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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Can someone take a look at this (check recent edit history for more)? I was under the impression that our reception mixed/negative/positive statements came from Metacritic (when possible) which clearly says mixed in this case. I think the IP editor is making an assumption based on the RT score (which is pretty common and I used to think it worked that way, too). Originally, I just restored the original mixed statement. Then once it became clear he wasn't going to let it go, I just removed the sentence entirely to jump straight to the stats (which we've done in the past when reception consensus has been debatable and constantly edit warred over). But the guy is so determined that I'm wondering if I'm not mistaken. He's also a little snarky and wildly misusing the idea of weasel words and I'd rather just back out of it now before I go into edit war/incivility land, regardless of how it shakes out. Millahnna ( talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments concerning the use of film reviews for early cuts at Red Dawn (2012 film).-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, it is time for a new coordinator election. We are a little late for one since the previous one was in September 2010. The plan is to have a two-week nominations process from October 1 to October 14 and to have a two-week election from October 15 to October 29. The nominations process for the election will be announced via newsletter, which will be distributed in a few days, and there will be a mid-month announcement to invite editors to support candidates in coordinator roles.
Obviously, the lateness of this election reflects the minimal activity of coordinators, not just this past year, but in general. I'm happy to discuss whether having this roundtable of coordinators is still a good idea. We editors seem to have a penchant for discussing a lot of topics on this talk page but tend to have our own pet projects in different corners of WikiProject Film. It's hard to tell if there is ever a chance to do something collaborative on specific topics. If you have any ideas or thoughts in general about the WikiProject structure, feel free to share! Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It might also be worth keeping a banner up with long-term goals, similar to those used by WP:MILHIST and WP:SIMPSONS. It would basically be up to the co-ordinators to update and replace any of these goals as they're completed, giving them an extra janitorial task really. I'm also going to start fielding suggestions for a collaboration to test how well they'll work, I'll start a new section to get some ideas so we can decide on something. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I just updated the list of good articles at WP:FILMSPOT since it was missing some articles from different years. I compared articles listed here to what was in the table and added overlooked articles to the table. Since WP:FILMSPOT is a page that transcludes several pages, I created the shortcut WP:FILMGA for more direct access to the list of good articles. I encourage other editors to list good articles there when they are promoted. I removed some articles that are now featured and some that were delisted, which brings me to my question. Do we want to maintain a list of delisted good articles? We could have a list that we don't actually maintain by identifying articles whose talk pages have the WikiProject Film banner and are in the category " Delisted good articles". Anyone know of a way to generate such a list? Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this nomination? I have no knowledge about this sort of thing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on the discussion in WP:FILM collaboration, we should review the core topics listed at WP:FILMCORE. While the list is primarily based on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? meta-list (as well as IMDb in part), it needs to be updated since the meta-list was updated in January 2011. I've started a discussion at WT:FILMCORE#2011 update to see if we can revise the inclusion formula. Please share your thoughts there! Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a minor question. Fast Five, INception and Star Trek are getting a limited 1-week re-release on IMAX screens but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to mention it as it isn't really enough information to have it's own section but it will probably alter the box office takings somewhat. ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-trek-inception-fast-five-242671) Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It is accurate for us to write what the The Hollywood Reporter reports that an actors makes for a film. Especially when they say "sources say..". See here. — Mike Allen 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a few documentary film articles on Wikipedia that use "(documentary)" instead of "(film)". I plan to make the moves to be consistent, especially when "documentary" is ambivalent about the type of media used. Does anyone have an issue with this? Should the non-film documentaries be titled something else too, like "(series)" or "(TV series)"? Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that 2013 and beyond in film (as well as other pages similar to this) list some films as having "animation" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here also, and I am suggesting that the films on that page and other years in film list another genre instead of animation. Any thoughts? -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Richard III (1955 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
A week has passed since the notification on the article's talk page and here at WT:FILM, and no contributions have been made. I've restarted the featured article review, which you can access here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
List of Scream characters is up for FLC again here. Been up since September 21 and has had no input at all so anyone interested, would be appreciated if you would be involved.
