would extend to navboxes for the same. I'm not aware of a consensus in WP:FILM, so I thought notifying the project to consider was proper. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Films to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is underway about possible merging the Pal (dog actor) article to Lassie. Three editors feel the merge would be appropriate (though I tend to discount one as they have made no useful edits, and semi-vandalized a few articles), and two feel it should not. Additional views to break this stalemate would be useful. Discussion at Talk:Pal (dog actor)#Merge with Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Please weigh in with your thoughts about having Razzie Awards templates at the bottom of film-related articles. Check in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Gaining_consensus:_Razzie_award_templates_at_the_bottom_of_articles. Thanks! Binksternet ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Additional views needed at Talk:Lassie Come Home#Picture regarding the addition of a second non-free image [10] of a scene from the film. I removed it per WP:NONFREE as it does not illustrate anything not already seen in the cover, and the article is barely above a stub, so having two non-free images is doubly excessive. Also having problems with people making pointy additions of project tags after I rejected the removal of the Yorkshire tag (as the film is set in Yorkshire and about its peoples). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up over at Talk:The Hobbit films#Renaming the article and just wanted to get everyone's opinion.- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since WP:ACTOR is a related project to this one, this is relevant to a degree here. There is a consensus discussion occurring at WT:ACTOR#Gaining consensus: Razzie award templates at the bottom of articles. The discussion outline has included the use of "Razzie Worst Picture" templates that would relate to this project. Please look over the discussion and weigh in. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Do soundtracks to films fall under the scope of WP:Films? I've been looking through the un-assessed articles and I've found quite a few soundtracks and film theme songs. Should the banner be included? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. Just spent a good week or two taking the Broadway Video from a stub to a full-fledged article. Now I just need people to give it a once-over, mainly for grammar and punctuation. Thanks! Mainly.generic ( talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know how to fix the hanging third column thingy in the filmography table at the article Harriet Frank, Jr.? Cirt ( talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I for one am against the inclusion of spoiler tags, as I feel like it cheapens the article. I know I'm being dramatic, but what next, a spoiler tag for WWII? ("YOU WON'T GUESS WHAT THE GERMANS WILL DO NEXT!") Mainly.generic ( talk) 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to work on the assessment drive and have come across a number of articles pertaining to actual theaters or theater chains for films. Are these actually under this project? I'm thinking... why? This seems more a business organization than anything specifically related to films and film production. Or... WP:WikiProject Theatre? Or... WP:WikiProject Companies? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few "Lists of characters in..." articles (e.g. List of characters in the X-Men film series, List of characters in the Superman film series, List of characters in the Spider-Man film series), most of which appear to have been created by the same user. These articles seem to be made up of an unnecessary amount of plot summary, with some real world context mixed in that should already be covered in the respective film articles. Are these sorts of articles something to be concerned about? PC78 ( talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:The Hobbit films, there is a discussion on the proper naming of films, NCF, and how two films is a single film or not a single film. 76.66.197.2 ( talk) 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A possible conflict of interest problem on this article, an indy film due for theatrical release in December. Four of the named accounts which have heavily contributed to the page are, by an examination of their contributions, single purpose accounts used primarily to edit this and related articles. In addition, numerous IPs from 69.xx.xxx.xx have contributed, none of whom have edited any other article. This strongly points to a COI problem, so I have tagged the article and extensively re-worked it to remove promotional lanuage and formatting, as per my post on the article's talk page. Another IP appears to want to undo my edits in toto, on what seem rather flimsy grounds. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Sach ( talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
some of the genres on wikipedia have rather large problems. There's Western (genre), which is good, as it looks at the genre in all forms. But then there's Musical film, which only looks at musicals in the film arena, and while there is a separate article for musical theater, there is nothing on musical as a television genre on wikipedia. Glee, Flight of the Conchords, etc. I would mention it over at the television wiki, but i strongly suggest it should just go into the musical film one, or you have a main page for Musical (Genre), and then link off to musical film, musical theatre, and musical television. But yeah... IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMA/I talks about the criteria for upgrading a start class article to B, but when I tried to do that for a film (class=B), the preview showed it as class C. Wazzup? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've just created List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture following the structure of featured list List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. My goal is improving the former to featured content but the latter was promoted for a while so I'm afraid that quality of a featured list now must be much more higher. Can anyone help me to review the list and point out its errors so that I can correct and improve it. Many thanks! Grenouille vert ( talk) 05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture even necessary if Academy Award for Best Picture already exists? It's just an unnecessary duplication of data. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've found this orphan page (also Wikipedia:A-class film article nominations/skip). Do you want to use it, or should it be deleted/redirected as maintenance ? Cenarium ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, November 15, 2009
