![]() | 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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
As an exercise in research and verification of sources, I have found that a great deal of the published record that deals with June Allyson is an exercise in contradictions and myth-making. During her lifetime, Allyson published an autobiography that has led to much of the confusion as her recollections did not correspond to the actual record, starting with her birthdate and her family background. MGM was partly to blame here as the studio PR machine created a "goody two shoes" image of a young ingenue which required some imaginative tailoring of her age, family circumstances and even her famous "tree limb" story. The name "June Allyson" has been attributed to three different sources and June herself had a different memory of where it came from but the use of a nickname and stage name had already been used in her teen years. On the Larry King interview, her recall was that Broadway producer George Abbott had given her the name while other sources have her first stage choreographer giving her the name in exasperation, as he couldn't be bothered to remember her real name, at least that's the tale in her book. Likely the name made sense to her as she liked "Allison", her brother's name and simply tacked on June to it and was reportedly using it before her Broadway debut. As to dates, she was already 21 when she appeared in the chorus line not in her teens and attending high school. Her relentless pursuit of acting, dancing and other career advancing jobs such as modeling was acknowledged in some sources but June painted a much more benign picture of what must have been a pressure-filled experience of auditioning. Her constant efforts were ultimately successful but she alludes to many instances of being too short, too young, not pretty enough rebuttals that seemingly did not deter her in her relentless drive to the top. A lot of the anecdotal references to Allyson's career show that she was ambitious and courageous; one producer was astonished that the dancers actually pitched the tiny Allyson completely out of sight as they threw her into the air during a particularly memorable dance number. The audience roared as June bounced back into the male dancer's arms as if appearing out of nowhere but each performance culminated in the young starlet getting physically sick in her dressing room, out of sight of the cast and crew. When she got to the bright lights of Hollywood, her ability to make friends and keep good company kept her "in the picture". The famous scene of her getting picked up on the roadside by Judy Garland as she waited, nearly broke, for a bus to take her to the studio in Hollywood, may or may not have happened exactly as she remembered it but the fact that Allyson counted Garland, Lucille Ball, Alan Ladd, James Stewart, Peter Lawford, Van Johnson, Margaret O'Brien, Ronald Reagan, and of course, Dick Powell, her first "true love" as close friends and confidantes, led to a remarkably long and successful career for a performer who confessed to not being able to sing or dance! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
Nearly all pages are lacking in a film rating. This is an important part of the comprehensive material Wikipedia strives for. We need to include such information in nearly all articles.
Hcps-hoytca ( talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Are the film's credits the bottom-line source for character names? The credits of The Boondock Saints read "Conner MacManus", but the DVD case and the official website read "Connor McManus". I don't know which is used in the sequel. There is a brief discussion at Talk:The Boondock Saints#Conner vs Connor. A pointer to an existing page would be fine. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article. Do you think that this article would benefit from adding images of pre-released concept art? And is it justifiable to do so? Here is a link to the artwork: [1]. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A new page has been started for the project that includes our older GA and FAs. Since the majority of these are several years old, they may have issues with being passed under older criteria or deteriorating by vandalism, numerous edits, and the use of unreliable sources. This cleanup page focuses on checking several elements for each article, including alt text/images, prose, and sources. Each of the articles should ensure that these are all improved to (or already meet) the designated criteria for GA/FA. Once each article is cleaned up, a stable revision will be selected, which will be helpful for comparing to future revisions as we begin to annually review our Spotlight articles. Although it will take a while to review these articles (many of them need to be expanded, cleaned up, and have sources added), after this initial process, it should make it much easier and faster to clean them up a year from now. Articles continue to get delisted during GAR/FARs, so it's important to take the time to tend to the older articles so that we can continue to have great example articles for new editors to refer to (while also providing excellent articles for readers). Please make an attempt to improve a few articles, there are a couple hundred that need to be looked over. Many have no issues or need a few fixes, while some need complete overhauls. Since there are several elements to work on, you can easily work on whatever you feel comfortable with. Instructions can be found on the cleanup page. It's great that we have so many quality articles, but to set goals for ourselves to have even more, we must also maintain the ones that we already have. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page about The Terminator, a discussion, which probably is relevant to this project, arose, on whether or not IMDb should be included in the article as an external link, as it is on most Wikipedia articles about films. TheFreeloader ( talk) 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
After viewing this edit on the Drag Me to Hell article, I was curious if this should be implemented as a standard for film articles. Some reviews on the regular T-Meter part of Rotten Tomatoes seem to come from blogs ( example) which I'm not sure would be notable critics who write for third party sources. This could be considered against WP:SPS. Should we concentrate on the top critics section or continue to use the regular T-Meter? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose a multimedia department whose page can provide instructions for adding images, audio samples, and video samples, especially when it comes to film. Video samples are still a new concept and technically difficult to create, so the department can particularly help with this. In addition, this page would allow us to remove instructions for uploading images from MOS:FILM so it can focus more on guidelines for usage. I have collaborated with Steve and Nehrams2020 to put together a draft of the departmental page at User:Erik/Multimedia department. I invite others to review and comment on the page, and I would like input on if we should now create the department. Erik ( talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been having an edit war with another user about the article Vincent Vega. To me, its another "fictography" of a one-shot movie character that rehashes the same plot summary found on Pulp Fiction, except focused on only one of the main characters. Apparently there was a previous consensus to redirect the article to the cast section of the movie's article and I happen to agree with that notion. On that note, isn't the List of Pulp Fiction characters article a bit redundant, considering the cast section of the movie's article already summarizes the roles of the main characters? Jonny2x4 ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you talkin' to me? There seems to be a fair few of these in this category. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the film is an "American" film, but the language used is British English. How should the article's language be written: American or British? Thanks. — Mike Allen 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I need your help to read again this artcile, i'm French so i certainly made a lot of mistakes. I may have mistaken in the title also. thanks by advance. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've brought up this issue before here when it was only concerning a section within the article. This section of negative responses to the film has since been expanded into an entire article with much more criticism directed towards this film. To give you an idea, Rotten Tomatoes currently holds a 93% positive rating and, in case there is an argument (as the article attempts to imply) that the film was not well received in India, All Bollywood records a rating of 81% positive reviews.
I am of the opinion that minor viewpoints here are being given undue weight considering how much of a positive response the film has received. Whereas the film article cites about a dozen reviews from circa 200 available on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems that the article on reactions from India cites just about eveything that could be found on the film that had a negative tone; except for one paragraph, there is no positive commentary included. To myself, personally, the entire article reads like personal criticism of the film, this criticism attempting to be supported by external links. I have removed ( [2], [3]) some weasel words but there are plenty of other examples of this as well as overly extensive quotations of sources that support the minority viewpoint.
