![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Would it be logical to create a talk-page template banner for the purpose of displaying or linking to MOS:FILM? I think it would help alot of new or veteran editors by having something like this on the top of the talk-page showing reference to the guidelines so to speak when editing film articles. Any thoughts? DrNegative ( talk) 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
← Requested addition to {{ Film}} template here. Erik ( talk) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the above discussion about naming conventions for lists of awards and honors, I am requesting the move of multiple lists from "List of awards and nominations received by <film>" to "List of accolades received by <film>". The request is centralized at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Almost Famous. I ask everyone to respond. Thanks, Erik ( talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks,
There are a few minor variants of {{ infobox film}} still in use in specialised articles:
None of these really need to be standalone; important additional fields can be merged into the {{ infobox film}} code, and trivial ones removed. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
bond =
from {{
infobox Bond film}} (which can be merged into the main actors list) and | network =
from {{
infobox television film}} (which has globalisation problems in any case) strike me as obvious candidates.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 13:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)An anonymous IP, evading previous blocks, is altering the genres in two film articles, The Godfather and Heat (1995 film), particularly having edit warring history on the latter. IP does not appear willing to compromise, so I ask any available admin to review the page histories and to semi-protect them as necessary. IP is probably roaming and will return as a different IP otherwise. Erik ( talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At the guidelines' talk page, discussion has started about how to explain Metacritic's score when citing the website. I invite others to contribute. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Does a category exists in regards to currently released films or films still playing in theaters? If not can I create one? I think it would help editors that try to keep current film's reception and box office updated and don't know what film is currently playing/released. Thanks. — Mike Allen 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Other than that, I just usually go down the Rotten Tomatoes' list [1] and make sure the appropriate articles are updated to at least the basics and I usually just add the top reviews for films I like lol. — Mike Allen 00:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
How come A-class is not given or desired for film articles? — Mike Allen 08:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well this sucks. Checking a source which was to Vareity.com and got this:
"Want more? Register now for FREE! We offer our readers two articles, columns, photos or videos per month, but you can get three more by completing our our free gegistration"
I've also heard the New York Times will be doing something similar next year. Should we still use the sources, since it requires to register to view all content? Such a great site and source of useful information too.
While I'm on this I have something else that has been concerning me. I understand that books and magazines are great source of information and is encouraged as references on Wikipedia. My issue is that, how is someone suppose to verify that source? Take the editors word for it when they ref a page in a book? Go buy the book or magazine to make sure the source is right? I don't just don't understand. — Mike Allen 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This might be a fun collaborative project to work on, in light of the recent debacle with the controversy of the 2010 Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On my user page, I have several links compiled for easy access, and I wanted to share some of them with everyone else. They are film-related but are not really shown on the pages of WikiProject Films. Basically, the links let you see changes on film articles or their talk pages. The basis of these links is the Special Page Related Changes. Links are below:
These related changes are based on categories that exist on either the film article or its talk page. I try to go through the related changes of talk pages because it reveals discussions, usually between two parties, that may be helped by a third opinion. I wanted to let other editors know about these links to either combat vandalism, to improve on another editor's contribution, or to contribute to an ongoing discussion. You can change the query to search for related changes in a category not listed here. Erik ( talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going through related changes in film articles that were categorized as having non-English languages, and I saw quite a few films that seemed to me to be predominantly English-language. At Template:Infobox film, we have it documented to include the primary languages. Should we apply the same logic to categories? A category like Category:Spanish-language films says the criteria is "wholly or partially spoken". Here are some of my removals: 1, 2, and 3. I was reverted here, though, so I wanted to check about the consensus for these categories. Should only the primary language(s) be categorized? What kind of threshold should we have for parts of a film that have non-English dialogue? For example, Babel (film) has three primary languages in three storylines (though the article seems to list way more). Letters from Iwo Jima is primarily Japanese, although there is a scene in the film where American soldiers speak English. What do others think? Erik ( talk) 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please would people take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Avatar (film) and Template talk:Avatar (film). Simply south ( talk) 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters purportedly asking for "advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be" and is moving towards a suggestion that they be allowed under WP:SALAT. Views from project that deal with fictional works would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
More opinions are needed about whether or not to include Box Office Mojo inflation information in the lead of the Avatar (2009 film) article: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Fixing the inflation adjusted issue
Right now, there is a revert war going on. This really needs to be solved quickly, with this article's GA review process going on. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the status of the Star Wars sequel trilogy article on WT:STARWARS, due to recent continuous reversions on the {{ Star Wars}} template, and the article has been through several AfDs. It's likely that there may be more AfD discussions on the article in the future, and I believe the status of the article, including whether or not it should exist, should be established. Should this article exist? -- The Taerkasten ( talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (film) be renamed and moved to Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
On June 16, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock's
Psycho premiered to the world. This summer, June 16, will be the film's 50th anniversary since its release. I am interested in improving the film's article to Featured Article status in time to display it on the main page for the anniversary. I have put together a
to-do list and have listed
many references to use. To paraphrase
Ernest Shackleton, "EDITORS WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS COLLABORATION. NO WAGES, BITTER DISPUTES, LONG HOURS OF EXHAUSTING RESEARCH. SAFE REVIEW DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN EVENT OF SUCCESS."
If any editors are interested in collaborating, please let me know. :)
Erik (
talk) 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm trying to find a reliable source in English to support a nomination of the film Gangs of New York for Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film at the Awards of the Japanese Academy. Any help appreciated. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This film, which was the centerpiece of this very recent sockpuppet investigation, has been nominated for deletion here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion is needed on this TfD of
Troy Duffy navbox,
here. Thanks. —
Mike
Allen 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The result was Delete. —
Mike
Allen 02:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Per
this edit have "Best so&so" award boxes been deprecated? If so, it is unbelievably stupid, of course. The ability to easily navigate from one article to another which this sort of navigation box creates is should be what Wikipedia is all about. I saw one debate where some silly thing like "Highest box-office grosser of the week" was being deprecated, and I figured it would go too far...
Dekkappai (
talk) 04:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
My objection to the "Click on the blue link in the text" argument is that one has to look around for that link if one wants to go to the awards article (or, in reference to another needless removal, to the nation's "Year in film" article). It was mentioned somewhere above that something like this ("Year in film", I think) be put in the "See also" section. I don't like this idea nearly as much-- it's less catchy to the eye, and it gives less information-- but how about if we put a link to the Award page in the "See also" section as a compromise? Dekkappai ( talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am having problems finding a source for the wins and nominations for Gangs of New York from the Phoenix Film Critics Society. The website doesn't seem to have an archive of past winners and nominees. Any help would be appreciated. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization page about the decade-genre subcategories (1950s comedy films, etc.) Since there hasn't been any action over there since July of last year, there may not be as many people watching it as they are this, and I'd like some input. Thanks! 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone point me to possible discussion over the use of these templates? The template {{ CinemaoftheUS}} seems to have a prescribed use in its documentation. Should the other navboxes be more consistent with this guideline? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
With Talk:List of accolades received by Almost Famous#Requested move having determined that all film lists dealing with a film's awards and nominations/honors be titled List of accolades [for whatever film], does this mean that we should also have all the film sections dealing with awards and nominations/honors simply be titled Accolades? I mean, why else have the lists only regulated to that title...but not the sections within the articles? Flyer22 ( talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Erik, so should the awards and nominations/honors sections within the articles also simply be titled Accolades? You already did so for the Avatar (2009 film) article. It just seems weird that the lists must go by a different name than the sections. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Soundtracks/scores are something that we've touched on briefly in the past but don't really have strong guidelines on. Recently, I have been merging some stub soundtrack articles back into the main film article, but after a few editors opposed the moves, I'd like to determine if it is a good idea to be pulling the film and soundtrack together in one article. It has been pointed out that if the soundtrack has placed on a chart (such as Billboard 200) or been certified, they are notable enough to warrant their own article. This makes sense, but doesn't seem necessary for all instances. According to WP:MUSIC notability guidelines, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." For the majority of the film soundtrack articles that exist, there is little more than an infobox and a track listing, and only a few listed at WP:ALBUM are assessed at B-class or higher. I would like nothing more than to see these soundtracks expanded, but for the majority of these, it is probably difficult to do (for film articles and their soundtracks I've worked on, I can usually find little about production and a few reliable source reviews). Redirecting readers away from the film article to a soundtrack that has just a track listing and infobox, doesn't seem helpful. Many of these could be merged with the respective film article, if there are no issues with size requirements.