A few character articles have been proposed for merging to Tarzan (1999 film). Discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Merge of Terk. Views appreciated (as would help in cleaning up the article itself). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. I've nominated Tender Mercies for a featured article status. If you don't mind taking a look, any comments, criticisms or feedback would be welcome! Thanks... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been involved in a bit of a dispute over the film poster image in this article. The current image was uploaded by myself back in May, but was somewhat arbitrarily replaced with this image by another user. Argument for the new image is that it apparently better illustrates the film, while my argument for retaining the original (and current) image is that it will be more recognisable to a greater part of our readers, having been used for the UK DVD cover (AFAIK, the only release in an English-language country). Ultimatetly it's not that big a deal, but some fresh input might help to establish a concensus one way or another. PC78 ( talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question: how does the Film project deal with the concept of credits in the infobox, particularly if there are uncredited directors or authors? Are there any guidelines on this subject? I ask because we're having a similar discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and as I've noticed film infoboxes on occasion list authors who are not officially credited, any information you could apply would be insightful. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that Twilight (series) gets split into the book series and the film series. like Harry Potter (film series)(the films) and Harry Potter (the books) IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The project is largely dead, and as such, the articles, especially on the characters, are in desperate need of attention. If anyone would be willing to participate in general cleanup and merging discussion, we need any help available. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Would San Diego Comic Con fall within the scope of the project due to large number of movies which premier or hold a panel at the event? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it make sense to have a box like this for Reception section of films? Then, we could have X out of 5 stars for the noteworthy reviews. Cirt ( talk) 10:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Hello, a table has been created to display Academy Awards' winners and nominees more optimally, and feedback is requested here about adopting the table across all pages to establish consistency. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Amg movie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've submitted the project for Popular pages project, we can find what articles are being visited the most, and perhaps tackle them on that ground. Sound good everyone? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that the sections entitled "Cult of cuteness" and "Context" both sound like a thesis written for a film course and don't belong in this article? It also included a section that basically was nothing more than a Shirley Temple bio, so I removed it. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just as an exercise in preliminary research and editing, I have tackled an old article relating to a classic 1941 film. Here is the original version before editing: then and now. If anyone would like to review it, as it has gone beyond the stub form that it was in, I would appreciate you taking a look. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
...and has listed 20 films that he's liked since 1992. Not much earth-shattering about that expect that User:Bardego is now copy and pasting a boilerplate paragraph about Tarantino's liking into the reception section of all 20 films mentioned. It runs along the lines of "In a 2009 interview with Sky Movies, American director and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Quentin Tarantino regarded insert film here as one of the top twenty movies released since he became a filmmaker. [1]". Not only is "movies" the wrong word, but the source is from youtube and the user is peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning". I have reverted all of the additions but I would like someone else to take a look (I may be wrong but as much as I like Tarantino I don't think his opinion is that important, plus Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films since 1992). Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the user who has posted those claims. We discussed this on your talk page and now I understand what the problem was. I will go and delete whatever you missed. One more question, though: what is wrong with 'peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning'"?
P.S. I agree with you about Anything Else. Bardego ( talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
What follows is a basic description of what has transpired over the last month or so with the article for The Hurt Locker. For more (a lot) of details, please refer to the article's discussion page and edit history.
User:Inurhead has made several contributions to the article. Some were helpful, a lot were against consensus agreed upon by a handful of other frequent contributors to the article (myself included). Inurhead resorted to what most other parties considered as being uncivil, and accusing us all of being meat/sock puppets who were intent on deliberately constructing the article in a way which would dissuade readers from wanting to watch the movie. For doing so, Inurhead was blocked 2 or 3 times for edit warring.
Among his initial arguments was that the plot summary should consist solely of two sentences with secondary sources. After discussing several times as to why this did not have to be the case, Inurhead suddenly did a 180 and decided that the plot section needed to be MORE detailed and expanded it from about 600 words to 1100 words. Inurhead reasons that the plot summary should explore the "chracters and theme" of the movie and include every scene. From my interpretation, this is in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, which states that the summary should be a brief overview of the main events that happen "as is" on the screen, and should not exceed 700 words (unless agreed upon in a thorough discussion).