I have also created articles for the upcoming films Freeloaders by Broken Lizard and Neighborhood Watch with Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Richard Ayoade and some other guy I can't recall right now, for those interested in those films. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The following is the text of a discussion I began on The Godfather Part III talk page some time back, and I am here soliciting advice and opinions from other Film Project members on how to move forward on this, as the discussion is at loggerheads.
I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:
First of all, this is poorly-written, though that can be fixed. But, it is really nothing but speculation and idle chatter about a film that was never made, never will be made, and may not have ever been seriously considered. What is the purpose of this information? Coppola thought about making a 4th film, but he didn't, seems to be the sum total of what is offered here. How is this encyclopedic? The source is also questionable, and I have begun a discussion about that on RSN. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some more eyes on this article? The editor who insists on having this "concept of Pt. IV" section keeps reverting to his preferred version, saying all the concerns have been addressed. Until the discussion here and at the article talk page has ended, the article should be left as it is. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 04:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for undoing the last edit and seeming quite arrogant, i didnt realise the talk page post was from an admin and misunderstood what this talk page was that they offered.
Firstly I'm sorry to be causing such an argument, this is the first time i have been involved in an 'edit war.' Referring to the film's talk page, Republican J seems to adamantly believe my addition is poorly written, but they are yet to describe exactly why. They have also accused me of not addressing any of they're concerns. I have clearly answered all they're points he/she has raised and they keep reverting my edits without a detailed explanation, simply summering up that I have not responded to his/her comments, clearly inaccurate when you read the page.
Unless RJ can give a detailed explanation or offer something in comparison to what they believe is a well written paragraph I do believe it is in fact RJ that is being disruptive to this page not me. Had he/she offered a more detailed insight into my addition I would avoid reposting.
It seems from the above comments and the recent comments from other users on the film's talk page that some users are willing to see this on the directors wiki page rather than on the film's page. I am happy to repost here if that's a common ground we can find. Personally I stand by my original choice of Part 3 as it is the latest/last addition to the series/trilogy, however due to the level of dispute it now holds I shall refrain from reposting it anywhere until we can all find some common ground. If RJ continues to demand more users on board despite this or becomes excessive in demands for better links, avoiding DVD commentary etc, I will have to suggest to an admin that he is blocked from editing the page and will continue this discussion with users who can offer a deeper insight and more detailed discussion.
ToonIsALoon ( talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
On the sections relevance to part 3 itself, part 4 was discussed in detail on part 3's dvd, so that satisfies why I put it on the page. The links do not constitute as unreliable, so the sources are not a problem and do not constitute as trivial. Many film shave placed suggested sequels to films that were never made on Wikipedia and I do not believe this is a problem.
As the subject however has caused an issue over having it's own section, i have opted to abbreviate the majority of it on the page and include it under the pages reception. A more detailed section similar to the original I shall place on Coppola's page.
ToonIsALoon ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone care to take a look in The Fall of Berlin (film) and tell me if there is any chance it would ever be promoted to GA status? I'm not talking about style, lead section etc., just asking if the article sufficiently covers the subject. Cheers. Bahavd Gita ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Those familiar with the article or the film may recall that there is a sex scene with extremely dubious consent in the film (female character is semi-conscious when male character has sex with her). However, because the character involved didn't classify the incident as rape, the consensus on the article's talk page has been a "just the facts ma'am" interpretation in the plot summary ("has sex with her while she is semi-conscious" is the current text) and the varying criticisms of the scene are detailed with sources in the reception section. The article will stay stable for a long time and then another round of edits will attempt to change the text with little or no discussion on the talk page (this time none). Would anyone care to weigh in (for or against current consensus) on the talk page? It's such a controversial issue that I feel more voices are needed. Or maybe just more eyeballs if current consensus is acceptable to others. Millahnna ( talk) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