For example, 187 (soundtrack), Deep Blue Sea (soundtrack), and Gone in 60 Seconds (soundtrack) are all stubs, and their respective film articles are short enough to support the soundtrack (and score if relevant). Soundtracks such as Pulp Fiction (soundtrack), The Dark Knight (soundtrack), or Evita (soundtrack) make sense to remain on their own as they are sufficiently developed in addition to the corresponding film articles. As a film article grows and/or the soundtrack has enough information, it can always be split off at a later point. Based on these examples, do we have reason to keep soundtracks within film articles, or should they remain separate if they have placed on charts/been certified? I have sent a notice to WP:ALBUM to comment here since soundtracks fall under both projects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Soundtracks are albums that, while useful to articles within the scope of our project, have notability guidelines at WP:NALBUMS and fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. What's happenning here is a discussion on a fundamental level of eligibility of album articles to stand alone if those articles are related to a film. This discussion really belongs at the policy level of the WP:MUSIC guideline more so than it does here. Personally, I don't think there is any reason to merge and then delete — or make into redirects — album/soundtrack articles that pass WP:NALBUMS if they happen to be stubs. For one, that would mean that we're denying an article its right to exist even if that article meets all relevant notability criteria. The other equally important issue is that, by merging information from a stand-alone article into the related film article, we create a greater risk of losing that information all together. Once the soundtrack material is in the film article, it is left up to the regular editing process to determine what of this information stays and what does not. Should a soundtrack article be merged, its prior article made into a redirect and then, for reason of related consensus, the soundtrack info be removed from the film article, we would lose all traces of that material to revision history. I think that if the soundtrack albums meet the notability criteria, there's no reason to not let a stub stand on its own and be expanded. But that's my opinion and it seems to be current practice. If current practice is to be changed, I think this is the incorrect venue to reach such a consensus. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between a soundtrack and every other notable album? How do these soundtrack not pass wikiproject:album if they clearly have made it to several charts around the world and been certified gold, platinum oe multi-platinum just like any other studio or compilation album. The only difference is that soundtrack features music from or inspired by a particular film. No one on this talk page or anywhere else can say that albums like the American Music Award winning Men in Black: The Album, Godzilla: The Album, Life (soundtrack), the American Music Award winning Wild Wild West (soundtrack) or the Bad Boys (soundtrack) that spawned a Grammy nominated song. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop ( talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm generally against merging if a stand-alone article already exists, because it's highly likely that that article has, or could have more information than the parent article-- the film article here. As I implied above, my way of working is to gather my sources, write an article, and then if one section over-grows the topic, summarize it in the main one, and then branch it out to its own article. (I've got a couple film articles in which the director has his own subsection because I haven't found enough info on him yet to start a healthy article, and only one film by him.) Working the other way-- merging existing articles-- is iffy unless it is a genuine stub with no more info than could be logically contained in one section of a larger article. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think we're talking about two separate things when we're talking about soundtracks. There's the soundtrack we hear when watching the film. The instrumentation, musical themes, how it relates to the film, the composer's interaction with the other filmmakers in the development of the score, etc.-- that all belongs in the film article, I think. It's a rare film score that is significant enough to carry its own article (though they do exist-- Psycho for example)... Then-- separately from the soundtrack/score-- there are the soundtrack album release(s)-- which is what most people seem to be talking about here. Personally, I don't consider these part of the film. They are separate releases, separate entities and deserve consideration of any other album release. If there is not enough info on the soundtrack album release for its own article, then discussion of it can go in the film article until there is. But I think of this something like having a separate infobox and section on a sequel or remake of the film within the article of the main film. I've seen this done, but I think it's just a temporary measure until that other entity is sourced well enough for a stand-alone article. (For example, the CD releases and track listings at the Psycho article don't belong there, in my opinion. Only a discussion of Herrmann's score-- which is what we hear in the film. The album release(s) deserve discussion in a separate article if there is enough material for that. Herrmann's score is significant enough and has created enough writing to support its own article, and the album releases would go well there.) Dekkappai ( talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is the last time I start a discussion before going to bed and work (and maybe a Lost premiere), I'm surprised at the amount of reaction to the topic. The opinions here seem to follow two thought processes as initially brought up at the start:
This seems to be the two main thought processes (please correct me if I'm wrong). It appears that at the dawn of the great history of film article editing on Wikipedia, several soundtracks were split off due to size or stand alone notability requirements. Other editors who saw one split off soundtrack, assumed that all soundtracks should be split off, and proceeded to do so. Editors against the splits are merging them into the original film article, creating a cycle of going back and forth. Do we leave it as it is, with assorted soundtracks sitting in their own brief articles with the possibility of expansion (Wikipedia's going to be around a long time, so this is possible as maybe new sources arise) or do we actually develop strict/basic guidelines for how music should be covered in the film articles?
If we were to have more developed guidelines, our FAs have a variety of ways of covering the soundtracks of film articles, mainly due to each editor(s)' desire for the section and few clear examples of how it should best be handled. Changeling, covers details about the score and then directs the reader to a split off stub (which could be included within the main article, although the score track listing probably isn't necessary). Tropic Thunder, includes both the score and soundtrack details including basic (very basic) production information, a few reviews, an infobox, and a track listing for the soundtrack (not the score). Transformers includes details only about the score but links to both the developed soundtrack and score separate articles. Fight Club covers details about the score as well, with no inclusion of infobox, track listing, reviews, etc. I'm not stating that any of these are better than the other (especially since the films vary in musical styles and some do not include both a score and soundtrack). Should we have a particular formatting style to how music is covered, or do we let it go on a case-by-case basis (as films have differing music styles)? Or leave it all as it is? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a fixed grin on my face regarding Nehrams2020's summary of the next time he/she is going to start a discussion before bedtime. Methinks that, alone, is sufficient reason to do it again. Piano non troppo ( talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in no way involved in this project, but there's something I think you should be notified of. As far as I can tell, your main infobox is {{
Infobox film}}
, but
Vilnisr has created {{
Infobox Movies}}
, which I think is their variation of the same thing. Someone might want to check it out before more people start using it accidentally.
MrKIA11 (
talk) 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
stay and{{
Infobox Movies}}
don't!
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
is completely unorganized, want to improve > go to infobox television
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
is completely unorganized, text too large (and if you dont see, then get glasses, i have), there is no difference between {{
Infobox film}}
and {{
Infobox VG}}
, both are ugly, these templates stuck this way for a long time, want to improve > go to infobox television and take a look, and about discussions, one user vs 5 admins, sure you will listen
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Hello! I was wondering if this project has ever been featured in the Wikipedia Signpost before. Thank you, Belugaboy535136 contribs 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion about if Death at a Funeral should redirect to Death at a Funeral (2007 film) or Death at a Funeral (2010 film) or be a disambiguation page listing both films. See the discussion here. For a related discussion about having naming conventions for similar situations, see WT:NCF. Erik ( talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a mild concern about Fight Club (film) being copied in the press. I found an Empire article today called The Story of Fight Club. I thought it could have new content, but it is basically a rewrite of the Wikipedia article's "Production" section, as well as parts of "Marketing" and "Reception". While it is neat to see my contributions reflected elsewhere, I am still bothered by how it hews closely to the Wikipedia article and does not credit it. There is very little that goes beyond the details from the article. What do others think? Does Empire need to be contacted about it? Another fun tidbit, people talking about Interpretations of Fight Club here (found it in relation to the Empire article). Erik ( talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have the magazine and under their contact details they give their email address as "empire@bauermedia.co.uk". I like Empire, they gave me a free holiday to Cannes a few years ago, and another time they gave me some free videos. It's a shame if this is true, and most likely the doing of a lazy journalist rather the magazine itself. If you don't get a satisfactory response my advice would be to register for their forum and post a message in the section dedicated to the magazine because their writers often respond to questions and concerns online. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No response from Empire and no change to the online article. I'm going to send a
followup. I ask others to send a standard license violation letter to empire@bauermedia.co.uk
or via
contact page. Use
this as your template.