Inurhead states that the article should now contain a brief two-sentence overview of the film in a "premise" section, and that a detailed (1000+ word) scene-by-scene description of the film should be included in a "detailed plot" section, and, while disregarding what has been agreed upon in MOS:FILM, insists that this is the only acceptable way. By Inurhead's reasoning, this will give the reader the option of having a very brief synosis available to them if they don't want to read a plot summary. As far as I can tell, it suggests a new way of including plot summaries in film articles, so I'm presenting this proposal (on his/her behalf) on this talk page, rather than having such a discussion be restricted to one film article's talk page. Plus, any other feedback that would be helpful in preventing more potential edit warring on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It is entirely appropriate to come to WP:FILM and request an outside opinion. It is entirely inappropriate to come in and accuse someone of canvassing a particular opinion for having requested those opinions. It's probably much too late to cite WP:AGF, but it's pertinent when everyone is being accused of bad faith. There is a definitive style guideline through this project and for the record, User:Collectonian is a coordinator of this project and has been deeply involved in developing the style guidelines, and Bzuk has been just as deeply involved. If either of those people offer comments regarding the development of an article, I listen, since they are so very active re: film articles. I also see that Erik has been involved in this article for quite some time now and he is the lead coordinator of this project. The style guideline is there for a reason. I would suggest that making specious charges of sock puppetry and tag teaming to slant the tone of an article are not only bad faith claims, they are incendiary and thwarts any possibility of productive discussion. Just saying. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment moved to #Writing plot summaries
Article is currently tagged for this project, but does it fall under our scope? PC78 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be on there. On the pages for songs, they have the succession of number one hits, so why not do the same with movies? -- Crazy4metallica ( talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
At the present time we have Category:American drama films and Category:American comedy films but not Category:American comedy drama films or, alternatively, Category:American dramedy films. Does anyone agree with my feeling there are enough American films in the comedy-drama genre to warrant creating a category for them? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Manos:The Hands of Fate for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! The actor bio for Ilyass Derfouf has been edited by an anon IP for some weeks now, adding in information about this actor's agency and who he'd like to work with in the future. I see this as spam and non-encyclopedic and have reverted these edits (see the edit history). I then get the changes reverted by the IP with the edit summary of "Do NOT sabotage our work", etc (again, see the edit history). I've left numerous warnings on the talkpages of the IP addresses, but to no avail. I've never had to deal with this sort of thing until now - what do I do? Thanks! Lugnuts ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have blocked the creator indefinitely for continuing to insert her misinformation into the Venice Film Festival articles, also considering a history of edits such as these: [4] [5] decltype ( talk) 06:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion, but now that we are in it, I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss getting rid of the lengthy "Plots" that are burdening the film pages of Wikipedia film articles. It would serve multiple purposes. It would get rid of the "original" unsourced writing per Wikipedia policy, it would streamline the articles making it easier to digest them on small handheld devices, and it would get rid of intentional or unintentional plot "biases" where a writer "flatens" a plot with dull words, selectively omitting key scenes or moments in a film, or intentionally or unintentionally giving a total plot breakdown filled with spoilers. It would be more encylopedic to merely include a synopsis or premise. Inurhead ( talk) 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This article includes a Soundtrack section that simply lists the titles and lengths of the instrumental tracks I assume are included on the soundtrack album. Given the film is not a musical with songs that are a key component of the plot's development, is this considered appropriate? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be edit warring between two editors at The X-Files: I Want to Believe. I'm touch-and-go in the next few hours... can other editors take a look at what's going on and break up the ongoing skirmish? Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to do the update suggested here? Also left a note at WikiProject Middle-earth. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Are they necessary? Take Template:CinemaofFrance for instance. It's used in every article about a French film (as far as I can see), and links to every "French films of YEAR" article out there. So a film from 2009 will link to the list of films from 1910 and so on. This seems like link-overkill to me. Also, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:American films, where the US version of the template was deleted. There is Template:CinemaoftheUS, but that template is used rather differently. I'd prefer if the other templates were looking and used like that, without the links to every single year, and only used in articles directly relevant to the cinema of the corresponding category, instead of being used in every article on every film from that country. -- Conti| ✉ 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors could wander over there. "Personal life" is far too long in my view, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. Stetsonharry ( talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Super High Me is the current collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, a wikiproject that focuses on the relationship between cannabis and society. Not sure if WikiProject Films has a collaboration as well, but I thought I would point out the possibility for two wikiprojects to work together to impove the article as much as possible. Any help would be appreciated, especially since the article should meet WP Films' policies and procedures. Feel free to contribute in any way possible! Might be a nice break from working on more serious film articles. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How many coordinators does the project have? If it's 5 or more, why bother with voting? There are only 5 editors running so obviously they're all going to be elected no matter how many votes they get, right? LargoLarry ( talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#Was Garbo beautiful? regarding wording in ALT text that could use some other comments. Thanks! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.
This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xan dar 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Whenever I quote a review in the critical reception section, I identify both the reviewer and his or her publication by name. In response to an edit I made to Fela!, User:Ssilvers sent me a message saying in part, "I don't see why you want to include non-notable names in the response section . . . this is an encyclopedia. We present the most notable information about a subject. If a critic is not well-known, mentioning his/her name just clutters up the article . . . The article is not about critics, it's about the show, and this person's name is irrelevant to the show. If his/her notable newspaper reviewed the show, it's necessary to identify the news source, but identifying the non-notable reviewer by name does not add anything."
Although his comments refer to a musical theatre article, I feel they apply to film articles as well. Out of curiosity, how do film project participants feel about what I think is a relatively minor issue? If a critic isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own, should his or her name not be mentioned when quoting him or her, or should credit be given where credit is due? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Tags have been placed on three adaptations ( 1941, 1953 and 1960) of Poe's poem to merge them back into the main article. Personally, I'm against the merger and have helped expand the 1941 version (it was Jules Dassin's first film). I admit the 1953 version looks a bit weak - can anyone help in expansion of these articles? Discussion can also be found here. Thanks! Lugnuts ( talk) 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
is this image actually Ewan MacGregor? It looks very little like this one. It probably is, but it seems to me like he's changed quite a bit. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Rambo#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This needs major expansion, but I don't know where to find more info. Anyone wanna help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in a HK movie task force and revamping articles / creating new ones? Most related articles, if they actually exist, suffer from a strong lack of editorial quality and are badly structured, with people randomly adding on information as they see fit.