I would like some additional input on this from other editors. Does the article give undue weight to minority negative viewpoints or is it properly balanced? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Disruption at this article by Uncle uncle uncle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user apparently does not understand that Production sections of film articles give historical info on stages of production and filming. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[4] = Is this appropriate? I think not... -- Cirt ( talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There is continuing discussion on the page from random IPs on the article for the articles for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Any user willing to help contribute to the discussion to help chase away trolls is welcome. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a currently ongoing discussion at the above link concerning Coordinators of WikiProject Films. Up until now, coordinators had to be elected every six months and the discussion is trying to determine if the elections are better held once every year instead. The current term for coordinators also expires at the end of March but, due to the Tag & Assess drive as well as other coordinator responsibilities, the election will not be held this month. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Mainly, there are two points on which consensus is sought:
Thank you! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to make an announcement in case you're like me and miss important changes. Per this discussion ALT text is no longer required for Featured Articles. Just a heads for future FAR. :-) — Mike Allen 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Alt text should be added, where appropriate, regardless of FA criteria. Its an accessibility issue, and guidance can be sought from WP:ACCESSIBILITY and elsewhere, on- and off- WP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The template Buzzify film (being used like the Metacritic/RT templates on film articles), is being considered for deletion here. — Mike Allen 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Archiving useless discussion that degenerated into sniping. Long story short, a question has been asked about the use of commercial links for verification in media-related articles. Discussion is thataway. Steve T • C 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here about properly wording a particular scene. It is a GA class article so additional input is welcome. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this as already been discussed but is Examiner.com considered to be valid source? For theose unfamiliar Examiner.com utilizies citizen journalism so basically anyone can report and has been noted for a lack of editorial oversight. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was editing the List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds article and getting it ready to be nominated for WP:FL, when an editor added a list of awards called the Golden Schmoes, which are hosted by website JoBlo.com. I was wondering are these and the Online Film Critics Society Awards usually included in film award lists? Are they prominent enough? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated 35 mm 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) 17:51, April 4, 2010
Are these articles really needed? It seems all of the pages are basically an exact copy off their website. I could see having a main page with details about the circle but 40+ pages about each year of awards that can be found on their site seems pointless. It is duplicate information to have pages for Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor and then have the yearly pages too Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards 2007 -- Peppage tlk 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Film, which is part of "Theatre film and drama" at Wikipedia:GAN#Theatre film and drama. Some ways to improve this:
I see that Alice in Wonderland repeats the hyphenated version again and again. Why is it so when all of the promotional and branding material, not to mention the film itself, use the plain "3D"? It looks strange to visitors. Tony (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Not to be overly obtuse, but 4-D film seems to have this figured out: use whichever one is applicable to the given film. Jaws 3-D uses the hyphen. My Bloody Valentine 3D does not use the hyphen. My feeling is that, as the new wave of 3D films and technology (such as 3D television) become more prevalent, the hyphen will not be used much at all; that doesn't mean, however, that it shouldn't still be used here when applicable. -- Chicken monkey X sign? 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at True Lies for a re-assessment. It's currently evaluated as a start-class, although it's easily beyond that status now. Shadowjams ( talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The Featured Article 300 (film) uses File:300 monster.poster03.jpg in the "Depictions of Persians" section. There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the image is appropriate to include. Editors are invited to weigh in; discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the AfD Michael is referring to is dated 31 July 2009. Viriditas ( talk) 02:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know of a reliable source for DVD release dates? (Specifically region 2...) -- Beloved Freak 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. There is something about this new editors changes (seen here [6]) that is ringing a bell with me. I seem to remember that, a few years ago, we had an editor who came back more than a couple of time making these same kinds of changes. The most common one was changing the run times of films by a minute or two. They also enjoyed adding unsourced info. The name Bambifan springs to mind but I am not sure that these changes were the ones that that editor liked performing. If any of you can remember anything about this please add the info here and then we can start on getting this new editor reported to the right spot (vandal - sockpuppet - or other). I thought about taking this to AIV but I decided to come here first to see if any of you can help. In case I am wrong about this and all of these changes are okay then I will apologize to the editor involved and rvt my work. My thanks ahead of time to any of you who can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Development of Watchmen only lacks some things with the sourcing to pass. Can anyone help me? igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the consensus from a few months ago, shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Lists of accolades by film? Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
More feedback is appreciated on how to format casting sections, here. — Mike Allen 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There are a few articles listed below which don't have significant references. An activist editor has noticed, so it would be good time to fix them. Take your pick!
Also ones which I am already working on
Ones which I've done so far:
Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is just a notice that Fandraltastic and I have created a userspace draft for this film and that anybody who wishes to contribute may do so. -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Several film articles refer to Rotten Tomatoes in their critical reception sections, and several refer to the "cream of the crop" or "top critics" section of that website. It recently came up in a GA review, that I, from the UK, am automatically redirected to the UK version of RT and subsequently see a different RT score than somebody else from the US. I don't know if people are already aware of this, but it means that some percentages given in articles are going to appear to be incorrect, or unverifiable, depending on the location of the article writer, and the location of the reader. Thinking about it now, I've actually seen it mentioned in a few reviews that the RT reference doesn't back up the score given in the article. I'd thought, maybe RT changes as it gets updated or something, but now I'm thinking it probably depends on which version they're redirecting you to. Does anyone know how we can deal with this in articles, if there's a way around getting forcibly redirected to the regional version, and whether there are other versions of RT (Aus/NZ for example)?-- Beloved Freak 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.
I have some problems with this template. It need an A.L.T. code on the main infobox. Thanks Tbhotch Talk C. 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:FILMS/Categorization to gather consensus on removing Category:2010 films from upcoming films that are scheduled to be released in 2010. See here. — Mike Allen 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since progress at our cleanup listing is going a little slow, I thought I would break it up a little more, so I went through all of the FA/GAs and looked at all of the images. I made a list of the images that may require discussion on whether to remain in the respective articles or not. Some are clear-cut cases that I probably should have just removed, but hopefully this list will illustrate how much cleanup some of our older articles need. Other images listed could use multiple editors' opinions to determine consensus on whether to keep it or not. As times change, and guidelines/policies along with it, we're bound to have images that don't meet non-free criteria or new editors adding images to the articles as decoration. I would appreciate any and all comments on each of the listed film articles' images so we can knock that out and focus on the more troubling prose and citations for many of the articles. We don't have to finish this list in a day, so don't be put off by the long list. As we focus on each article, it will gradually be finished. More opinions will speed up the process though! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
About the ones that need resizing, like this one. What size should it be, because it's already 24KB.. or do we need the dimensions reduced also. If so, what sizes? Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started discussions for each of the FA images that I included in the listing. Many just need an editor or two to comment on whether image should be removed or help reinforce why it should remain in the article. Once we finish addressing the FA images, we can move on to the GAs. Finishing off the images will allow more focus on the prose and citations of the articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Colleagues, I've been gnoming around quite a lot of film-related articles recently. There is a practice of linking to genre articles right at the top, as a formula.
The problem is that many (?most) of these link-targets are on the trivial side, some are stubs, some have troublesome tags at their tops. To link them right at the start might be OK if the category was well-developed, but I believe their current state makes us look amateurish.
Now it might be argued that they should stay linked pending their improvement; but that is not likely soon, and even then, I believe it's hard to make some of those targets sufficiently useful. Maybe I'm being too conservative in that respect, but I am very concerned.
What about "is a Superhero film", which I unlinked from the opening of a film article out of embarrassment the other day? And it's not as though it wasn't diluting the better links in the same sentence, all jostling each other. Please let's provide our readers with a cogent wikilinking system.
Even links to more mainstream genres, such as Romance film (unhelpfully piped in a bunch of blue items as "romance" here must be questioned. The target article greets us with this spellbinding statement:
Gee.
Well ... and the clincher:
Hello? This article deserves several tags I can think of: refimprove, original research, POV. And we're endorsing it by linking prominently in our film and actor articles.
The external links and the list of examples of romance films might be useful, although (1) I'd be happier if it were a proper list article "List of ...", which would make it more searchable by our readers and give it a stronger centre of gravity; and (2) wouldn't it be more appropriate to include such a link in the "See also" section of the anchor article? But better still isn't such a plain list accessible via the Romance Film category at the bottom of the page?
Your thoughts on article improvement and smarter linking practices would be welcome. Tony (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont think we should delink articles out of embarrassment. Wikipedia is open to everybody so instead of pretending these articles do not exist we should encourage traffic to them so that they might be improved. Also regardless of the fact that many people might skip over these links, they should still be present for the few that find them useful. -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could start by creating a list of romance films like the ones for horror films and science fiction films. A history of the genre could also be included in the article as well as a section for subgenres (see the horror film and science fiction film articles). And getting sources from different places and critics and film theorists would be a good way to counter definitions that might be too narrow in relation to the full variety of the genre.– Cattus talk 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat has hit the nail on the head. Tony - I suggest you be bold and create the missing list, and for the genre pages, be bold again. Fin. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree they're substandard. I suggest improving them. Dekkappai ( talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be negative again. I want to report that I'm finding a distressingly large amount of bad piping practice. At issue are pipes that are misleading, pipes that are more general than their target article name (in which case readers are unlikely to click), and pipes that are plain wrong.