Erik (
talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The practice of lifting WP material uncredited by publications is really a poor reflection on the publication, not really a WP issue. As Dekkappai points out, we do the work here for free, for anyone's use. As a teacher, I struggle daily with students not crediting sources (or worse) when using WP and other sites, and if the Empire writer is using too much of the WP article and creating the perception it is her own product, then that's an issue between her and her employer and its readers. By notifying Empire, what we are doing is alerting it to potential unprofessional behavior of one of its staff. It is up to them to take appropriate action and readers can judge for themselves. It's not really a WP issue per se.
Jim Dunning |
talk 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox film#Unhelpful language linking. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I just created my first film article this week (well it was published this week, I've been working on it since November, with some help with another editor). It is Saw VII, and it's yet to be released, and I've "rated" it a start class, but was wondering if someone from the film crew could check and see if it qualifies as a B? I would rate it, but I don't want to be a conflict of interest. Also can a future film go through the GA process or does it have to be released? Thanks! :) — Mike Allen 09:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have assessed the article as C class. As the film has yet to be released, it does not provide sufficient coverage to warrant B class. For example, there are no details on reception, box office, accolades, home media, etc. For future films, they should not be nominated for GA until after the film has been released (usually a few weeks to help with stability issues). In the future, requests for article assessments can be placed at the Assessment department. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a question over listing minor film characters in the "starring" field of {{ Infobox film}} on film articles. Please see Talk:Inchon (film).
I had been under the impression that the "starring" field for {{ Infobox film}} on film articles was not to list all actors for all minor characters in the film, but rather simply the top two or maybe three major starring actors in the film.
Comments from WP:FILMS experienced contributors regarding usage of {{ Infobox film}} would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The user User talk:Xsmasher is going through and removing the sites Bloody-Disgusting.com and DreadCentral.com from articles that are using them as reliable sources, claiming they are all "spam" and even filed a report on the sites here. These sites only report horror news, when most other (well known) sites, like LA Times, USA Today, etc may not. They are reliable and are used on probably all horror film articles here. This is ridiculous. — Mike Allen 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the situation today, and I think both sides are being wholesale in their actions. First, consensus is that the horror websites are reliable sources. Xsmasher seems to have taken an undiscriminating approach with his removals where a more discriminatory approach is warranted. For example, I do not think The Crazies (2010 film) needs references from these websites to verify the credits of the film's cast and crew. We should review the different ways that the websites are being referenced, like if it is in context or not, or about using them for release dates or reviews. Erik ( talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there are several articles like Rambo films on television, James Bond films on television, Category:Dune on film and television, Superman films on television. Is this a trend, and is it endorsed? If so, I think a new category is required. StevePrutz ( talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these articles do not work and recommend redirecting them to the film series articles. The fact that IMDb is the basis for the content of these articles certainly give me pause. I think such editing differences should be noted by a reliable source and not be so indiscriminate, particularly the obvious toning down of language and violence. Erik ( talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've searched WP:EL, WP:MOSFILM and the archives of this page but cannot find a concise explanation of whether or when links to movie trailers are acceptable in External links. In late 2008 there was a lengthy discussion about linking to YouTube trailers as a reference, which is not my question exactly. In addition, I am only inquiring about legit websites, i.e. distributors and official partners. In the aforementioned discussion, one individual stated that a trailer need not be linked just because it exists, which I follow, but is incomplete as a rule-of-thumb. Is there a custom at WP:FILM, or a heuristic to determine under which circumstances inclusion may be aproppriate? Any guidance here would be most appreciated. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo! Movies site is a good place for official trailers also. — Mike Allen 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Official trailers would meet all three WP:ELYES. If the official website hosted the entire film that would also meet all three WP:ELYES. SilkTork * YES! 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Putting_Production_before_Plot SilkTork * YES! 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. I hope to work on the article later, certaintly to remove some of the unsourced ones! Lugnuts ( talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Koavf nominated dozens of film templates of trilogies and quadrilogies for deletion today. Link to all the templates nominated for deletion. Some discussion was started regarding the template for David Wain here but no concensus was reached. I use these templates all the time navigating back and forth but I think WP films as a consensus needs to address this issue. Please move this conversation where ever necessary to discuss the issue Andman8 ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The same user has nominated several director navboxes for deletion (see today's TFD), with the rationale that two/three linked films isn't enough to warrant creating a template. I'm not sure what WP:FILM's policy is on this, especially for directors still making films, so could someone from the project weigh in? Bradley0110 ( talk) 10:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that some film articles that previously had their release year linked in the lead have now had the link removed, but I'm not clear on whether that's due to editing or a policy change...are we no longer linking the release year? Thanks for the clarification. Doniago ( talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the links were this 2010, which is a one of these, as was that link. Eggs are to be avoided, and year links to 2010 are redundant. Darrenhusted ( talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(←) Also the first sentence tends to be a row of blue links. Blah is a 2010 American drama action comedy horror film directed by Clint Eastwood and written by Bonnie Hunt. It's distracting, to me, I don't know about anyone else. I agree with Erik's argument in a earlier discussion about not linking to common genre's such as, comedy film and action film. Unless it's some uncommon genre like mountain film, then I could see linking to it. — Mike Allen 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion here about the appropriateness of having a hatnote for a film soundtrack being placed at the top of the film article of the same name. In light of this recent discussion, it may be beneficial to get some input on this issue. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because there is a bit of backing-and-forthing at The King's Speech (film) over whether the Pullens buildings were used as a location. A user is referring to a Flickr photoset, which shows main actors and crew at the location, and I'm taking the view that there are no reliable sources stating the location has been used, even though the photos quite clearly prove it unequivocally. Is it possible to use Flickr as a stopgap until a reliable source does come along (it was a shoot featuring major set dressing and costuming, so I can't imagine Empire or American Cinematographer not having a piece on it down the line)? Bradley0110 ( talk) 12:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A discussion was started at the Village Pump suggesting MPAA ratings be added to all articles. I've already noted the consensus that MPAA ratings are not appropriate, but it would probably be helpful to have additional views from those of us who actually work with film articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Films - MPAA ratings, rottentomatoes -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone always removes television film from the infobox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wolfgang_Petersen. Why wouldn't we include them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.235.45 ( talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Read This: Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Red links do not belong.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've come across an IP that keeps inserting content in the Julie Andrews pertaining to the box office success of the film Tooth Fairy. At first he added "it has, so far, made a very small profit (with an estimated budget of 48 million dollars, the movie after four weeks from its release had earned $49,721,400). He sourced the "very small profit" to Variety, which only shows the past week's box office, and the budget to Box office mojo, although that page also shows domestic and worldwide receipts. While that much is accurate, in fact, Box Office Mojo reports worldwide box office receipts in excess of $82 million against the budget. I changed that to say it was successful, since it has profited in excess of $34 million. He came back to call that "deceptive" and changed it to say it "has gathered modest box office profits in the US and in some of the other countries where it has been released so far. To me, that's extrapolating from what is presented. The film has, to date, profited over 70% over budget and "some of the other countries where it has been released so far is vague. The Box Office Mojo page doesn't break down country analysis to how many theatres where it is run, etc. Who's to say that if the film had $512,473 in Chile that it wasn't less successful than where it had $442,633, depending on the theatre count? I can't see the rationale for his conclusions, and why it is so important to denigrate the result of worldwide box office receipts. He came back to call what I wrote a "non specific generalization". Can someone help me here? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I love how Boondock Saints and Smokin' Aces (and others I cant remember right now) got "mostly negative reviews" and were still financially successful. I guess it just proves once and for all that critics are worthless paid shills who are utterly detached from the desires of the movie going public.
Anyway, since every single movie article insists on quoting RT and metacritic (often without any scrap of written review by a critic) it is probably worth noting if the film was a financial success or not in the reception section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 03:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Jaws (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) 23:27, February 25, 2010
Regarding the typical film article format on Wikipedia: No synopsis at all, but plenty of gory plot details. Who requested such a format? Ever take a poll of users? I'll bet 99% would request a synopsis. Rtdrury ( talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
You are probably in the one place where all editors know WP:SPOILER by heart. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have started a GA reassessment for Pee-wee's Big Adventure, you can view my comments here. Also could someone fix the subst text at the top? I thought I followed the instructions.. — Mike Allen 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
In cases where a film has multiple release dates (say, a festival release in 2007 followed by a general US release in 2008, and perhaps an international release date of 2009), what is the appropriate year to use in an actors filmography? I've tried looking through relevant guides, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but haven't found a definite answer. Thanks for the help. -- BehemothCat ( talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was started last week with no input from the project's participants. Some input from FILM members familiar with the subject might be helpful. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the revenue from the release of Toy Story/Toy Story II double feature is included in the gross revenue of the films (in Toy Story and Toy Story 2 pages) also should that be added to both articles or like devided in half or something? this is the link that has gross revenue from double feature? Gman124 talk 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(This notice has been posted at WT:ACTOR as well.)