Mprey ( talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some comments on merging T-1000 ( discussion) and List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas ( discussion)? TTN ( talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a requested move for The Dark Knight (film) at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Requested move. Additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#Category:Actors to portray superheroes regarding this category as well as discussion regarding further categorization. Please take a look and add any comments you might have. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Capitalism: A Love Story is being released to the public soon, and judging from the political climate these days, the article seems like a possible battleground (which Wikipedia should not be). There will probably be off-topic discussions as a result (just had to revert an off-topic comment recently), and I ask various editors to keep an eye on the article and its talk page to make sure that discussions are fully focused on improving the article. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is currently underway to determine if Nala (The Lion King) should be merged/redirected to The Lion King. Additional views at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I proposed some MOS wording for dealing with awards in an article. My proposal can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed wording for "Awards and honors". Please comment and share opinions. Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at the above mentioned link regarding analysis of factual information and how it relates to the film's critical reception. Additional views and thoughts would be appreciated. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone at Talk:Rocky IV asked about the film being categorized as an American anti-communist propaganda film. Category:American anti-communist propaganda films seems to have other dubious entries. This reminded me of discussion about categorizing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a propaganda film, which I opposed; discussion can be seen here (beware, tl;dr). It seems inappropriate to categorize films like Rocky IV and similar films (particularly from the 1980s as "propaganda" films because I believe that the best application of this label is for wartime films. Outside of such films, such classification is less obvious and not as readily propaganda-driven. Do others have an opinion on how to approach categorizing such films, such as alternate categories? Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I created Ladies of Leisure by clicking on a red link in the Frank Capra films template. After I saved it, I checked "What links here" and discovered Ladies Of Leisure, which consists of one sentence. Do I need to nominate it for deletion, or is there an easer way to get rid of it? Or should I just leave it? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{db-histmerge|Ladies Of Leisure}}
to
Ladies of Leisure.
Erik (
talk |
contribs |
wt:film)
16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For my own education, did you redirect Ladies Of Leisure by clicking on the "Move" tab and then typing in the new name Ladies of Leisure, or did you accomplish the redirect another way? Thanks! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the page List of 3-D films and feel tempted to make this into a sort-able table (see my talk comments on that page), but this is a non-trivial undertaking because of the large numbers of films listed there ... so I am not about to undertake this process unless there is some consensus on this.
I also note that on this and related pages, "3D" "3-D" are used interchangeably. However, as I noted on the related talk pages, there seems to be much more legitimacy to "3-D" and propose that a global edit to find all instances of "3D" and replace with "3-D" ensuring of course that no grammar or other errors are inadvertently introduced.
Finally, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Index page, I see the admonition to find "hidden" "Index of" pages. So this leads me to suspect that the List of 3-D films should really be renamed Index of 3-D films.
I am sure that there are other issues that arise from members who were previously unaware of the existence of this page.
Finally, with the imminent emergence of next generation 3-D film and television technology, this and related 3-D pages will become increasingly prominent and important in the coming months and years.
Enquire ( talk) 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to let everyone in this project know that Wizards has a GAR. You can find it here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just curious about the current viewpoint on the inclusion of various series templates on film articles before I bring up a discussion for WT:ACTOR. Someone has added a new group to the template {{ Hannibal}} to include the cast and has added the template to all the articles for actors listed on the template. I guess I'm looking for feedback on how to proceed with something like this. I know there's been discussion about some aspects of template use here. For WP:ACTOR, I really don't think this is a good trend, and a couple of us (actually Rossrs and myself) have tossed around the idea of some project style limitations that might include recommendations for size of article re: spinning off filmographies and now, perhaps the ever-increasing barrage of templates, so some input would be great. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (Sorry about the wrong template thing, whoever fixed it.)