Recent examples:
In addition, film articles appear to be badly overlinked with common terms. Please remember that the first of WP's pillars (not policies, pillars), states that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Readers are supposed to be able to read English. Recent examples:
I think it is time we regarded common terms in film and television as not worth linking, particularly as we have so many valuable links to people and other films we don't want to dilute. Examples are:
Three geographical locations recur again and again and again, and are so well-known not only to English-speakers of age seven but non-native speakers:
I urge users to reconsider linking these items. This is particularly the case because they usually occur bunched with high-value links.
The names of the main actors and characters are sometimes repeated three or four times. It kind of loses its punch when readers see these blue by default. A single linking of their names on first occurrence, and in the infobox, should beckon readers more effectively to click. The text looks more professional that way, too.
Please see WP:OVERLINK for more. Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
importScript('User:Tony1/monobook.js/script.js');
If it's to be adopted by the film project, it will need customisation at some stage; I might be persuaded to break out a separate script for that purpose. Tony (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Informing editors here that the two topics above are currently Featured Article candidates. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I could use some feedback here on what is turning into a content dispute, I guess, for the recent Sherlock Holmes movie (the Robert Downey Jr. film). I say I guess because the history of how these edits came about leaves me questioning the whole situation. The editor attempted to make an addition to the text of one review in the critical response section. I felt it was POV and interpretative and reverted it. So he deleted the entire review. I've restored it well over the limit of 3RR and the whole situation is escalating. So, on the chance that I'm letting my perception of the editor's attitude cloud my judgment, I could use some more eyeballs. Millahnna (mouse) talk 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was going to move The Thing (2010 film) to The Thing (2011 film) but it was already used for a redirect to The Thing (film)#Prequel which leads to The Thing (film). I moved it from 2010 film because it appears it won't be released in 2010. I manually moved the contents to 2011 film, but the page history will be left behind. Was this the right way to do it? MikeAllen ( talk • contribs) 01:45, April 20, 2010
It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) as seen here. The argument was that the 1996 film should be disambiguated from the 1983 film. WP:NCF says, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release." Those who opposed the move chose to ignore these guidelines. They believed that "Independence Day (film)", including "(film)", was the primary topic. Those who supported the move said that the 1996 film was not the primary topic and that only Independence Day (without disambiguation) was the primary topic. A similar issue was seen with Avatar (2009 film), where there was discussion to move the film article to Avatar (film) with the argument that "Avatar (film)", including the disambiguation term, was the primary topic, but the discussion was closed with consensus for not moving. WP:NCF needs to be clarified in this regard as to whether or not "<Film title> (film)" that contains the disambiguation term ought to be considered a primary topic, even though it is disambiguated from a primary topic that does not a disambiguation term. I am considering the possibility of an RfC. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.
For a while now I've thought it would be a good idea to have a film industry infobox with facts so go in the cinema of articles, e.g Cinema of the United Kingdom and Bollywood etc, such as films produced annually, revenue etc. I think the articles would look a lot tidier this way. Would anybody support such an infobox and have any ideas for what could be included? I'm thinking some of them could also have montages images related to the national cinema industry (free of course) made as the main image to spice them all up a little. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Offhand I'd say the following paramters would be useful:
These are just ideas. Of course reliable sources would be required to reference the information but as a factual infobox I think this would be very useful and would also help smarten up the beginning of the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course the information is best presented in prose within the article. But that argument would make all infoboxes obsolete. Infoboxes are intended to summarise the main facts to make them instantly accesible as a reference point. The information given in Infobox film for example is also mostly replicated within the article. I think any "current2 information could be updated annually. Besides top grossing films of all time, saying the top 5 by each country rarely change weekly or monthly. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see semi-prot edit request in Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)#Rotten Tomatoes - discussion to reach consensus would be welcome. Thanks, Chzz ► 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An anon user has brought up a valid point on the MPAA talk page. He wanted to know why Wikipedia doesn't include ratings on films in its articles. Yes, the IMDb has that information, but our readers shouldn't have to rely on external sources for such basic data. I know different areas of the world use different rating systems, but the video game template includes parameters for all the different systems used around the world for rating video games (look at the infobox for Gears of War, for example). Why doesn't the film infobox template include rating parameters as well? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Question for Erik's link: Rating within country of original release doesn't seem random, and isn't addressed at the link... Also, I think the Midnight Cowboy 'X' example is a bit spurious. Even at the time no one understood how it landed an 'X'. Think I heard somewhere that it was something of a marketing gimmick-- producers only wanted adults in the theater, or something along those lines... Dekkappai ( talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This has just been started. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. I'll be back, I'm sure. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion for Shrek Forever After. Mike Allen 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Opium War has been proposed to be repurposed, see Talk:Opium War
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened at Talk:Al Pacino#Filmography spin-off regarding a recent spin-off and the need to form consensus regarding it. Please take a look. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have halted but has been relisted and could benefit from additional input. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional input would be helpful. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Films. I notice the recent creation of (uncategorised) Category:Films with two parts. I don't know whether it should be categorised, populated or deleted - I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at FA examples, and know where the template is, but so far, understanding how to fill in the table (multiple films in a year, column size, etc.) is eluding me. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I fail to see how that template addresses User:Jack Sebastian's problem. If a user has trouble understanding how to place multiple films in a year (the rowspan parameter), that template does not help them. That template, frankly, does nothing but take up space. The same work it will take to implement that template into filmographies could be done to simply correct the use of a wikitable.
If you don't understand a wikitable, The advice to just stick with a list is optimal. Chicken monkey 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of these animated shorts come up when I was reviewing articles for the tag and assess and also articles that are unassessed. I'm just wondering if these articles are in the scope of the project. I'm leaning more toward they are not in the scope but that isn't very fair because they are bit like very short films and they didn't air on TV. Any input would be great. -- Peppage tlk 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow the films selected for the 2010 Cannes Film Festival will be revealed. This year I have set as a personal goal that all films in the main competition should have a Wikipedia article of at least C-class as soon as possible, and it would be great if some of you wanted to help (a higher class would demand developed plot and reception sections which in many cases will have to wait). Any contribution is valuable and if you know any foreign language that would be of particular help, as the countries of origin often have a better early coverage. Plenty of interviews and highlights will be published during the festival (12-23 May) and hopefully this can be a fun and engaging collaboration! Smetanahue ( talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do these two fields in the Template:Infobox_film denote? Are they meant to denote strict chronological order? For example, Halloween H20 followed Halloween 6 but was conceived as a sequel to Halloween 2. Superman Returns also ignored the last two films of the Superman series and was made as a series to Superman 2. Should this link be captured in the infobox so that it's documented that Halloween H20 followed both Halloween 2 and 6. The text body makes it clear that the film is an official sequel to Halloween 2 so should the infobox also reflect that? The documentation doesn't make it clear if the field relates solely to chronological production or not.
Also, how do these fields relate to spin-off films? For instance, Caravan of Courage was a spin-off from Return of the Jedi, Supergirl was a spin-off from Superman 3, and Wolverine was a spin-off from X-Men:The Last Stand. Should spin-offs be ignored by these fields, or should they be included? You can argue that Return of the Jedi was followed by The Phantom Menace and Caravan of Courage.