I started a discussion here about the current size of the article. Please share your thoughts. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is for films. Try posting to WP:Actors. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A Flixster template has been created by user Arturnt to add the Flixster site in EL across film articles. As you may or may not know, the company now owns Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore they use the exact same reviews as RT, making the template (and adding the site in EL) pointless, and in some cases excessive. The discussion is being held at the TfD page, and your input is encouraged. Thanks. — Mike Allen 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Imdfb and Template:Imdfb name are up for deletion. These were created by a single user to add links to various film, anime, and firearm articles to point to the " Internet Movie Firearms Database", an open wiki (its article is up for CSD). Discussion on both templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 6. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen ( talk) Maurreen ( talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. As most of you no doubt know Mar 23rd is the 100th anniversary of Akira Kurosawa's birth. Turner Classic Movies is featuring his films on Mar 9, 16 and 23. This gives us the potential for increased test edits and or vandalism on his page. I don't know how many editors have his page on their watchlist but if a few of you could add it to yours it would be much appreciated. Now, my worries may be unfounded as I don't have any evidence that problems on the page will increase, but, forewarned is forearmed or some such cliche like that ;-). My thanks in advance for any of you that can help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A year ago this month, Bride of Frankenstein was promoted as a Featured Article. I would like to conduct an annual review of Featured Articles and possibly Good Articles to ensure their quality. Older Featured and Good Articles have fallen by the wayside because of lack of attention. Here are the changes that have taken place since it was promoted as a Featured Article. I have started an annual review of the film here. I invite other editors to weigh in. Erik ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Above are annual reviews for Good Articles promoted in March 2009. I was not sure what older Good Articles (promoted ~2008) under WikiProject Films were undergoing GA Sweeps? I'd like to avoid overlap. In addition, there were no Featured Articles in March 2008, but Battlefield Earth (film) and Transformers (film) were promoted the month before. Is anyone interested in annual reviews of these? If we can get into the routine of annual reviews, the process will become simpler and articles will not degrade in quality. Erik ( talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor is requesting that List of films based on war books — peace is moved to List of films based on war books — peacetime. Other editors are invited to comment; discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
For once, I decided to follow links to Adventure film and Comedy horror film". Oh deary deary me: have a look. They are linked as a matter of formula at the top of so many film articles, but see what you get—openings to bare stubs, such as:
"Adventure films are a genre of film. They hang on adventurous themes and try to be full of dramatic scences and suspense."
Gee whiz. Sorry to be rude, but that is a total embarrassment. There's precious little more. If the point is to show readers a list of other films in the genre, this is already much better accomplished via the category and "List of ..." articles. However, I don't see the point in linking to any such list at the top of a film article; perhaps in the "See also" section.
Here's another:
"Comedy horror, also known as horror comedy, is a literary and film genre, combining elements of comedy and horror fiction."
Just one short para.
I think we should stop linking these genres and others unless there is a serious intention to create targets that are worthy of massive numbers of links at the openings of film articles. That or find better targets for the purpose. Tony (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Per this recent change to Template:Infobox film removing automatic linking of English language (which itself was a result of this discussion), I made this change to the documentation subpage for the template. Does anyone disagree with my addition or have thoughts on how to improve the wording? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Didn't this project decide that the use of succession boxes were redundant to the awards template? If so, perhaps a task force could address removing them. I had removed them from Shakespeare in Love and someone returned them because other best picture articles have them. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to renew my question as why RT or MC are added to each and every movie. This discussion is a little bit old, but after reading the archives it seems to me that there is never any sort of resolution. A lot of people agree that it is not really smart to mention RT in an article, but nothing actually is done. Meanwhile some guy's, mostly IPs it seems, add RT ratings to each page about a movie, not caring if it is a movie from/for the USA or for example Africa, where RT-ratings have no meaning whats so ever. Metacritic is a bit better I think, but not really perfect. Another fact is that RT is a profit orginization and there seems to be correlation between profits and RT votings . I personally would say that we should keep Metacritic as it is write now (link to mc article + how many critics found the movie good compared to how many wrote about it) but remove RT because it is a site focussing on profit, marketing, is biased due to focussing on the USA (yet editing every movie page) and based upon amateur critics which have no encyclopedic qualification what so ever. But mainly I'd like to see this discussed with a resolution, not like previous once were the discussion just faded and, if I may say so, the RT staff continuing to edit the individual sites. 136.199.201.80 ( talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Created WP:ROTTEN, added "Similar websites" section, and added another limitation (that a small number of reviews affects the score). Let's have discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for any further modifications. Erik ( talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, a vast number of changes to film articles have involved removing the year in film template such as {{fy|1939}} with the note that this is due to an "Orphan template per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion". Can someone point me to this discussion? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC).
{{fy}}
page, which points to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Filmyear. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Just noticed that my response is redundant :| )
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)An editor has created more than a dozen lists of films based on books of different topics, such as List of films based on sports books and List of films based on war books — peace. Another editor has expressed concern about the quality of these lists. Editors are invited to review and comment on the discussion here. Erik ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As most of you may know, there is a project-wide co-ordinated effort each year to have some fun on April 1 (otherwise known as April Fools' Day) by filling the Main Page with content that is truthful but either unusual or manipulated so as to make it sound humorous (see here to see last year's example). This is done with all five sections of the Main Page, namely Did you know, In the news, Selected anniversaries/On this day..., Today's featured article and Picture of the day. If anyone has any ideas on what WikiProject Films can contribute to any of these sections, please share them so that we can maybe partake in this. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is about time that we examine the {{Film (country)}} templates, like {{ FilmUS}} and {{ FilmUK}}. On the positive side, they do add an important cat to film articles, but in that, they add an easter egg link that is discouraged by the MOS. Should these templates be deprecated, or should we think about remove the egg link from the template? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The templates do multiple things: They link to the cinema of x article. WP:EGG insults user intelligence. If I'm on a film article, I expect to have like-minded links to film/cinemea articles. People who blindly click links without hovering over them deserve all they get (maybe they should all link to the Goatse site instead). Tooltips exist for a reason! Virtually no one will click a link to Spain or Australia, but I bet more people do if it went to the cinema of Spain article. Which it does, so that's OK.
Ever wondered why most of the cinema of x articles are in such poor shape? Because no bugger visits them. Increasing their profile via the template can only be a good thing. I love reading about the cinema of Romania, Chile, France, or any other country (well, maybe not that really bad country. You know the one). Secondly, they also auto-populate the country category (much like the langauge parameter does). Believe it or not, not all articles have the correct categories when it comes to the country. Maybe this can become an epic trivial debate, like bolding cast lists, while really important things DONT GET DONE. They exist to make navigation easier between film and cinema articles. It's wrong to assume that the average WP READER knows anything about the cinema of articles and might find a refreshing article when clicking the link. Who knows, they may even go away and edit said article to improve it. Navigation is the key to this whole site. Sometimes it's good to find something a little unexpected.