The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion to split or rename Batman (film series) found here. Since this seems like an unusual case, additional opinions are welcome. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why we have Category:Western (genre) films but List of Western films: 1930s, List of Western films: 1940s, List of Western films: 1950-1954, etc. don't use the term "genre" after "Western"? Why not just Category:Western films? It looks odd with (genre) in the middle of it. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently I have been planning to trim down the plot section for Lars von Trier's Antichrist since it has grown longer than the 400-700 words suggested in WP:MOSFILM. Many of Trier's films are divided into chapters, and in the current version the chapters are incorporated in the plot section as H3 subheadings. Dogville uses the same structure, while Manderlay has the chapters listed first, followed by the plot. Breaking the Waves doesn't mention any structure but that is probably because the plot section is very brief. Pulp Fiction also uses subheadings, but it is a bit different since the film is made up of several stories, while the Trier films have one coherent story each and the plots wouldn't be confusing to read without divisions. I know that book plots aren't divided by chapters on Wikipedia, and from an aesthetic point of view I think it looks better without all the headings. But at the same time it could be proper to still mention the structure somewhere in the articles, and that they should follow a uniform style. Is there any consensus concerning this? Any suggestions? Smetanahue ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please take a look at the merge discussion to determine if Samuel L. Jackson's filmography should stay removed from the article or not. The discussion has gone stale, and the article would benefit from having the discussion closed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article List of overweight actors in United States cinema for deletion. Discussion may be found here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I often use wikipedia as a source to get information about movies that I'd like to watch. One of the bits of information that I'd like is to know what the movie is rated and why it received that particular rating. I don't see this on any of the articles. Could someone let me know why? Or am I missing something? Dincher ( talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing to create a new article with the characters of lion king. I see no use for having an article about nala, zazu, etc. Also, it would be useful to include other minor characters in it.
I believe only simba and timon and pumba are notable enough to hold their own articles, unlike the others. What do you all think? Ricardoread ( talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Three actor filmography templates have been listed for deletion. Please read and comment here, here, and here. A director template containing two films has been listed for deletion here. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. After a comment at a template for deletion discussion, it seemed a good time for WP:ACTOR to develop a guideline that can be referenced regarding the use of filmograph templates on actor articles. Because one of the obvious uses for such a template would be to place them at the bottom of the various film articles that would be included, I thought perhaps members of this project might like to comment. The proposal is at WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion to move short subject to short film can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this question really isn't related to Wikipedia, but a lot of the film project people seem to know enough about films that maybe one or more of them will be willing to answer it. The other day I read an interview with Tyler Perry, and he said that after he and Oprah Winfrey saw Precious, they were so moved by it they decided to become executive producers of it because they hoped that by putting their names on it they could attract a bigger audience. What I don't understand is, how can somebody become an executive producer of a film after it's completed? Thanks for your help. LargoLarry ( talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request a review of Friday the 13th (2009 film), as I'm about to nominate it for FAC in the near future. I've done one pass of copy editing already, but since I've been the primary editor on the article I know I often overlook things that make sense to me. I'd like to request some new eyes look for any other copy editing issues, review the alt text (I'm not very good with it), and any other issues that might be found. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over at Talk: The Blair Witch Project#Budget over what number should be included for the budget of the film in the infobox. Additional opinions are requested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There's an effort at WT:External links#Professional_reviews_2 to ban any and all links to professional reviews of films other creative works in ==External links==. If you have an opinion, please consider sharing it at that page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What do people think of this article?! Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete and add as a category. And add Cocksucker Blues. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Saw this list last night and my instincts are to delete as well. I'm sure many films have not been released on dvd, and for no particular reason other than a general lack of interest or demand. Trivial and non-notable, IMO, and probably unsourceable to boot (those Amazon links really won't do). Not everything needs listing. List of lost films is legitimate enough, though. PC78 ( talk) 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Amsaim came up with the idea to exand out the current {{ Infobox Academy Awards}} with a "Infobox African Movie Academy Awards" (per Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/African Movie Academy Awards scratchpad area). However given the large size of Category:Film awards a very large number of infoboxes could then ensue.
My suggestion is to have just a single infobox that allows for any award organisation (not just the US-centric of The Academy Awards alone) - see test of Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards and test area of its talk page Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Movie Awards. Thoughts anyone David Ruben Talk 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I"m pretty new at editing, so I'm hoping that somebody can explain when documentaries can be added to a topic. Given that they often contain significant information on a topic, I don't see why they should be seen as any less legitimate a source for further information then published texts.
For instance, Noam Chomsky has a filmography that includes all the documentaries he's been in, but Howard Zinn doesn't (even though according to IMDB he's been in numerous films)
"liberalism" and "conservatism" have a "further reading" section - why not a "further viewing" section"? Or a general "for more information" section?
The only way to attach Kenn Burn's National Parks series to the entry on National Parks would be as an external link, which I have the feeling is frowned upon.