I'm sure this issue must have come up before but can't find any discussion on it, but would appreciate it if it could be clarified. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification chaps! Betty Logan ( talk) 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Paramount Television Network has been nominated as a Featured Article. The discussion is here. Please take a moment to weigh in at the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Input on a discussion to move The Fox and the Hound -> The Fox and the Hound (film), and its novel article from The Fox and the Hound (novel) to The Fox and the Hound would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Another editor recently attempted to move Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles to Fire & Ice (2008 film). I reversed the move because it was done by copy-and-paste, and I'm currently helping the other editor negotiate the proper move procedure. But I had this question: IMDb gives the film's title as just Fire & Ice, and shows Fire & Ice: The Dragon Chronicles as the U.S. "long title". Would it be preferable to disambiguate this article by using the (2008 film) clarifier or by using the long title, as it currently is (leaving aside the and/ampersand issue)? Certainly it would be great if any admin watching here could take a look at this situation and put things in order, if needed. Thanks!-- ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried to do that messy move, sorry for that. Yes, the official title is "Fire & Ice" as AnmaFinotera mentioned. Can I add the synopsis back, as it is from the official site? I will add a reference for it. Also, I'm going to find sources to prove its notability.
Malina Grigore |
talk —Preceding
undated comment added
10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC).
When filling in the "followed by" perimeter in the infobox, should we wait until there is an actual article or section within an article before adding a film? Like for example, adding red links or regular text for announced sequels that haven't yet entered production. I think the infobox doc should make this clear. Mike Allen 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus here. Thank you. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I already mentioned this on the Talk page for the style guidelines, but thought I should drop a note here as well. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago ( talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request that, per my original request, further discussion of the template(s) take place at their talk pages rather than here, so that anyone with an interest in them can see the discussion without having to peruse the various project pages for possible discussion. Of course, linking back here would probably be useful. (smile) Doniago ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why has Erik retired? He was like the most straight laced editor on here!! At times he was almost too professional. What happened? I was about to offer to sell my Tyler Durden leather jacket to him which is too small for me and he said he loved it previously when I uploaded a picture. Certainly the last thing I expected was to see a retired tag. If nobody wants to say here feel free to email what happened. It is certainly a huge loss to WP:Films on here, even if I didn't always see eye to eye with him. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy#Notability? regarding the notability of of said film (which is a DVD documentary) and its need to have its own article. Please provide opinions on the above linked page. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a current request for comments HERE that is discussing whether the article Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy should be merged and redirected to the Elm Street franchise article at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), or whether it has met, or has the ability to meet notability inclusion criteria in order to remain an independent independent article and be allowed to grow through regular editing. Findsources: [9], [10] All viewpoints are welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. I just wanted to amke everyone aware that the category status for Criterion Collection films has been resurrected today. The cat was created by User:Deathawk and worked on by this IP 97.124.69.84. Although it has been a few years the members of the film project have reached a consensus that this should not be a category on our films pages. Here are a few examples of previous discussions. [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are others though I don't quite have time to find them now. As soon as I am done here I will make the editors involved aware and open a new CFD. Any additional thoughts and assistance will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The current plot for V for Vendetta (film) is at 1200 words. I have made several attempts to condense this but I do not believe that it can be reduced to the 400-700 word range that is customary. I would like to know what members of this project believe should be done. Talk: V for Vendetta (film) -- Iankap99 ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I more or less dropped out of this project a while back. The reason was that I started assessing New Zealand films for importance and had to stop when I realised that the importance parameter belongs to the parent project. Thus, while Goodbye Pork Pie would be of top-importance in the history of New Zealand film (as the first homegrown film to be a significant commercial success), it is low - medium importance on a world scale. I see that some other project templates now support task-force specific importance via additional parameters. While this project has many task forces (possibly more than any other Wikiproject), I think this would be a valuable addition. dramatic ( talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone's added MPAA approval numbers. Is this considered excess/fancruft by others before I remove them? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Two quite obscure movies, Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger, are up for AfD deletion.
I wanted to highlight it here, in case any movie buffs are able to locate any coverage in reliable sources.
Best, Chzz ► 15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion I just started at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding crew members to the infobox after contribution is nationally honored. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who may not know, User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a very useful script in determining page size and word count. In edit preview mode, it also calculates section size and word count. Among other things, this could come in pretty handy for anyone working on bloated plot summary sections as it makes it extremely easy to get an updated word count. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely better than copying over the section to Word just to get a count. Thanks for sharing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
At the end of The Smurfs article where the navigation templates are. There is a space between "The Smurfs" and "Theatrical Hanna-Barbera produced films" templates. What is causing this? Mike Allen 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to open this discussion for a while, but only the recent page move has prompted me to get around to it. Erik and I discussed it before he left, but we never got around to doing anything about it. Anyway ... the film project style guideline is named as if it were a manual of style. It's long been my opinion that we've misnamed the guide. For the most part, it is not a manual of style, but a content guideline, much the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and similar. It gives guidance on structure and content, but very little—if anything— on the things traditionally covered by the main MoS pages. Therefore, I propose that we detach the guide from the official manual of style and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. This change would more accurately reflect its content and perhaps allow us more scope to make changes in the future. IMO, doing this wouldn't affect the way we wield the guide; it would still have the authority, backing and consensus of the film project. With a bit of luck, it would be no more than a paperwork exercise (and should we decide to go ahead with this, I'm happy to do all the donkey work with page moves, sorting the redirects, etc.) I've placed this message here, as WT:FILM has a wider audience than the style guide talk page, but I'll place a message over there and at WT:MOS pointing to this discussion. I welcome your comments, suggestions, support and objections! All the best, Steve T • C 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subject specific guide if accepted would cover this guideline as it stands . Gnevin ( talk) 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, please be kind to me as I'm a little new to the world of Wikipedia. First of all, I just want to say how much I respect the hard work and dedication involved with everyone here in making sure that movie information is complete and accurate. I was discussing the possibility of including another source for movie reviews with Nehrams2020 and he suggested that I bring it up here. Please forgive me for a rather lengthy post.
I'm writing because I work for a movie review site, MRQE.com, the Movie Review Query Engine, that may be helpful in providing useful information to movie articles. MRQE has been around since 1993, and its search engine provides links to nearly every review accessible online for about 80,000 titles (this includes classics, indie movies, foreign films, and current releases). I've noticed that many movie articles cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the "Reception" section, and I'm wondering if MRQE can also be included, or at least be placed amongst the External Links. Like RT and MC, MRQE supplies an average score for each film (called the MRQE Metric); but unlike RT and MC, MRQE also includes links to the original reviews written at the time of the film's release (so long as they've been archived online somewhere). This can be very interesting for people reading up on classics and older titles like the original King Kong or Casablanca.
Along with original reviews, MRQE uses a graph to compare the overall critical reception (the percentage of critics that give the movie an A, B, C, etc.); the MRQE Metric is the average of all the reviews, a number between 0 - 100. MRQE's graphs have been included on sites like Variety.com and EW.com (powering Entertainment Weekly's Critical Mass graphs) to help their users see the overall response to movies. It could be interesting to cite the graph percentages, but I'm sure the easiest thing is to add MRQE to the "External Links" section. I am more than happy to help out either way, and I can provide some documentation for linking.
Here's MRQE on Wikipedia. MRQE has already helped supply some information for existing Wikipedia articles, such as this one.
While MRQE has been around since the beginnings of the Internet, it's only recently that any investment has been made into the site. MRQE is by all accounts a start-up, and getting press has been a tricky task. Be that as it may, MRQE does get mentioned from time to time, and remains one of Roger Ebert's top movie review websites. He name-dropped the site in an interview last year with The Onion's AV Club. MRQE was also mentioned in Ebert's intro to the 2004 edition of his Annual Movie Yearbook.
Even though Social Times hated the site's name, MRQE was named one of their Top Movie Review and Rating Sites
MRQE also has a sister-site called Flicktweets, which aggregates and filters Twitter for relevant movie review tweets.