Deletion is a weak way out (haven't you got some misguided page move disambigs to fix)? The solution if linking to cinema of is so, so bad, is to simply change the template so it doesn't hyperlink anywhere, orphaning off all those articles *sniff*, but retaining the country population category function. Enough ranting, time to buy the bullets from eBay and record the Youtube videos. Happy editing! Lugnuts ( talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Replying to Bovineboy's original post, I'd like to propose a solution. The code of {{FilmUS}} et al. can be modified in such a way that inserting {{FilmUS}} into the infobox generates an entry of "United States" (unlinked to anything, just plain text) while still generating a category listing. Basically, the current code of:
can just be modified to read:
This way, the templates are retained for ease of use and are not deleted in case consensus changes in the future. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The link violates WP:EGG, and in most cases (at least for filmUS) the category declaration violates WP:FILMCAT#Most specific categories. — Codrdan ( talk) 01:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
|country=US
in the article. Of course this would require the help of a bot, but I could help with the changes to the template if you wish. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Would it be logical to create a talk-page template banner for the purpose of displaying or linking to MOS:FILM? I think it would help alot of new or veteran editors by having something like this on the top of the talk-page showing reference to the guidelines so to speak when editing film articles. Any thoughts? DrNegative ( talk) 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
← Requested addition to {{ Film}} template here. Erik ( talk) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the above discussion about naming conventions for lists of awards and honors, I am requesting the move of multiple lists from "List of awards and nominations received by <film>" to "List of accolades received by <film>". The request is centralized at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Almost Famous. I ask everyone to respond. Thanks, Erik ( talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks,
There are a few minor variants of {{ infobox film}} still in use in specialised articles:
None of these really need to be standalone; important additional fields can be merged into the {{ infobox film}} code, and trivial ones removed. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
bond =
from {{
infobox Bond film}} (which can be merged into the main actors list) and | network =
from {{
infobox television film}} (which has globalisation problems in any case) strike me as obvious candidates.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 13:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)An anonymous IP, evading previous blocks, is altering the genres in two film articles, The Godfather and Heat (1995 film), particularly having edit warring history on the latter. IP does not appear willing to compromise, so I ask any available admin to review the page histories and to semi-protect them as necessary. IP is probably roaming and will return as a different IP otherwise. Erik ( talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At the guidelines' talk page, discussion has started about how to explain Metacritic's score when citing the website. I invite others to contribute. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Does a category exists in regards to currently released films or films still playing in theaters? If not can I create one? I think it would help editors that try to keep current film's reception and box office updated and don't know what film is currently playing/released. Thanks. — Mike Allen 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Other than that, I just usually go down the Rotten Tomatoes' list [1] and make sure the appropriate articles are updated to at least the basics and I usually just add the top reviews for films I like lol. — Mike Allen 00:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
How come A-class is not given or desired for film articles? — Mike Allen 08:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well this sucks. Checking a source which was to Vareity.com and got this:
"Want more? Register now for FREE! We offer our readers two articles, columns, photos or videos per month, but you can get three more by completing our our free gegistration"
I've also heard the New York Times will be doing something similar next year. Should we still use the sources, since it requires to register to view all content? Such a great site and source of useful information too.
While I'm on this I have something else that has been concerning me. I understand that books and magazines are great source of information and is encouraged as references on Wikipedia. My issue is that, how is someone suppose to verify that source? Take the editors word for it when they ref a page in a book? Go buy the book or magazine to make sure the source is right? I don't just don't understand. — Mike Allen 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This might be a fun collaborative project to work on, in light of the recent debacle with the controversy of the 2010 Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On my user page, I have several links compiled for easy access, and I wanted to share some of them with everyone else. They are film-related but are not really shown on the pages of WikiProject Films. Basically, the links let you see changes on film articles or their talk pages. The basis of these links is the Special Page Related Changes. Links are below:
These related changes are based on categories that exist on either the film article or its talk page. I try to go through the related changes of talk pages because it reveals discussions, usually between two parties, that may be helped by a third opinion. I wanted to let other editors know about these links to either combat vandalism, to improve on another editor's contribution, or to contribute to an ongoing discussion. You can change the query to search for related changes in a category not listed here. Erik ( talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going through related changes in film articles that were categorized as having non-English languages, and I saw quite a few films that seemed to me to be predominantly English-language. At Template:Infobox film, we have it documented to include the primary languages. Should we apply the same logic to categories? A category like Category:Spanish-language films says the criteria is "wholly or partially spoken". Here are some of my removals: 1, 2, and 3. I was reverted here, though, so I wanted to check about the consensus for these categories. Should only the primary language(s) be categorized? What kind of threshold should we have for parts of a film that have non-English dialogue? For example, Babel (film) has three primary languages in three storylines (though the article seems to list way more). Letters from Iwo Jima is primarily Japanese, although there is a scene in the film where American soldiers speak English. What do others think? Erik ( talk) 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please would people take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Avatar (film) and Template talk:Avatar (film). Simply south ( talk) 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters purportedly asking for "advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be" and is moving towards a suggestion that they be allowed under WP:SALAT. Views from project that deal with fictional works would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
More opinions are needed about whether or not to include Box Office Mojo inflation information in the lead of the Avatar (2009 film) article: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Fixing the inflation adjusted issue
Right now, there is a revert war going on. This really needs to be solved quickly, with this article's GA review process going on. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the status of the Star Wars sequel trilogy article on WT:STARWARS, due to recent continuous reversions on the {{ Star Wars}} template, and the article has been through several AfDs. It's likely that there may be more AfD discussions on the article in the future, and I believe the status of the article, including whether or not it should exist, should be established. Should this article exist? -- The Taerkasten ( talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (film) be renamed and moved to Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
On June 16, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock's
Psycho premiered to the world. This summer, June 16, will be the film's 50th anniversary since its release. I am interested in improving the film's article to Featured Article status in time to display it on the main page for the anniversary. I have put together a
to-do list and have listed
many references to use. To paraphrase
Ernest Shackleton, "EDITORS WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS COLLABORATION. NO WAGES, BITTER DISPUTES, LONG HOURS OF EXHAUSTING RESEARCH. SAFE REVIEW DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN EVENT OF SUCCESS."
If any editors are interested in collaborating, please let me know. :)
Erik (
talk) 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm trying to find a reliable source in English to support a nomination of the film Gangs of New York for Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film at the Awards of the Japanese Academy. Any help appreciated. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This film, which was the centerpiece of this very recent sockpuppet investigation, has been nominated for deletion here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion is needed on this TfD of
Troy Duffy navbox,
here. Thanks. —
Mike
Allen 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The result was Delete. —
Mike
Allen 02:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Per
this edit have "Best so&so" award boxes been deprecated? If so, it is unbelievably stupid, of course. The ability to easily navigate from one article to another which this sort of navigation box creates is should be what Wikipedia is all about. I saw one debate where some silly thing like "Highest box-office grosser of the week" was being deprecated, and I figured it would go too far...
Dekkappai (
talk) 04:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
My objection to the "Click on the blue link in the text" argument is that one has to look around for that link if one wants to go to the awards article (or, in reference to another needless removal, to the nation's "Year in film" article). It was mentioned somewhere above that something like this ("Year in film", I think) be put in the "See also" section. I don't like this idea nearly as much-- it's less catchy to the eye, and it gives less information-- but how about if we put a link to the Award page in the "See also" section as a compromise? Dekkappai ( talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am having problems finding a source for the wins and nominations for Gangs of New York from the Phoenix Film Critics Society. The website doesn't seem to have an archive of past winners and nominees. Any help would be appreciated. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization page about the decade-genre subcategories (1950s comedy films, etc.) Since there hasn't been any action over there since July of last year, there may not be as many people watching it as they are this, and I'd like some input. Thanks! 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone point me to possible discussion over the use of these templates? The template {{ CinemaoftheUS}} seems to have a prescribed use in its documentation. Should the other navboxes be more consistent with this guideline? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
With Talk:List of accolades received by Almost Famous#Requested move having determined that all film lists dealing with a film's awards and nominations/honors be titled List of accolades [for whatever film], does this mean that we should also have all the film sections dealing with awards and nominations/honors simply be titled Accolades? I mean, why else have the lists only regulated to that title...but not the sections within the articles? Flyer22 ( talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Erik, so should the awards and nominations/honors sections within the articles also simply be titled Accolades? You already did so for the Avatar (2009 film) article. It just seems weird that the lists must go by a different name than the sections. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Soundtracks/scores are something that we've touched on briefly in the past but don't really have strong guidelines on. Recently, I have been merging some stub soundtrack articles back into the main film article, but after a few editors opposed the moves, I'd like to determine if it is a good idea to be pulling the film and soundtrack together in one article. It has been pointed out that if the soundtrack has placed on a chart (such as Billboard 200) or been certified, they are notable enough to warrant their own article. This makes sense, but doesn't seem necessary for all instances. According to WP:MUSIC notability guidelines, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." For the majority of the film soundtrack articles that exist, there is little more than an infobox and a track listing, and only a few listed at WP:ALBUM are assessed at B-class or higher. I would like nothing more than to see these soundtracks expanded, but for the majority of these, it is probably difficult to do (for film articles and their soundtracks I've worked on, I can usually find little about production and a few reliable source reviews). Redirecting readers away from the film article to a soundtrack that has just a track listing and infobox, doesn't seem helpful. Many of these could be merged with the respective film article, if there are no issues with size requirements.