thanks for any insights
Simsimian ( talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if someone else would watchlist Scream Awards as well. The awards ceremony has been held, but it hasn't been aired yet. Anonymous editors are consistently changing the winners. decltype ( talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi , I'm going to start a new article about Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema that is a major part of Iranian cinema. I have a problem in finding a proper name for that. Is Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema a good title? Bbadree ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Recruiting any and all WikiProject Film participants to assist with improving the Pineapple Express article, which actually receives quite a few hits (no pun intended!) on a daily basis. The article is currently the collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, but I am hoping WikiProject Comedy and WikiProject Films members can assist since they are more familiar with the formatting rules and requirements for film articles to reach 'Good' status. While the article is off to a good start, hopefully we can all work together to improve the article! Thanks so much! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This morning I merged Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as the article has lacked demonstrable notability and had been tagged for lacking it since February. All sourced content was merged. A sporadic discussion spanning back 4 years had random "I like it" keeps for keeping separate, and valid discussion for merging. Discussion at Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise) shows that it was merged before, then split as a birthday present (WTF?) and then discussed for remerge just not done. No valid content was lost during the merge, just unsourced or fansourced material However some have objected to the merge, so additional eyes on the merge and perhaps continuing the discussion on the franchise talk page may be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimknut has done some outstanding work in rewriting this article and it's currently up for nomination as a featured list. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As we continue to hammer out the details for the Tag & Assess drive, the coordinators have suggested some changes to the talk page film banner as well as to the assessment class structure. For the banner, there is consensus to remove several of the improvement parameters (namely, the "needs cast", "needs plot", and the newly added "needs production" (which has hasn't been fully implemented yet). I suggested keeping the "needs infobox" and "needs image" parameters as some users may be more likely to address these concerns, especially since it is more clear-cut then, say, adding a plot or production section. Is there any opposition to remove the cast/plot/production banners? Should any be kept, or should the image/infobox parameters be removed as well? These parameters can guide editors to improve various areas of the article, but it can also be a hassle in tagging articles as well as removing the parameter when the item has been added/expanded.
For the class structure, we suggested that due to the recent removal of the future/upcoming templates, it may be best to phase out the Future-class. Currently, any articles that have not had their release are tagged with Future, and then are later changed to an appropriate class after the release. Instead of this setup, all articles would be assessed based on the length, grammar, writing, etc. of the article instead of its release date. Erik pointed out that if the class was removed, the article should still not be nominated for GA/FA if it had yet to be released (especially since material changes extensively at the release of a film and as home media is released). In addition, we suggested removing the A class due to lack of participation in reviewing the articles. We currently have three A-class articles, one of which is at FAC. If the class was removed, we would either downgrade the current A-class articles or keep them at their status (with the hopes that they would eventually make their way to FAC). The last class change suggestion was adding the C-class. Since its inception, a variety of projects have chosen whether or not to use the class (which would fit between Start and B-class). In the past, we've had two discussions which resulted in not using the class (the first resulted in the decision not to adopt it, and the second resulted in no consensus). Before we start the drive we need to determine if the class should be used (in which case we'd need to modify the setup and provide better assessment guidelines), or not (there would be no changes and we'd stick to the present five-class Stub/Start/B/GA/FA structure) so that we don't have to reassess our articles again if we decide later to do the opposite.
Before we start the drive, it would be a good idea to hear what others think, so we can make changes if necessary. Please weigh in with any opinions you have, as this will determine how our banner, classes, and drive will be organized for the long-term. It would be best to respond quickly, so any changes can be implemented and the drive can finally start. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above proposed banner changes. Cirt ( talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup, the banner changes seem uncontroversial. Steve T • C 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support all (lose needs plot/cast/prod, keep needs infobox/image) since I've proposed it myself before. :) PC78 ( talk) 07:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to use C-class, and to do away with A-class usage. Cirt ( talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've long been a critic of 'A'-class (in this project anyway—the MILHIST lot seem to have taken it to heart). The criteria for an article's passing its 'A'-class review is so vague, and can be read as being so close to that at WP:FACR, that it's probably redundant anyway for us. This, coupled with the disinterest of project members in performing these internal reviews, means I'd be happy to see it scrapped. As for 'C'-class: I'm neutral on its adoption. I'm not entirely convinced that anyone other than Wikipedia editors even notice tags other than GA or FA, which leads me to think that article tagging is nothing but make-work sometimes, but I'm sure this has been had out before so I'm not going to argue the toss. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class. No good reason why future films can't be assessed properly, and A-Class only works if it has the necessary support (which it doesn't at this project). C-Class will fill a big gap in our current assessment scale, IMO. PC78 ( talk) 07:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class for the reasons mentioned above. I particularly agree that there's a big gap between Start and B class, so that many articles are developed well past Start qualifications but don't meet B classification yet. - Krasnoludek ( talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with an editor over red links on Donald Duck filmography. He wants to remove them since he thinks red links are bad for the reader, basically because of the colour red (danger and stuff). I don't agree per WP:Red link and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans where it was reported that removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. The red links on this article are, albeit slowly, turning in blue links. See for instance this recent edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks are good. Don't delete redlinks. Convention is long-standing and well-established on this issue. Powers T 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The following was originally in the Wikipedia talk:Red link page, which was probably a bad place for it, so after a recommendation, I moved it here, though it might be just as in place in a talk page about bots. (The post doesn't have to be film-specific, that's just the instance that came to mind.):
I've noticed Wikipedia frequently contains lists with some blue links, but other items in the lists don't have links (red or blue), even though they'd be perfectly appropriate. The links were likely not created for a few different reasons: The article may not have existed at the time of the article creation and the author(s) understandably didn't want to clutter the list with red links, the article name may have been tough to guess (such as Film Name (Year of Film) instead of just Film Name) and they didn't bother looking it up, the appropriate link may be buried in another article ( Book Name#Film Adaptation), or they simply didn't bother linking even though they could.