All in all, MRQE could help provide interesting information and links to reviews. While RT and MC are fantastic general resources, MRQE could supply an extra dose of information that some people might be interested in. I'm hoping that we can work together to supply some compelling links and valuable information. Let me know your thoughts, and I'd be happy to help out in any way. mliss4816 ( talk) 20:18, 26 May 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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
As an exercise in research and verification of sources, I have found that a great deal of the published record that deals with June Allyson is an exercise in contradictions and myth-making. During her lifetime, Allyson published an autobiography that has led to much of the confusion as her recollections did not correspond to the actual record, starting with her birthdate and her family background. MGM was partly to blame here as the studio PR machine created a "goody two shoes" image of a young ingenue which required some imaginative tailoring of her age, family circumstances and even her famous "tree limb" story. The name "June Allyson" has been attributed to three different sources and June herself had a different memory of where it came from but the use of a nickname and stage name had already been used in her teen years. On the Larry King interview, her recall was that Broadway producer George Abbott had given her the name while other sources have her first stage choreographer giving her the name in exasperation, as he couldn't be bothered to remember her real name, at least that's the tale in her book. Likely the name made sense to her as she liked "Allison", her brother's name and simply tacked on June to it and was reportedly using it before her Broadway debut. As to dates, she was already 21 when she appeared in the chorus line not in her teens and attending high school. Her relentless pursuit of acting, dancing and other career advancing jobs such as modeling was acknowledged in some sources but June painted a much more benign picture of what must have been a pressure-filled experience of auditioning. Her constant efforts were ultimately successful but she alludes to many instances of being too short, too young, not pretty enough rebuttals that seemingly did not deter her in her relentless drive to the top. A lot of the anecdotal references to Allyson's career show that she was ambitious and courageous; one producer was astonished that the dancers actually pitched the tiny Allyson completely out of sight as they threw her into the air during a particularly memorable dance number. The audience roared as June bounced back into the male dancer's arms as if appearing out of nowhere but each performance culminated in the young starlet getting physically sick in her dressing room, out of sight of the cast and crew. When she got to the bright lights of Hollywood, her ability to make friends and keep good company kept her "in the picture". The famous scene of her getting picked up on the roadside by Judy Garland as she waited, nearly broke, for a bus to take her to the studio in Hollywood, may or may not have happened exactly as she remembered it but the fact that Allyson counted Garland, Lucille Ball, Alan Ladd, James Stewart, Peter Lawford, Van Johnson, Margaret O'Brien, Ronald Reagan, and of course, Dick Powell, her first "true love" as close friends and confidantes, led to a remarkably long and successful career for a performer who confessed to not being able to sing or dance! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
Nearly all pages are lacking in a film rating. This is an important part of the comprehensive material Wikipedia strives for. We need to include such information in nearly all articles.
Hcps-hoytca ( talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Are the film's credits the bottom-line source for character names? The credits of The Boondock Saints read "Conner MacManus", but the DVD case and the official website read "Connor McManus". I don't know which is used in the sequel. There is a brief discussion at Talk:The Boondock Saints#Conner vs Connor. A pointer to an existing page would be fine. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article. Do you think that this article would benefit from adding images of pre-released concept art? And is it justifiable to do so? Here is a link to the artwork: [1]. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A new page has been started for the project that includes our older GA and FAs. Since the majority of these are several years old, they may have issues with being passed under older criteria or deteriorating by vandalism, numerous edits, and the use of unreliable sources. This cleanup page focuses on checking several elements for each article, including alt text/images, prose, and sources. Each of the articles should ensure that these are all improved to (or already meet) the designated criteria for GA/FA. Once each article is cleaned up, a stable revision will be selected, which will be helpful for comparing to future revisions as we begin to annually review our Spotlight articles. Although it will take a while to review these articles (many of them need to be expanded, cleaned up, and have sources added), after this initial process, it should make it much easier and faster to clean them up a year from now. Articles continue to get delisted during GAR/FARs, so it's important to take the time to tend to the older articles so that we can continue to have great example articles for new editors to refer to (while also providing excellent articles for readers). Please make an attempt to improve a few articles, there are a couple hundred that need to be looked over. Many have no issues or need a few fixes, while some need complete overhauls. Since there are several elements to work on, you can easily work on whatever you feel comfortable with. Instructions can be found on the cleanup page. It's great that we have so many quality articles, but to set goals for ourselves to have even more, we must also maintain the ones that we already have. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page about The Terminator, a discussion, which probably is relevant to this project, arose, on whether or not IMDb should be included in the article as an external link, as it is on most Wikipedia articles about films. TheFreeloader ( talk) 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
After viewing this edit on the Drag Me to Hell article, I was curious if this should be implemented as a standard for film articles. Some reviews on the regular T-Meter part of Rotten Tomatoes seem to come from blogs ( example) which I'm not sure would be notable critics who write for third party sources. This could be considered against WP:SPS. Should we concentrate on the top critics section or continue to use the regular T-Meter? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose a multimedia department whose page can provide instructions for adding images, audio samples, and video samples, especially when it comes to film. Video samples are still a new concept and technically difficult to create, so the department can particularly help with this. In addition, this page would allow us to remove instructions for uploading images from MOS:FILM so it can focus more on guidelines for usage. I have collaborated with Steve and Nehrams2020 to put together a draft of the departmental page at User:Erik/Multimedia department. I invite others to review and comment on the page, and I would like input on if we should now create the department. Erik ( talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been having an edit war with another user about the article Vincent Vega. To me, its another "fictography" of a one-shot movie character that rehashes the same plot summary found on Pulp Fiction, except focused on only one of the main characters. Apparently there was a previous consensus to redirect the article to the cast section of the movie's article and I happen to agree with that notion. On that note, isn't the List of Pulp Fiction characters article a bit redundant, considering the cast section of the movie's article already summarizes the roles of the main characters? Jonny2x4 ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you talkin' to me? There seems to be a fair few of these in this category. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the film is an "American" film, but the language used is British English. How should the article's language be written: American or British? Thanks. — Mike Allen 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I need your help to read again this artcile, i'm French so i certainly made a lot of mistakes. I may have mistaken in the title also. thanks by advance. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've brought up this issue before here when it was only concerning a section within the article. This section of negative responses to the film has since been expanded into an entire article with much more criticism directed towards this film. To give you an idea, Rotten Tomatoes currently holds a 93% positive rating and, in case there is an argument (as the article attempts to imply) that the film was not well received in India, All Bollywood records a rating of 81% positive reviews.
I am of the opinion that minor viewpoints here are being given undue weight considering how much of a positive response the film has received. Whereas the film article cites about a dozen reviews from circa 200 available on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems that the article on reactions from India cites just about eveything that could be found on the film that had a negative tone; except for one paragraph, there is no positive commentary included. To myself, personally, the entire article reads like personal criticism of the film, this criticism attempting to be supported by external links. I have removed ( [2], [3]) some weasel words but there are plenty of other examples of this as well as overly extensive quotations of sources that support the minority viewpoint.