For example, 187 (soundtrack), Deep Blue Sea (soundtrack), and Gone in 60 Seconds (soundtrack) are all stubs, and their respective film articles are short enough to support the soundtrack (and score if relevant). Soundtracks such as Pulp Fiction (soundtrack), The Dark Knight (soundtrack), or Evita (soundtrack) make sense to remain on their own as they are sufficiently developed in addition to the corresponding film articles. As a film article grows and/or the soundtrack has enough information, it can always be split off at a later point. Based on these examples, do we have reason to keep soundtracks within film articles, or should they remain separate if they have placed on charts/been certified? I have sent a notice to WP:ALBUM to comment here since soundtracks fall under both projects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Soundtracks are albums that, while useful to articles within the scope of our project, have notability guidelines at WP:NALBUMS and fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. What's happenning here is a discussion on a fundamental level of eligibility of album articles to stand alone if those articles are related to a film. This discussion really belongs at the policy level of the WP:MUSIC guideline more so than it does here. Personally, I don't think there is any reason to merge and then delete — or make into redirects — album/soundtrack articles that pass WP:NALBUMS if they happen to be stubs. For one, that would mean that we're denying an article its right to exist even if that article meets all relevant notability criteria. The other equally important issue is that, by merging information from a stand-alone article into the related film article, we create a greater risk of losing that information all together. Once the soundtrack material is in the film article, it is left up to the regular editing process to determine what of this information stays and what does not. Should a soundtrack article be merged, its prior article made into a redirect and then, for reason of related consensus, the soundtrack info be removed from the film article, we would lose all traces of that material to revision history. I think that if the soundtrack albums meet the notability criteria, there's no reason to not let a stub stand on its own and be expanded. But that's my opinion and it seems to be current practice. If current practice is to be changed, I think this is the incorrect venue to reach such a consensus. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between a soundtrack and every other notable album? How do these soundtrack not pass wikiproject:album if they clearly have made it to several charts around the world and been certified gold, platinum oe multi-platinum just like any other studio or compilation album. The only difference is that soundtrack features music from or inspired by a particular film. No one on this talk page or anywhere else can say that albums like the American Music Award winning Men in Black: The Album, Godzilla: The Album, Life (soundtrack), the American Music Award winning Wild Wild West (soundtrack) or the Bad Boys (soundtrack) that spawned a Grammy nominated song. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop ( talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm generally against merging if a stand-alone article already exists, because it's highly likely that that article has, or could have more information than the parent article-- the film article here. As I implied above, my way of working is to gather my sources, write an article, and then if one section over-grows the topic, summarize it in the main one, and then branch it out to its own article. (I've got a couple film articles in which the director has his own subsection because I haven't found enough info on him yet to start a healthy article, and only one film by him.) Working the other way-- merging existing articles-- is iffy unless it is a genuine stub with no more info than could be logically contained in one section of a larger article. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think we're talking about two separate things when we're talking about soundtracks. There's the soundtrack we hear when watching the film. The instrumentation, musical themes, how it relates to the film, the composer's interaction with the other filmmakers in the development of the score, etc.-- that all belongs in the film article, I think. It's a rare film score that is significant enough to carry its own article (though they do exist-- Psycho for example)... Then-- separately from the soundtrack/score-- there are the soundtrack album release(s)-- which is what most people seem to be talking about here. Personally, I don't consider these part of the film. They are separate releases, separate entities and deserve consideration of any other album release. If there is not enough info on the soundtrack album release for its own article, then discussion of it can go in the film article until there is. But I think of this something like having a separate infobox and section on a sequel or remake of the film within the article of the main film. I've seen this done, but I think it's just a temporary measure until that other entity is sourced well enough for a stand-alone article. (For example, the CD releases and track listings at the Psycho article don't belong there, in my opinion. Only a discussion of Herrmann's score-- which is what we hear in the film. The album release(s) deserve discussion in a separate article if there is enough material for that. Herrmann's score is significant enough and has created enough writing to support its own article, and the album releases would go well there.) Dekkappai ( talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is the last time I start a discussion before going to bed and work (and maybe a Lost premiere), I'm surprised at the amount of reaction to the topic. The opinions here seem to follow two thought processes as initially brought up at the start:
This seems to be the two main thought processes (please correct me if I'm wrong). It appears that at the dawn of the great history of film article editing on Wikipedia, several soundtracks were split off due to size or stand alone notability requirements. Other editors who saw one split off soundtrack, assumed that all soundtracks should be split off, and proceeded to do so. Editors against the splits are merging them into the original film article, creating a cycle of going back and forth. Do we leave it as it is, with assorted soundtracks sitting in their own brief articles with the possibility of expansion (Wikipedia's going to be around a long time, so this is possible as maybe new sources arise) or do we actually develop strict/basic guidelines for how music should be covered in the film articles?
If we were to have more developed guidelines, our FAs have a variety of ways of covering the soundtracks of film articles, mainly due to each editor(s)' desire for the section and few clear examples of how it should best be handled. Changeling, covers details about the score and then directs the reader to a split off stub (which could be included within the main article, although the score track listing probably isn't necessary). Tropic Thunder, includes both the score and soundtrack details including basic (very basic) production information, a few reviews, an infobox, and a track listing for the soundtrack (not the score). Transformers includes details only about the score but links to both the developed soundtrack and score separate articles. Fight Club covers details about the score as well, with no inclusion of infobox, track listing, reviews, etc. I'm not stating that any of these are better than the other (especially since the films vary in musical styles and some do not include both a score and soundtrack). Should we have a particular formatting style to how music is covered, or do we let it go on a case-by-case basis (as films have differing music styles)? Or leave it all as it is? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a fixed grin on my face regarding Nehrams2020's summary of the next time he/she is going to start a discussion before bedtime. Methinks that, alone, is sufficient reason to do it again. Piano non troppo ( talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm in no way involved in this project, but there's something I think you should be notified of. As far as I can tell, your main infobox is {{
Infobox film}}
, but
Vilnisr has created {{
Infobox Movies}}
, which I think is their variation of the same thing. Someone might want to check it out before more people start using it accidentally.
MrKIA11 (
talk) 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
stay and{{
Infobox Movies}}
don't!
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
is completely unorganized, want to improve > go to infobox television
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
is completely unorganized, text too large (and if you dont see, then get glasses, i have), there is no difference between {{
Infobox film}}
and {{
Infobox VG}}
, both are ugly, these templates stuck this way for a long time, want to improve > go to infobox television and take a look, and about discussions, one user vs 5 admins, sure you will listen
Vilnisr (
talk) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Hello! I was wondering if this project has ever been featured in the Wikipedia Signpost before. Thank you, Belugaboy535136 contribs 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion about if Death at a Funeral should redirect to Death at a Funeral (2007 film) or Death at a Funeral (2010 film) or be a disambiguation page listing both films. See the discussion here. For a related discussion about having naming conventions for similar situations, see WT:NCF. Erik ( talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a mild concern about Fight Club (film) being copied in the press. I found an Empire article today called The Story of Fight Club. I thought it could have new content, but it is basically a rewrite of the Wikipedia article's "Production" section, as well as parts of "Marketing" and "Reception". While it is neat to see my contributions reflected elsewhere, I am still bothered by how it hews closely to the Wikipedia article and does not credit it. There is very little that goes beyond the details from the article. What do others think? Does Empire need to be contacted about it? Another fun tidbit, people talking about Interpretations of Fight Club here (found it in relation to the Empire article). Erik ( talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have the magazine and under their contact details they give their email address as "empire@bauermedia.co.uk". I like Empire, they gave me a free holiday to Cannes a few years ago, and another time they gave me some free videos. It's a shame if this is true, and most likely the doing of a lazy journalist rather the magazine itself. If you don't get a satisfactory response my advice would be to register for their forum and post a message in the section dedicated to the magazine because their writers often respond to questions and concerns online. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No response from Empire and no change to the online article. I'm going to send a
followup. I ask others to send a standard license violation letter to empire@bauermedia.co.uk
or via
contact page. Use
this as your template.