An idea a lot of people seem interested in came up in the above section on co-ordinator elections, and that's the notion of a group collaboration across the wikiproject. Without waiting for a decision to be reached on co-ordinators, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start fielding some suggestions now on a possible collaboration. Just start flinging ideas out and we can see which among them are popular enough to warrant beginning. Personally, I like the idea of choosing a film whose 25th, 30th or 50th (etc) release anniversary will be in the coming months, to bring to FA status in order to be featured on the main page on that date. Alongside this, a relevant Good Topic can be worked on so that we don't end up with a case of too many chefs on one article - for instance, the filmography for the chosen film could also be brought to GA status to create the topic. or perhaps several entries in a film series could be grouped together. Any suggestions are welcome, as is any preliminary support for any ideas suggested. GRAPPLE X 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
All core film articles at start-class or better: 79.9% complete | ||
Stub-class core film articles improved to start-class or better: 0% complete | |
I'll stick one of the bars on the main WP:FILM page today, but which one do you guys prefer? The fuller-but-slower-moving top one or the emptier-but-faster-moving bottom one? GRAPPLE X 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, WP:FILMCORE has now been updated fully. I've amended the progress bars above to reflect that, so if no one objects I'll stick them on the front page tonight. GRAPPLE X 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Films with anniversaries in 2012 are listed below. Editors can vote for multiple films or add other films below. There can be collaboration on more than one film, so vote for the ones you'd like to work on. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello to the members of this project. If you are so inclined your input is requested at this thread Talk:Films with live action and animation#Define the combination. An IP has decided that a large part of the list should be removed. While there is no doubt that it could be pared down, I feel that more input is needed to determine just how much trimming should be done. As this article does not seem to be on many watchlists anymore I am hoping for more discussion than has currently taken place. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can add to the conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 13:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Crom! Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) has been nominated for consideration as a Featured Article. Fine was the day when Arnold Schwarzenegger took up the sword and played out the role under the auspices of John Milius, Edward R. Pressman, and Dino De Laurentiis. Please read the article and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Jappalang ( talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that a large number of the Category:Bowery Boys films do not have a project tag on their talk page. If anyone who has a knowledge of the ins and outs of all the specifics that go into tagging these has time on their hands (as unlikely as that may be) I thought I would make you aware of the situation. I don't know that this is a high, or even low, priority and as I say I am sure that most of you are busy with other things but I thought I would bring it to your attention just in case. Thanks for your time and good work all your film and anniversary collaborations work. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at the Brazil talk page as to whether it is a fantasy film. I would like some other editors to weigh in on this, please. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks in the main to the hardwork User:Adtran has put in, the List of submissions to the 84th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film is now complete. I've created articles for all the missing entries over the last few weeks. If anyone has any extra information for any of these films, please feel free to expand them. Some have already had lots of work done to them ( the Indian entry) and some are in questionable states ( the Portuguese entry and the Eygptian film director). Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Voting for the October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
See the project talk. I think it might be a good idea, seeing as Halloween is coming up, that this month have something special towards the Horror Project, I don't know really what to think of, perhaps a drive on Horror film articles or something like that, which should boost participation in the project. Also, if somebody could help over at the election page there, it'd be great. -- Tærkast ( Discuss) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've finished creating List of awards and nominations received by David Lynch tonight (this morning... sleep, Grapple, sleep) and since it's my first attempt at a comprehensive list article, I'd like a few more experienced list-writers to give it the once-over if they could. I'm reasonably happy with it, although there's one issue with the "infobox"-style table at the start, in that I can't get the "Total number of accolades" section to line up as two columns taking up the full width together, for some reason. It's probably something ridiculously simple, too, knowing me. Any advice, comments, anything would be welcome, as I'd like to take this to FLC if it seems ready. I've just DYK nominated it too so I'm hoping that will draw in some feedback as well. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this tag being added to some articles recently ( example). It's a minor point that the article is a stub and a documentary, so it's not likely to have a plot anyway. I think these should be better placed onto the talkpage of the article concerned instead. We have the parameters already for no infobox, no image, etc, and that works well. I fear this could start a drive-by tagging spree of no-plot, no-production, no-awards, no-release-history, etc. It also places the article into the category Category:Wikipedia articles without plot summaries. This could be better managed as WP film articles without plot summaries. I'm sure books have plots too. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Could I get more opinions on if we should include the "Dead Letter Awards" for zombie films? I can't find any notability for these awards in reliable sources, but an editor insists that they are. The discussion is about Resident Evil: Afterlife here. — Mike Allen 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The Secret World of Arrietty is an animated film that was originally released in Japan, with a Japanese voice cast. The film is being re-released in the US with an English voice cast. Should the English voice cast be included in the infobox? Would this be too busy to include? There are also three other positions involved with the English version, including an English Language Version Director (Gary Rydstrom), English Language Version Executive Producers (Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall), and English Language Screenwriter (Karey Kirkpatrick). My gut feeling is that this is a little excessive to include in the infobox, but I haven't done a lot of work with Japanese films converted to American films. Is my gut instinct right? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 16:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on here in which other editors might want to participate. As I am involved in that discussion, and it has been contentious, I am going to withdraw and encourage other editors to offer their opinions and perspectives. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I have created List of film archives. It is a very important list. I hope you can help me to complete this page. Thanks. emijrp ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the guidelines' talk page about the guidelines' "Box office" section. You can see the discussion here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly, sorry for always coming here and begging for comments and stuff when I was putting The Human Centipede (First Sequence) through three successive FACs. I'm sure you'll all be glad to hear however that eventually the article passed! It's now not only one of the most popular articles on wikipedia (ok, so well inside the top 1,000) but it's also now a Featured Article! Hooray!
The reason I return here to WikiProject Film talk is to let interested readers know that there is currently a discussion going on about the film possibly being the main page featured article on Halloween this year. The discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. So far there are seven people who think this would be good, and two who think this is the worst idea in the world ever.
The article has not been formally nominated for this yet, but it would still be cool to hear what people think about this idea. Personally I think it would be cool to have a popular article about a Horror film on Halloween, but that's just me, all thoughts are very much welcomed. cya! Coolug ( talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to some editors: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-24/WikiProject report on WikiProject logos. Traditionally, we've used whatever is available in the Commons, like File:Video-x-generic.svg and its similarly bland predecessors. Not to mention that WP:FILM is Dullsville on the front. I don't have any skills here, but am hoping that someone here will find some inspiration? :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an editor (AbsoluteGleek92) who has contributed prolifically to film articles. Editors who have crossed paths with him may wish to weigh in. The discussion is here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Film project members. I've been spending some time editing film awards pages and noticed that we don't really have a standard in some areas. I'm raising those issues which i've noticed in hopes we can decide on guidelines to help maintain better pages.
These are of course just a small sample of what we have. My suggestion is to pick a color so we can all work with it and stop rainbow color award sections like in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. We can also choose to pick a different color for different categories - Film Awards and Festivals, Film franchises, directors.
Ok, so here is a first pass I made for the category order for a film (film series and film awards might use a different order), a few notes at the end.
(After last section and after all footer templates, line series, director filmographies, etc)
(- One empty line here -)
{{DEFAULTSORT:Noun, Article}} - This is only needed if the title starts with an article.
<!-- Primary film categories - Year, Country, Genre, Language -->
[[Category:(Year) films]] -
Category:Films by year /
Category:Films by decade for year + genre.[1]
[[Category:(Country) films]] -
Category:Films by country /
Category:Films by genre by country for country + genre
[[Category:(Genre) films]] -
Category:Films by genre by country use sub-categories /
Category:Films by type (Documentary films, Sequel films, etc)
[[Category:(Language)-language films]] -
Category:Films by language
<!-- Film Series category -->
[[Category:(Film Series)]]
<!-- Credit categories -->
Category:Directorial debut films
[[Category:Films by (director)]] -
Category:Films by director
Category:Films by source [2]
Category:Screenplays by author
<!-- Company categories -->
[[Category:(Studio) films]] -
Category:Films by studio /
Category:Films by producer
<!-- Award categories -->
Category:Film awards - order alphabetically.