I would like some additional input on this from other editors. Does the article give undue weight to minority negative viewpoints or is it properly balanced? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Disruption at this article by Uncle uncle uncle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user apparently does not understand that Production sections of film articles give historical info on stages of production and filming. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[4] = Is this appropriate? I think not... -- Cirt ( talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There is continuing discussion on the page from random IPs on the article for the articles for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Any user willing to help contribute to the discussion to help chase away trolls is welcome. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a currently ongoing discussion at the above link concerning Coordinators of WikiProject Films. Up until now, coordinators had to be elected every six months and the discussion is trying to determine if the elections are better held once every year instead. The current term for coordinators also expires at the end of March but, due to the Tag & Assess drive as well as other coordinator responsibilities, the election will not be held this month. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Mainly, there are two points on which consensus is sought:
Thank you! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to make an announcement in case you're like me and miss important changes. Per this discussion ALT text is no longer required for Featured Articles. Just a heads for future FAR. :-) — Mike Allen 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Alt text should be added, where appropriate, regardless of FA criteria. Its an accessibility issue, and guidance can be sought from WP:ACCESSIBILITY and elsewhere, on- and off- WP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The template Buzzify film (being used like the Metacritic/RT templates on film articles), is being considered for deletion here. — Mike Allen 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Archiving useless discussion that degenerated into sniping. Long story short, a question has been asked about the use of commercial links for verification in media-related articles. Discussion is thataway. Steve T • C 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here about properly wording a particular scene. It is a GA class article so additional input is welcome. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this as already been discussed but is Examiner.com considered to be valid source? For theose unfamiliar Examiner.com utilizies citizen journalism so basically anyone can report and has been noted for a lack of editorial oversight. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was editing the List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds article and getting it ready to be nominated for WP:FL, when an editor added a list of awards called the Golden Schmoes, which are hosted by website JoBlo.com. I was wondering are these and the Online Film Critics Society Awards usually included in film award lists? Are they prominent enough? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated 35 mm 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) 17:51, April 4, 2010
Are these articles really needed? It seems all of the pages are basically an exact copy off their website. I could see having a main page with details about the circle but 40+ pages about each year of awards that can be found on their site seems pointless. It is duplicate information to have pages for Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor and then have the yearly pages too Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards 2007 -- Peppage tlk 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Film, which is part of "Theatre film and drama" at Wikipedia:GAN#Theatre film and drama. Some ways to improve this:
I see that Alice in Wonderland repeats the hyphenated version again and again. Why is it so when all of the promotional and branding material, not to mention the film itself, use the plain "3D"? It looks strange to visitors. Tony (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Not to be overly obtuse, but 4-D film seems to have this figured out: use whichever one is applicable to the given film. Jaws 3-D uses the hyphen. My Bloody Valentine 3D does not use the hyphen. My feeling is that, as the new wave of 3D films and technology (such as 3D television) become more prevalent, the hyphen will not be used much at all; that doesn't mean, however, that it shouldn't still be used here when applicable. -- Chicken monkey X sign? 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at True Lies for a re-assessment. It's currently evaluated as a start-class, although it's easily beyond that status now. Shadowjams ( talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The Featured Article 300 (film) uses File:300 monster.poster03.jpg in the "Depictions of Persians" section. There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the image is appropriate to include. Editors are invited to weigh in; discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the AfD Michael is referring to is dated 31 July 2009. Viriditas ( talk) 02:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know of a reliable source for DVD release dates? (Specifically region 2...) -- Beloved Freak 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. There is something about this new editors changes (seen here [6]) that is ringing a bell with me. I seem to remember that, a few years ago, we had an editor who came back more than a couple of time making these same kinds of changes. The most common one was changing the run times of films by a minute or two. They also enjoyed adding unsourced info. The name Bambifan springs to mind but I am not sure that these changes were the ones that that editor liked performing. If any of you can remember anything about this please add the info here and then we can start on getting this new editor reported to the right spot (vandal - sockpuppet - or other). I thought about taking this to AIV but I decided to come here first to see if any of you can help. In case I am wrong about this and all of these changes are okay then I will apologize to the editor involved and rvt my work. My thanks ahead of time to any of you who can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Development of Watchmen only lacks some things with the sourcing to pass. Can anyone help me? igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the consensus from a few months ago, shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Lists of accolades by film? Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
More feedback is appreciated on how to format casting sections, here. — Mike Allen 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There are a few articles listed below which don't have significant references. An activist editor has noticed, so it would be good time to fix them. Take your pick!
Also ones which I am already working on
Ones which I've done so far:
Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is just a notice that Fandraltastic and I have created a userspace draft for this film and that anybody who wishes to contribute may do so. -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Several film articles refer to Rotten Tomatoes in their critical reception sections, and several refer to the "cream of the crop" or "top critics" section of that website. It recently came up in a GA review, that I, from the UK, am automatically redirected to the UK version of RT and subsequently see a different RT score than somebody else from the US. I don't know if people are already aware of this, but it means that some percentages given in articles are going to appear to be incorrect, or unverifiable, depending on the location of the article writer, and the location of the reader. Thinking about it now, I've actually seen it mentioned in a few reviews that the RT reference doesn't back up the score given in the article. I'd thought, maybe RT changes as it gets updated or something, but now I'm thinking it probably depends on which version they're redirecting you to. Does anyone know how we can deal with this in articles, if there's a way around getting forcibly redirected to the regional version, and whether there are other versions of RT (Aus/NZ for example)?-- Beloved Freak 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.
I have some problems with this template. It need an A.L.T. code on the main infobox. Thanks Tbhotch Talk C. 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:FILMS/Categorization to gather consensus on removing Category:2010 films from upcoming films that are scheduled to be released in 2010. See here. — Mike Allen 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since progress at our cleanup listing is going a little slow, I thought I would break it up a little more, so I went through all of the FA/GAs and looked at all of the images. I made a list of the images that may require discussion on whether to remain in the respective articles or not. Some are clear-cut cases that I probably should have just removed, but hopefully this list will illustrate how much cleanup some of our older articles need. Other images listed could use multiple editors' opinions to determine consensus on whether to keep it or not. As times change, and guidelines/policies along with it, we're bound to have images that don't meet non-free criteria or new editors adding images to the articles as decoration. I would appreciate any and all comments on each of the listed film articles' images so we can knock that out and focus on the more troubling prose and citations for many of the articles. We don't have to finish this list in a day, so don't be put off by the long list. As we focus on each article, it will gradually be finished. More opinions will speed up the process though! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
About the ones that need resizing, like this one. What size should it be, because it's already 24KB.. or do we need the dimensions reduced also. If so, what sizes? Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started discussions for each of the FA images that I included in the listing. Many just need an editor or two to comment on whether image should be removed or help reinforce why it should remain in the article. Once we finish addressing the FA images, we can move on to the GAs. Finishing off the images will allow more focus on the prose and citations of the articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Colleagues, I've been gnoming around quite a lot of film-related articles recently. There is a practice of linking to genre articles right at the top, as a formula.
The problem is that many (?most) of these link-targets are on the trivial side, some are stubs, some have troublesome tags at their tops. To link them right at the start might be OK if the category was well-developed, but I believe their current state makes us look amateurish.
Now it might be argued that they should stay linked pending their improvement; but that is not likely soon, and even then, I believe it's hard to make some of those targets sufficiently useful. Maybe I'm being too conservative in that respect, but I am very concerned.
What about "is a Superhero film", which I unlinked from the opening of a film article out of embarrassment the other day? And it's not as though it wasn't diluting the better links in the same sentence, all jostling each other. Please let's provide our readers with a cogent wikilinking system.
Even links to more mainstream genres, such as Romance film (unhelpfully piped in a bunch of blue items as "romance" here must be questioned. The target article greets us with this spellbinding statement:
Gee.
Well ... and the clincher:
Hello? This article deserves several tags I can think of: refimprove, original research, POV. And we're endorsing it by linking prominently in our film and actor articles.
The external links and the list of examples of romance films might be useful, although (1) I'd be happier if it were a proper list article "List of ...", which would make it more searchable by our readers and give it a stronger centre of gravity; and (2) wouldn't it be more appropriate to include such a link in the "See also" section of the anchor article? But better still isn't such a plain list accessible via the Romance Film category at the bottom of the page?
Your thoughts on article improvement and smarter linking practices would be welcome. Tony (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont think we should delink articles out of embarrassment. Wikipedia is open to everybody so instead of pretending these articles do not exist we should encourage traffic to them so that they might be improved. Also regardless of the fact that many people might skip over these links, they should still be present for the few that find them useful. -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could start by creating a list of romance films like the ones for horror films and science fiction films. A history of the genre could also be included in the article as well as a section for subgenres (see the horror film and science fiction film articles). And getting sources from different places and critics and film theorists would be a good way to counter definitions that might be too narrow in relation to the full variety of the genre.– Cattus talk 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat has hit the nail on the head. Tony - I suggest you be bold and create the missing list, and for the genre pages, be bold again. Fin. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree they're substandard. I suggest improving them. Dekkappai ( talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be negative again. I want to report that I'm finding a distressingly large amount of bad piping practice. At issue are pipes that are misleading, pipes that are more general than their target article name (in which case readers are unlikely to click), and pipes that are plain wrong.