As far as I know, the current solution is to do a brute force look-up of each individual item with Wikipedia search and Google searches limited to the wikipedia domain, checking to see if there's an appropriate link that can be created and then making them, but that often doesn't get done. (I've certainly passed up opportunities to do it and procrastinated on the ones I have done.) So, is there some kind of automated way that (higher ranking, technically gifted) Wikipedians could do it? What I'm thinking is a sophisticated bot that would produce recommendations for link creation, that could then be created en mass once approved. The bot would look for lists or accept lists given to it (often filmographies and lists of works and titles), produce a list of links that would need to be manually checked, and then, presto, lotsa links with much less work. ...OK, maybe it wouldn't be so quick, and obviously something like this would still require considerable work (and as for the technical requirements of such a bot, if Rambot could work it's magic, then surely something like I describe is possible.). The current status quo leaves many thousands of articles without appropriate links to approved articles and without some sort of semi-automated process, the work will be slower or neglected altogether. Is something like what I describe viable, been considered and rejected, or just a pipe dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.145 ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I definitely feel that red links for notable names and almost ALL films/TV series and such should be linked in advance, in preparation for the day and time that someone takes the initiative to create said articles. On film infoboxes, sometimes this is taken to an extreme, linking cinematographers, editors, and producers that most likely will never meet notability guidelines per Wikistandards. But directors, writers, actresses/actors, and titles should always be linked.-- Cinemaniac 86 Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. — Erkman27 ( talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)
Should article names of foreign/non-English films be in English or their native language? Wikipedia's general naming policy seems to be that English should be used except when the literal translation wouldn't mean the same thing. Does this apply to films, or is there a more specific policy in regards to films or other media that I've missed? Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has twice been redirected to The Boat That Rocked, but the author has reverted insisting that it needs to be a seperate article. It should be sufficient to cover any details about the US recut in the main article. It would be good if someone else could take a look at this. PC78 ( talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Another undone redirect. According to the article, the film is currently at the casting stages so it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF. Worth taking to AfD? PC78 ( talk) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello crew! The Hong Kong action cinema article related to this project has been nominated for Feartured Article removal. If you have comments regarding the FA review, discuss it on the review page. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to change a sentence in the plot description for Fight Club (film) because I believe it to be false and I don't want to see false information stay on a featured article. I failed to gain any consensus for a change on the talk page and I have basically given up on trying as the editors that are watching the page won't even dicuss the issue (See Talk:Fight Club (film)#Plot inaccuracy. I have decided to leave the issue alone and move on to other more productive editing, but I thought I would post my concern on this talk page since someone here may also be interested in this issue and may have more time to create a better consensus than myself. Cheers. Remember ( talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Input on this article at its AfD would be helpful. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a template for use in the External links section of articles with multiple different commonly-used movie links.
For example, here are some common templates we use:
There are many more at Category:Film external link templates - but those 4 are some of the ones that almost all movies have pages for.
I propose we create a combined template, modeled after {{ CongLinks}}.
Thoughts? Cirt ( talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that New York Film Academy - Film School and New York Film Academy - Acting School be merged into New York Film Academy--oddly, the two sets of articles aren't linked together already. Would it make more sense to have one article for the whole set? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to notify the project that a new editor has added Template:Razzie Award for Worst Picture to a number of film articles. At the same time, Template:Razzie Award for Worst Actor was added to actor bios, but I am removing those based on the consensus from WP:ACTOR that removed unilaterally the parameter for Razzies from Template:Infobox actor and filmographies. Although there was a small amount of disagreement regarding awards parameters in general from the infobox, no one agreed that the Razzies were appropriate, even if the awards had remained. Thus, if Razzies weren't appropriate for infoboxes and filmographies, I believe the consensus would extend to navboxes for the same. I'm not aware of a consensus in WP:FILM, so I thought notifying the project to consider was proper. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Films to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is underway about possible merging the Pal (dog actor) article to Lassie. Three editors feel the merge would be appropriate (though I tend to discount one as they have made no useful edits, and semi-vandalized a few articles), and two feel it should not. Additional views to break this stalemate would be useful. Discussion at Talk:Pal (dog actor)#Merge with Lassie. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Please weigh in with your thoughts about having Razzie Awards templates at the bottom of film-related articles. Check in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Gaining_consensus:_Razzie_award_templates_at_the_bottom_of_articles. Thanks! Binksternet ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Additional views needed at Talk:Lassie Come Home#Picture regarding the addition of a second non-free image [10] of a scene from the film. I removed it per WP:NONFREE as it does not illustrate anything not already seen in the cover, and the article is barely above a stub, so having two non-free images is doubly excessive. Also having problems with people making pointy additions of project tags after I rejected the removal of the Yorkshire tag (as the film is set in Yorkshire and about its peoples). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up over at Talk:The Hobbit films#Renaming the article and just wanted to get everyone's opinion.- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since WP:ACTOR is a related project to this one, this is relevant to a degree here. There is a consensus discussion occurring at WT:ACTOR#Gaining consensus: Razzie award templates at the bottom of articles. The discussion outline has included the use of "Razzie Worst Picture" templates that would relate to this project. Please look over the discussion and weigh in. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Do soundtracks to films fall under the scope of WP:Films? I've been looking through the un-assessed articles and I've found quite a few soundtracks and film theme songs. Should the banner be included? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. Just spent a good week or two taking the Broadway Video from a stub to a full-fledged article. Now I just need people to give it a once-over, mainly for grammar and punctuation. Thanks! Mainly.generic ( talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know how to fix the hanging third column thingy in the filmography table at the article Harriet Frank, Jr.? Cirt ( talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I for one am against the inclusion of spoiler tags, as I feel like it cheapens the article. I know I'm being dramatic, but what next, a spoiler tag for WWII? ("YOU WON'T GUESS WHAT THE GERMANS WILL DO NEXT!") Mainly.generic ( talk) 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to work on the assessment drive and have come across a number of articles pertaining to actual theaters or theater chains for films. Are these actually under this project? I'm thinking... why? This seems more a business organization than anything specifically related to films and film production. Or... WP:WikiProject Theatre? Or... WP:WikiProject Companies? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few "Lists of characters in..." articles (e.g. List of characters in the X-Men film series, List of characters in the Superman film series, List of characters in the Spider-Man film series), most of which appear to have been created by the same user. These articles seem to be made up of an unnecessary amount of plot summary, with some real world context mixed in that should already be covered in the respective film articles. Are these sorts of articles something to be concerned about? PC78 ( talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:The Hobbit films, there is a discussion on the proper naming of films, NCF, and how two films is a single film or not a single film. 76.66.197.2 ( talk) 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A possible conflict of interest problem on this article, an indy film due for theatrical release in December. Four of the named accounts which have heavily contributed to the page are, by an examination of their contributions, single purpose accounts used primarily to edit this and related articles. In addition, numerous IPs from 69.xx.xxx.xx have contributed, none of whom have edited any other article. This strongly points to a COI problem, so I have tagged the article and extensively re-worked it to remove promotional lanuage and formatting, as per my post on the article's talk page. Another IP appears to want to undo my edits in toto, on what seem rather flimsy grounds. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Sach ( talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
some of the genres on wikipedia have rather large problems. There's Western (genre), which is good, as it looks at the genre in all forms. But then there's Musical film, which only looks at musicals in the film arena, and while there is a separate article for musical theater, there is nothing on musical as a television genre on wikipedia. Glee, Flight of the Conchords, etc. I would mention it over at the television wiki, but i strongly suggest it should just go into the musical film one, or you have a main page for Musical (Genre), and then link off to musical film, musical theatre, and musical television. But yeah... IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMA/I talks about the criteria for upgrading a start class article to B, but when I tried to do that for a film (class=B), the preview showed it as class C. Wazzup? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've just created List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture following the structure of featured list List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. My goal is improving the former to featured content but the latter was promoted for a while so I'm afraid that quality of a featured list now must be much more higher. Can anyone help me to review the list and point out its errors so that I can correct and improve it. Many thanks! Grenouille vert ( talk) 05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture even necessary if Academy Award for Best Picture already exists? It's just an unnecessary duplication of data. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've found this orphan page (also Wikipedia:A-class film article nominations/skip). Do you want to use it, or should it be deleted/redirected as maintenance ? Cenarium ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, November 15, 2009
A few character articles have been proposed for merging to Tarzan (1999 film). Discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Merge of Terk. Views appreciated (as would help in cleaning up the article itself). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. I've nominated Tender Mercies for a featured article status. If you don't mind taking a look, any comments, criticisms or feedback would be welcome! Thanks... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've recently been involved in a bit of a dispute over the film poster image in this article. The current image was uploaded by myself back in May, but was somewhat arbitrarily replaced with this image by another user. Argument for the new image is that it apparently better illustrates the film, while my argument for retaining the original (and current) image is that it will be more recognisable to a greater part of our readers, having been used for the UK DVD cover (AFAIK, the only release in an English-language country). Ultimatetly it's not that big a deal, but some fresh input might help to establish a concensus one way or another. PC78 ( talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question: how does the Film project deal with the concept of credits in the infobox, particularly if there are uncredited directors or authors? Are there any guidelines on this subject? I ask because we're having a similar discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and as I've noticed film infoboxes on occasion list authors who are not officially credited, any information you could apply would be insightful. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that Twilight (series) gets split into the book series and the film series. like Harry Potter (film series)(the films) and Harry Potter (the books) IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The project is largely dead, and as such, the articles, especially on the characters, are in desperate need of attention. If anyone would be willing to participate in general cleanup and merging discussion, we need any help available. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Would San Diego Comic Con fall within the scope of the project due to large number of movies which premier or hold a panel at the event? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it make sense to have a box like this for Reception section of films? Then, we could have X out of 5 stars for the noteworthy reviews. Cirt ( talk) 10:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)