Erik (
talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The practice of lifting WP material uncredited by publications is really a poor reflection on the publication, not really a WP issue. As Dekkappai points out, we do the work here for free, for anyone's use. As a teacher, I struggle daily with students not crediting sources (or worse) when using WP and other sites, and if the Empire writer is using too much of the WP article and creating the perception it is her own product, then that's an issue between her and her employer and its readers. By notifying Empire, what we are doing is alerting it to potential unprofessional behavior of one of its staff. It is up to them to take appropriate action and readers can judge for themselves. It's not really a WP issue per se.
Jim Dunning |
talk 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox film#Unhelpful language linking. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I just created my first film article this week (well it was published this week, I've been working on it since November, with some help with another editor). It is Saw VII, and it's yet to be released, and I've "rated" it a start class, but was wondering if someone from the film crew could check and see if it qualifies as a B? I would rate it, but I don't want to be a conflict of interest. Also can a future film go through the GA process or does it have to be released? Thanks! :) — Mike Allen 09:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have assessed the article as C class. As the film has yet to be released, it does not provide sufficient coverage to warrant B class. For example, there are no details on reception, box office, accolades, home media, etc. For future films, they should not be nominated for GA until after the film has been released (usually a few weeks to help with stability issues). In the future, requests for article assessments can be placed at the Assessment department. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a question over listing minor film characters in the "starring" field of {{ Infobox film}} on film articles. Please see Talk:Inchon (film).
I had been under the impression that the "starring" field for {{ Infobox film}} on film articles was not to list all actors for all minor characters in the film, but rather simply the top two or maybe three major starring actors in the film.
Comments from WP:FILMS experienced contributors regarding usage of {{ Infobox film}} would be most appreciated.
Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The user User talk:Xsmasher is going through and removing the sites Bloody-Disgusting.com and DreadCentral.com from articles that are using them as reliable sources, claiming they are all "spam" and even filed a report on the sites here. These sites only report horror news, when most other (well known) sites, like LA Times, USA Today, etc may not. They are reliable and are used on probably all horror film articles here. This is ridiculous. — Mike Allen 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the situation today, and I think both sides are being wholesale in their actions. First, consensus is that the horror websites are reliable sources. Xsmasher seems to have taken an undiscriminating approach with his removals where a more discriminatory approach is warranted. For example, I do not think The Crazies (2010 film) needs references from these websites to verify the credits of the film's cast and crew. We should review the different ways that the websites are being referenced, like if it is in context or not, or about using them for release dates or reviews. Erik ( talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there are several articles like Rambo films on television, James Bond films on television, Category:Dune on film and television, Superman films on television. Is this a trend, and is it endorsed? If so, I think a new category is required. StevePrutz ( talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these articles do not work and recommend redirecting them to the film series articles. The fact that IMDb is the basis for the content of these articles certainly give me pause. I think such editing differences should be noted by a reliable source and not be so indiscriminate, particularly the obvious toning down of language and violence. Erik ( talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've searched WP:EL, WP:MOSFILM and the archives of this page but cannot find a concise explanation of whether or when links to movie trailers are acceptable in External links. In late 2008 there was a lengthy discussion about linking to YouTube trailers as a reference, which is not my question exactly. In addition, I am only inquiring about legit websites, i.e. distributors and official partners. In the aforementioned discussion, one individual stated that a trailer need not be linked just because it exists, which I follow, but is incomplete as a rule-of-thumb. Is there a custom at WP:FILM, or a heuristic to determine under which circumstances inclusion may be aproppriate? Any guidance here would be most appreciated. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo! Movies site is a good place for official trailers also. — Mike Allen 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Official trailers would meet all three WP:ELYES. If the official website hosted the entire film that would also meet all three WP:ELYES. SilkTork * YES! 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Putting_Production_before_Plot SilkTork * YES! 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. I hope to work on the article later, certaintly to remove some of the unsourced ones! Lugnuts ( talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Koavf nominated dozens of film templates of trilogies and quadrilogies for deletion today. Link to all the templates nominated for deletion. Some discussion was started regarding the template for David Wain here but no concensus was reached. I use these templates all the time navigating back and forth but I think WP films as a consensus needs to address this issue. Please move this conversation where ever necessary to discuss the issue Andman8 ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The same user has nominated several director navboxes for deletion (see today's TFD), with the rationale that two/three linked films isn't enough to warrant creating a template. I'm not sure what WP:FILM's policy is on this, especially for directors still making films, so could someone from the project weigh in? Bradley0110 ( talk) 10:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that some film articles that previously had their release year linked in the lead have now had the link removed, but I'm not clear on whether that's due to editing or a policy change...are we no longer linking the release year? Thanks for the clarification. Doniago ( talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the links were this 2010, which is a one of these, as was that link. Eggs are to be avoided, and year links to 2010 are redundant. Darrenhusted ( talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(←) Also the first sentence tends to be a row of blue links. Blah is a 2010 American drama action comedy horror film directed by Clint Eastwood and written by Bonnie Hunt. It's distracting, to me, I don't know about anyone else. I agree with Erik's argument in a earlier discussion about not linking to common genre's such as, comedy film and action film. Unless it's some uncommon genre like mountain film, then I could see linking to it. — Mike Allen 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion here about the appropriateness of having a hatnote for a film soundtrack being placed at the top of the film article of the same name. In light of this recent discussion, it may be beneficial to get some input on this issue. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because there is a bit of backing-and-forthing at The King's Speech (film) over whether the Pullens buildings were used as a location. A user is referring to a Flickr photoset, which shows main actors and crew at the location, and I'm taking the view that there are no reliable sources stating the location has been used, even though the photos quite clearly prove it unequivocally. Is it possible to use Flickr as a stopgap until a reliable source does come along (it was a shoot featuring major set dressing and costuming, so I can't imagine Empire or American Cinematographer not having a piece on it down the line)? Bradley0110 ( talk) 12:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A discussion was started at the Village Pump suggesting MPAA ratings be added to all articles. I've already noted the consensus that MPAA ratings are not appropriate, but it would probably be helpful to have additional views from those of us who actually work with film articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Films - MPAA ratings, rottentomatoes -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone always removes television film from the infobox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wolfgang_Petersen. Why wouldn't we include them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.235.45 ( talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Read This: Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Red links do not belong.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've come across an IP that keeps inserting content in the Julie Andrews pertaining to the box office success of the film Tooth Fairy. At first he added "it has, so far, made a very small profit (with an estimated budget of 48 million dollars, the movie after four weeks from its release had earned $49,721,400). He sourced the "very small profit" to Variety, which only shows the past week's box office, and the budget to Box office mojo, although that page also shows domestic and worldwide receipts. While that much is accurate, in fact, Box Office Mojo reports worldwide box office receipts in excess of $82 million against the budget. I changed that to say it was successful, since it has profited in excess of $34 million. He came back to call that "deceptive" and changed it to say it "has gathered modest box office profits in the US and in some of the other countries where it has been released so far. To me, that's extrapolating from what is presented. The film has, to date, profited over 70% over budget and "some of the other countries where it has been released so far is vague. The Box Office Mojo page doesn't break down country analysis to how many theatres where it is run, etc. Who's to say that if the film had $512,473 in Chile that it wasn't less successful than where it had $442,633, depending on the theatre count? I can't see the rationale for his conclusions, and why it is so important to denigrate the result of worldwide box office receipts. He came back to call what I wrote a "non specific generalization". Can someone help me here? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I love how Boondock Saints and Smokin' Aces (and others I cant remember right now) got "mostly negative reviews" and were still financially successful. I guess it just proves once and for all that critics are worthless paid shills who are utterly detached from the desires of the movie going public.
Anyway, since every single movie article insists on quoting RT and metacritic (often without any scrap of written review by a critic) it is probably worth noting if the film was a financial success or not in the reception section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 03:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Jaws (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) 23:27, February 25, 2010
Regarding the typical film article format on Wikipedia: No synopsis at all, but plenty of gory plot details. Who requested such a format? Ever take a poll of users? I'll bet 99% would request a synopsis. Rtdrury ( talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
You are probably in the one place where all editors know WP:SPOILER by heart. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have started a GA reassessment for Pee-wee's Big Adventure, you can view my comments here. Also could someone fix the subst text at the top? I thought I followed the instructions.. — Mike Allen 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
In cases where a film has multiple release dates (say, a festival release in 2007 followed by a general US release in 2008, and perhaps an international release date of 2009), what is the appropriate year to use in an actors filmography? I've tried looking through relevant guides, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but haven't found a definite answer. Thanks for the help. -- BehemothCat ( talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was started last week with no input from the project's participants. Some input from FILM members familiar with the subject might be helpful. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the revenue from the release of Toy Story/Toy Story II double feature is included in the gross revenue of the films (in Toy Story and Toy Story 2 pages) also should that be added to both articles or like devided in half or something? this is the link that has gross revenue from double feature? Gman124 talk 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(This notice has been posted at WT:ACTOR as well.)