Recent examples:
In addition, film articles appear to be badly overlinked with common terms. Please remember that the first of WP's pillars (not policies, pillars), states that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Readers are supposed to be able to read English. Recent examples:
I think it is time we regarded common terms in film and television as not worth linking, particularly as we have so many valuable links to people and other films we don't want to dilute. Examples are:
Three geographical locations recur again and again and again, and are so well-known not only to English-speakers of age seven but non-native speakers:
I urge users to reconsider linking these items. This is particularly the case because they usually occur bunched with high-value links.
The names of the main actors and characters are sometimes repeated three or four times. It kind of loses its punch when readers see these blue by default. A single linking of their names on first occurrence, and in the infobox, should beckon readers more effectively to click. The text looks more professional that way, too.
Please see WP:OVERLINK for more. Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
importScript('User:Tony1/monobook.js/script.js');
If it's to be adopted by the film project, it will need customisation at some stage; I might be persuaded to break out a separate script for that purpose. Tony (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Informing editors here that the two topics above are currently Featured Article candidates. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I could use some feedback here on what is turning into a content dispute, I guess, for the recent Sherlock Holmes movie (the Robert Downey Jr. film). I say I guess because the history of how these edits came about leaves me questioning the whole situation. The editor attempted to make an addition to the text of one review in the critical response section. I felt it was POV and interpretative and reverted it. So he deleted the entire review. I've restored it well over the limit of 3RR and the whole situation is escalating. So, on the chance that I'm letting my perception of the editor's attitude cloud my judgment, I could use some more eyeballs. Millahnna (mouse) talk 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was going to move The Thing (2010 film) to The Thing (2011 film) but it was already used for a redirect to The Thing (film)#Prequel which leads to The Thing (film). I moved it from 2010 film because it appears it won't be released in 2010. I manually moved the contents to 2011 film, but the page history will be left behind. Was this the right way to do it? MikeAllen ( talk • contribs) 01:45, April 20, 2010
It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) as seen here. The argument was that the 1996 film should be disambiguated from the 1983 film. WP:NCF says, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release." Those who opposed the move chose to ignore these guidelines. They believed that "Independence Day (film)", including "(film)", was the primary topic. Those who supported the move said that the 1996 film was not the primary topic and that only Independence Day (without disambiguation) was the primary topic. A similar issue was seen with Avatar (2009 film), where there was discussion to move the film article to Avatar (film) with the argument that "Avatar (film)", including the disambiguation term, was the primary topic, but the discussion was closed with consensus for not moving. WP:NCF needs to be clarified in this regard as to whether or not "<Film title> (film)" that contains the disambiguation term ought to be considered a primary topic, even though it is disambiguated from a primary topic that does not a disambiguation term. I am considering the possibility of an RfC. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.
For a while now I've thought it would be a good idea to have a film industry infobox with facts so go in the cinema of articles, e.g Cinema of the United Kingdom and Bollywood etc, such as films produced annually, revenue etc. I think the articles would look a lot tidier this way. Would anybody support such an infobox and have any ideas for what could be included? I'm thinking some of them could also have montages images related to the national cinema industry (free of course) made as the main image to spice them all up a little. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Offhand I'd say the following paramters would be useful:
These are just ideas. Of course reliable sources would be required to reference the information but as a factual infobox I think this would be very useful and would also help smarten up the beginning of the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course the information is best presented in prose within the article. But that argument would make all infoboxes obsolete. Infoboxes are intended to summarise the main facts to make them instantly accesible as a reference point. The information given in Infobox film for example is also mostly replicated within the article. I think any "current2 information could be updated annually. Besides top grossing films of all time, saying the top 5 by each country rarely change weekly or monthly. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see semi-prot edit request in Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)#Rotten Tomatoes - discussion to reach consensus would be welcome. Thanks, Chzz ► 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An anon user has brought up a valid point on the MPAA talk page. He wanted to know why Wikipedia doesn't include ratings on films in its articles. Yes, the IMDb has that information, but our readers shouldn't have to rely on external sources for such basic data. I know different areas of the world use different rating systems, but the video game template includes parameters for all the different systems used around the world for rating video games (look at the infobox for Gears of War, for example). Why doesn't the film infobox template include rating parameters as well? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Question for Erik's link: Rating within country of original release doesn't seem random, and isn't addressed at the link... Also, I think the Midnight Cowboy 'X' example is a bit spurious. Even at the time no one understood how it landed an 'X'. Think I heard somewhere that it was something of a marketing gimmick-- producers only wanted adults in the theater, or something along those lines... Dekkappai ( talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This has just been started. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. I'll be back, I'm sure. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion for Shrek Forever After. Mike Allen 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Opium War has been proposed to be repurposed, see Talk:Opium War
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened at Talk:Al Pacino#Filmography spin-off regarding a recent spin-off and the need to form consensus regarding it. Please take a look. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have halted but has been relisted and could benefit from additional input. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional input would be helpful. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Films. I notice the recent creation of (uncategorised) Category:Films with two parts. I don't know whether it should be categorised, populated or deleted - I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at FA examples, and know where the template is, but so far, understanding how to fill in the table (multiple films in a year, column size, etc.) is eluding me. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I fail to see how that template addresses User:Jack Sebastian's problem. If a user has trouble understanding how to place multiple films in a year (the rowspan parameter), that template does not help them. That template, frankly, does nothing but take up space. The same work it will take to implement that template into filmographies could be done to simply correct the use of a wikitable.
If you don't understand a wikitable, The advice to just stick with a list is optimal. Chicken monkey 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of these animated shorts come up when I was reviewing articles for the tag and assess and also articles that are unassessed. I'm just wondering if these articles are in the scope of the project. I'm leaning more toward they are not in the scope but that isn't very fair because they are bit like very short films and they didn't air on TV. Any input would be great. -- Peppage tlk 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow the films selected for the 2010 Cannes Film Festival will be revealed. This year I have set as a personal goal that all films in the main competition should have a Wikipedia article of at least C-class as soon as possible, and it would be great if some of you wanted to help (a higher class would demand developed plot and reception sections which in many cases will have to wait). Any contribution is valuable and if you know any foreign language that would be of particular help, as the countries of origin often have a better early coverage. Plenty of interviews and highlights will be published during the festival (12-23 May) and hopefully this can be a fun and engaging collaboration! Smetanahue ( talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do these two fields in the Template:Infobox_film denote? Are they meant to denote strict chronological order? For example, Halloween H20 followed Halloween 6 but was conceived as a sequel to Halloween 2. Superman Returns also ignored the last two films of the Superman series and was made as a series to Superman 2. Should this link be captured in the infobox so that it's documented that Halloween H20 followed both Halloween 2 and 6. The text body makes it clear that the film is an official sequel to Halloween 2 so should the infobox also reflect that? The documentation doesn't make it clear if the field relates solely to chronological production or not.
Also, how do these fields relate to spin-off films? For instance, Caravan of Courage was a spin-off from Return of the Jedi, Supergirl was a spin-off from Superman 3, and Wolverine was a spin-off from X-Men:The Last Stand. Should spin-offs be ignored by these fields, or should they be included? You can argue that Return of the Jedi was followed by The Phantom Menace and Caravan of Courage.