I started a discussion here about the current size of the article. Please share your thoughts. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is for films. Try posting to WP:Actors. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A Flixster template has been created by user Arturnt to add the Flixster site in EL across film articles. As you may or may not know, the company now owns Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore they use the exact same reviews as RT, making the template (and adding the site in EL) pointless, and in some cases excessive. The discussion is being held at the TfD page, and your input is encouraged. Thanks. — Mike Allen 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Imdfb and Template:Imdfb name are up for deletion. These were created by a single user to add links to various film, anime, and firearm articles to point to the " Internet Movie Firearms Database", an open wiki (its article is up for CSD). Discussion on both templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 6. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen ( talk) Maurreen ( talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. As most of you no doubt know Mar 23rd is the 100th anniversary of Akira Kurosawa's birth. Turner Classic Movies is featuring his films on Mar 9, 16 and 23. This gives us the potential for increased test edits and or vandalism on his page. I don't know how many editors have his page on their watchlist but if a few of you could add it to yours it would be much appreciated. Now, my worries may be unfounded as I don't have any evidence that problems on the page will increase, but, forewarned is forearmed or some such cliche like that ;-). My thanks in advance for any of you that can help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A year ago this month, Bride of Frankenstein was promoted as a Featured Article. I would like to conduct an annual review of Featured Articles and possibly Good Articles to ensure their quality. Older Featured and Good Articles have fallen by the wayside because of lack of attention. Here are the changes that have taken place since it was promoted as a Featured Article. I have started an annual review of the film here. I invite other editors to weigh in. Erik ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Above are annual reviews for Good Articles promoted in March 2009. I was not sure what older Good Articles (promoted ~2008) under WikiProject Films were undergoing GA Sweeps? I'd like to avoid overlap. In addition, there were no Featured Articles in March 2008, but Battlefield Earth (film) and Transformers (film) were promoted the month before. Is anyone interested in annual reviews of these? If we can get into the routine of annual reviews, the process will become simpler and articles will not degrade in quality. Erik ( talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor is requesting that List of films based on war books — peace is moved to List of films based on war books — peacetime. Other editors are invited to comment; discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
For once, I decided to follow links to Adventure film and Comedy horror film". Oh deary deary me: have a look. They are linked as a matter of formula at the top of so many film articles, but see what you get—openings to bare stubs, such as:
"Adventure films are a genre of film. They hang on adventurous themes and try to be full of dramatic scences and suspense."
Gee whiz. Sorry to be rude, but that is a total embarrassment. There's precious little more. If the point is to show readers a list of other films in the genre, this is already much better accomplished via the category and "List of ..." articles. However, I don't see the point in linking to any such list at the top of a film article; perhaps in the "See also" section.
Here's another:
"Comedy horror, also known as horror comedy, is a literary and film genre, combining elements of comedy and horror fiction."
Just one short para.
I think we should stop linking these genres and others unless there is a serious intention to create targets that are worthy of massive numbers of links at the openings of film articles. That or find better targets for the purpose. Tony (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Per this recent change to Template:Infobox film removing automatic linking of English language (which itself was a result of this discussion), I made this change to the documentation subpage for the template. Does anyone disagree with my addition or have thoughts on how to improve the wording? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Didn't this project decide that the use of succession boxes were redundant to the awards template? If so, perhaps a task force could address removing them. I had removed them from Shakespeare in Love and someone returned them because other best picture articles have them. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to renew my question as why RT or MC are added to each and every movie. This discussion is a little bit old, but after reading the archives it seems to me that there is never any sort of resolution. A lot of people agree that it is not really smart to mention RT in an article, but nothing actually is done. Meanwhile some guy's, mostly IPs it seems, add RT ratings to each page about a movie, not caring if it is a movie from/for the USA or for example Africa, where RT-ratings have no meaning whats so ever. Metacritic is a bit better I think, but not really perfect. Another fact is that RT is a profit orginization and there seems to be correlation between profits and RT votings . I personally would say that we should keep Metacritic as it is write now (link to mc article + how many critics found the movie good compared to how many wrote about it) but remove RT because it is a site focussing on profit, marketing, is biased due to focussing on the USA (yet editing every movie page) and based upon amateur critics which have no encyclopedic qualification what so ever. But mainly I'd like to see this discussed with a resolution, not like previous once were the discussion just faded and, if I may say so, the RT staff continuing to edit the individual sites. 136.199.201.80 ( talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Created WP:ROTTEN, added "Similar websites" section, and added another limitation (that a small number of reviews affects the score). Let's have discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for any further modifications. Erik ( talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, a vast number of changes to film articles have involved removing the year in film template such as {{fy|1939}} with the note that this is due to an "Orphan template per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion". Can someone point me to this discussion? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC).
{{fy}}
page, which points to
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Filmyear. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Just noticed that my response is redundant :| )
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)An editor has created more than a dozen lists of films based on books of different topics, such as List of films based on sports books and List of films based on war books — peace. Another editor has expressed concern about the quality of these lists. Editors are invited to review and comment on the discussion here. Erik ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As most of you may know, there is a project-wide co-ordinated effort each year to have some fun on April 1 (otherwise known as April Fools' Day) by filling the Main Page with content that is truthful but either unusual or manipulated so as to make it sound humorous (see here to see last year's example). This is done with all five sections of the Main Page, namely Did you know, In the news, Selected anniversaries/On this day..., Today's featured article and Picture of the day. If anyone has any ideas on what WikiProject Films can contribute to any of these sections, please share them so that we can maybe partake in this. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is about time that we examine the {{Film (country)}} templates, like {{ FilmUS}} and {{ FilmUK}}. On the positive side, they do add an important cat to film articles, but in that, they add an easter egg link that is discouraged by the MOS. Should these templates be deprecated, or should we think about remove the egg link from the template? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The templates do multiple things: They link to the cinema of x article. WP:EGG insults user intelligence. If I'm on a film article, I expect to have like-minded links to film/cinemea articles. People who blindly click links without hovering over them deserve all they get (maybe they should all link to the Goatse site instead). Tooltips exist for a reason! Virtually no one will click a link to Spain or Australia, but I bet more people do if it went to the cinema of Spain article. Which it does, so that's OK.
Ever wondered why most of the cinema of x articles are in such poor shape? Because no bugger visits them. Increasing their profile via the template can only be a good thing. I love reading about the cinema of Romania, Chile, France, or any other country (well, maybe not that really bad country. You know the one). Secondly, they also auto-populate the country category (much like the langauge parameter does). Believe it or not, not all articles have the correct categories when it comes to the country. Maybe this can become an epic trivial debate, like bolding cast lists, while really important things DONT GET DONE. They exist to make navigation easier between film and cinema articles. It's wrong to assume that the average WP READER knows anything about the cinema of articles and might find a refreshing article when clicking the link. Who knows, they may even go away and edit said article to improve it. Navigation is the key to this whole site. Sometimes it's good to find something a little unexpected.
Deletion is a weak way out (haven't you got some misguided page move disambigs to fix)? The solution if linking to cinema of is so, so bad, is to simply change the template so it doesn't hyperlink anywhere, orphaning off all those articles *sniff*, but retaining the country population category function. Enough ranting, time to buy the bullets from eBay and record the Youtube videos. Happy editing! Lugnuts ( talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Replying to Bovineboy's original post, I'd like to propose a solution. The code of {{FilmUS}} et al. can be modified in such a way that inserting {{FilmUS}} into the infobox generates an entry of "United States" (unlinked to anything, just plain text) while still generating a category listing. Basically, the current code of:
can just be modified to read:
This way, the templates are retained for ease of use and are not deleted in case consensus changes in the future. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The link violates WP:EGG, and in most cases (at least for filmUS) the category declaration violates WP:FILMCAT#Most specific categories. — Codrdan ( talk) 01:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
|country=US
in the article. Of course this would require the help of a bot, but I could help with the changes to the template if you wish. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)