I'm sure this issue must have come up before but can't find any discussion on it, but would appreciate it if it could be clarified. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification chaps! Betty Logan ( talk) 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Paramount Television Network has been nominated as a Featured Article. The discussion is here. Please take a moment to weigh in at the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Input on a discussion to move The Fox and the Hound -> The Fox and the Hound (film), and its novel article from The Fox and the Hound (novel) to The Fox and the Hound would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Another editor recently attempted to move Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles to Fire & Ice (2008 film). I reversed the move because it was done by copy-and-paste, and I'm currently helping the other editor negotiate the proper move procedure. But I had this question: IMDb gives the film's title as just Fire & Ice, and shows Fire & Ice: The Dragon Chronicles as the U.S. "long title". Would it be preferable to disambiguate this article by using the (2008 film) clarifier or by using the long title, as it currently is (leaving aside the and/ampersand issue)? Certainly it would be great if any admin watching here could take a look at this situation and put things in order, if needed. Thanks!-- ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried to do that messy move, sorry for that. Yes, the official title is "Fire & Ice" as AnmaFinotera mentioned. Can I add the synopsis back, as it is from the official site? I will add a reference for it. Also, I'm going to find sources to prove its notability.
Malina Grigore |
talk —Preceding
undated comment added
10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC).
When filling in the "followed by" perimeter in the infobox, should we wait until there is an actual article or section within an article before adding a film? Like for example, adding red links or regular text for announced sequels that haven't yet entered production. I think the infobox doc should make this clear. Mike Allen 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus here. Thank you. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I already mentioned this on the Talk page for the style guidelines, but thought I should drop a note here as well. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago ( talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request that, per my original request, further discussion of the template(s) take place at their talk pages rather than here, so that anyone with an interest in them can see the discussion without having to peruse the various project pages for possible discussion. Of course, linking back here would probably be useful. (smile) Doniago ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why has Erik retired? He was like the most straight laced editor on here!! At times he was almost too professional. What happened? I was about to offer to sell my Tyler Durden leather jacket to him which is too small for me and he said he loved it previously when I uploaded a picture. Certainly the last thing I expected was to see a retired tag. If nobody wants to say here feel free to email what happened. It is certainly a huge loss to WP:Films on here, even if I didn't always see eye to eye with him. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy#Notability? regarding the notability of of said film (which is a DVD documentary) and its need to have its own article. Please provide opinions on the above linked page. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a current request for comments HERE that is discussing whether the article Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy should be merged and redirected to the Elm Street franchise article at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), or whether it has met, or has the ability to meet notability inclusion criteria in order to remain an independent independent article and be allowed to grow through regular editing. Findsources: [9], [10] All viewpoints are welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. I just wanted to amke everyone aware that the category status for Criterion Collection films has been resurrected today. The cat was created by User:Deathawk and worked on by this IP 97.124.69.84. Although it has been a few years the members of the film project have reached a consensus that this should not be a category on our films pages. Here are a few examples of previous discussions. [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are others though I don't quite have time to find them now. As soon as I am done here I will make the editors involved aware and open a new CFD. Any additional thoughts and assistance will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The current plot for V for Vendetta (film) is at 1200 words. I have made several attempts to condense this but I do not believe that it can be reduced to the 400-700 word range that is customary. I would like to know what members of this project believe should be done. Talk: V for Vendetta (film) -- Iankap99 ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I more or less dropped out of this project a while back. The reason was that I started assessing New Zealand films for importance and had to stop when I realised that the importance parameter belongs to the parent project. Thus, while Goodbye Pork Pie would be of top-importance in the history of New Zealand film (as the first homegrown film to be a significant commercial success), it is low - medium importance on a world scale. I see that some other project templates now support task-force specific importance via additional parameters. While this project has many task forces (possibly more than any other Wikiproject), I think this would be a valuable addition. dramatic ( talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone's added MPAA approval numbers. Is this considered excess/fancruft by others before I remove them? -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Two quite obscure movies, Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger, are up for AfD deletion.
I wanted to highlight it here, in case any movie buffs are able to locate any coverage in reliable sources.
Best, Chzz ► 15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion I just started at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding crew members to the infobox after contribution is nationally honored. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who may not know, User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a very useful script in determining page size and word count. In edit preview mode, it also calculates section size and word count. Among other things, this could come in pretty handy for anyone working on bloated plot summary sections as it makes it extremely easy to get an updated word count. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely better than copying over the section to Word just to get a count. Thanks for sharing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
At the end of The Smurfs article where the navigation templates are. There is a space between "The Smurfs" and "Theatrical Hanna-Barbera produced films" templates. What is causing this? Mike Allen 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to open this discussion for a while, but only the recent page move has prompted me to get around to it. Erik and I discussed it before he left, but we never got around to doing anything about it. Anyway ... the film project style guideline is named as if it were a manual of style. It's long been my opinion that we've misnamed the guide. For the most part, it is not a manual of style, but a content guideline, much the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and similar. It gives guidance on structure and content, but very little—if anything— on the things traditionally covered by the main MoS pages. Therefore, I propose that we detach the guide from the official manual of style and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. This change would more accurately reflect its content and perhaps allow us more scope to make changes in the future. IMO, doing this wouldn't affect the way we wield the guide; it would still have the authority, backing and consensus of the film project. With a bit of luck, it would be no more than a paperwork exercise (and should we decide to go ahead with this, I'm happy to do all the donkey work with page moves, sorting the redirects, etc.) I've placed this message here, as WT:FILM has a wider audience than the style guide talk page, but I'll place a message over there and at WT:MOS pointing to this discussion. I welcome your comments, suggestions, support and objections! All the best, Steve T • C 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subject specific guide if accepted would cover this guideline as it stands . Gnevin ( talk) 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, please be kind to me as I'm a little new to the world of Wikipedia. First of all, I just want to say how much I respect the hard work and dedication involved with everyone here in making sure that movie information is complete and accurate. I was discussing the possibility of including another source for movie reviews with Nehrams2020 and he suggested that I bring it up here. Please forgive me for a rather lengthy post.
I'm writing because I work for a movie review site, MRQE.com, the Movie Review Query Engine, that may be helpful in providing useful information to movie articles. MRQE has been around since 1993, and its search engine provides links to nearly every review accessible online for about 80,000 titles (this includes classics, indie movies, foreign films, and current releases). I've noticed that many movie articles cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the "Reception" section, and I'm wondering if MRQE can also be included, or at least be placed amongst the External Links. Like RT and MC, MRQE supplies an average score for each film (called the MRQE Metric); but unlike RT and MC, MRQE also includes links to the original reviews written at the time of the film's release (so long as they've been archived online somewhere). This can be very interesting for people reading up on classics and older titles like the original King Kong or Casablanca.
Along with original reviews, MRQE uses a graph to compare the overall critical reception (the percentage of critics that give the movie an A, B, C, etc.); the MRQE Metric is the average of all the reviews, a number between 0 - 100. MRQE's graphs have been included on sites like Variety.com and EW.com (powering Entertainment Weekly's Critical Mass graphs) to help their users see the overall response to movies. It could be interesting to cite the graph percentages, but I'm sure the easiest thing is to add MRQE to the "External Links" section. I am more than happy to help out either way, and I can provide some documentation for linking.
Here's MRQE on Wikipedia. MRQE has already helped supply some information for existing Wikipedia articles, such as this one.
While MRQE has been around since the beginnings of the Internet, it's only recently that any investment has been made into the site. MRQE is by all accounts a start-up, and getting press has been a tricky task. Be that as it may, MRQE does get mentioned from time to time, and remains one of Roger Ebert's top movie review websites. He name-dropped the site in an interview last year with The Onion's AV Club. MRQE was also mentioned in Ebert's intro to the 2004 edition of his Annual Movie Yearbook.
Even though Social Times hated the site's name, MRQE was named one of their Top Movie Review and Rating Sites
MRQE also has a sister-site called Flicktweets, which aggregates and filters Twitter for relevant movie review tweets.
All in all, MRQE could help provide interesting information and links to reviews. While RT and MC are fantastic general resources, MRQE could supply an extra dose of information that some people might be interested in. I'm hoping that we can work together to supply some compelling links and valuable information. Let me know your thoughts, and I'd be happy to help out in any way. mliss4816 ( talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)