<!-- Setting categories -->
[[Category:Films set in (location)]] -
Category:Films by country of setting [3][4]
<!-- Filming location categories -->
[[Category:Films shot in (location)]] -
Category:Films by country of shooting location
<!-- Technical categories -->
Category:Films by technology
<!-- Additional categories -->
Category:Films by topic - [5]
Category:Public domain - [6]
Category:Soundtracks
(-- Two empty lines here --)
{{xxx-film-stub}}
(- One empty line here -)
[[Interwiki links]]
1 -
Category:Films by date has
Category:Films by decade and
Category:Films by century shouldn't
Category:Films by decade be a sub of
Category:Films by century?
2 - Seems as if
Category:Films based on literature is overlapping with its parent category
Category:Films based on works.
3 -
Category:Films by geographic setting has continent, country and city. Shouldn't country be a sub of continent and city a sub of country?
4 -
Category:Films by city of setting seems as if this category should be deleted as for example, UK films by city are found also in
Category:Films by country of setting (after picking
Category:Films set in the United Kingdom) and also in
Category:Films by city of setting
5 -
Category:Films by topic seems to need a clean up. Some of the categories start with "films about (topic)" others are "(topic) films"
6 - There should be a category for films in the public domain.
Feedback - thoughts, improvments, etc.--
Gonnym (
talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone in this wikiproject should merge the articles on Shaky camera and Hand-held camera. 67.101.5.42 ( talk) 06:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a requested move to move Home Alone (currently the article for the film series) to Home Alone (film series) and to move Home Alone (film) (the original film) to Home Alone. Should the search term take a reader to the article for the original film or to the article for the film series (provided there is one), with the latter generally meaning multiple films share the keywords (in this case, "Home Alone")? Where is the reader expecting to go? The request can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I was surprised to see Category:Film series so broken up, considering that there are not that many film series (especially compared to topics in other categories). I think that the subcategories should be non-diffusing per WP:DUPCAT. For example, all the articles in Category:Action films by series will also be categorized with Category:Film series. Diffusing helps with categories where there are too many articles, such as breaking out a genre category by decade, but it's not needed here. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Would some previously uninvolved editors care to weigh in on the discussion underway on this talk page? It would be a big help. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This Indian film is the subject of a discussion about moving it from its Indian title to an English one. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The template {{ HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, all! Based on the straw poll to choose a film article for collaboration, the most voted-for article is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), whose 75th anniversary is in December next year. (See the talk page to get started!) After that, The Godfather (40th anniversary on March 15, 2012) and Full Metal Jacket (25th anniversary on June 26, 2012) were tied. So we will have runoff voting for these two, so they are listed below. Please support the preferred film with your signature. Below it is a discussion subsection if you want to discuss how to make a choice. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I support Full Metal Jacket because I think that The Godfather's anniversary is too soon to collaborate, get the article reviewed and copy-edited, and succeed in the FAC process. There would be more time with Full Metal Jacket, and I would argue that the 25th anniversary is more of an identifiable milestone than the 40th. (No problem with supporting The Godfather 10 years from now!) Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was easy. Seven editors (three in the discussion) support Full Metal Jacket. I cleaned up the talk page (e.g., archived old discussions) and added a {{ to do}} template. Take a look here. May as well get started! WickerGuy, you're the Kubrick aficionado, have any books that can be referenced for the article? Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket will be one of the two WikiProject Film collaborations for milestone anniversaries in 2012. The film's 25th anniversary is on June 26, 2012, so the goal is to get the article to featured status and to request its appearance on the main page for the anniversary. This collaboration and the one for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) will be included in this month's newsletter. Since Snow White's anniversary is not until December of 2012, this topic takes precedence. On the film article's talk page, I've kicked off a preliminary discussion with some initial thoughts and invite others to weigh in. Let's do that whole thing where many hands make light work. Some of us have already started helping -- thanks, Darkwarriorblake and Lugnuts! Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Like Full Metal Jacket, The Princess Bride also celebrates 25 years next year. I have discussed at the Page improvements discussion here about certain articles getting a reboot, to which Erik suggested TPB as a collaborative piece. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 18:58 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the upcoming newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/October 2011 Newsletter. I put together last month's newsletter on my own, but I'm hoping that some editors could help me with this one. I've added some details so far, and there are instructions here on how to find content to include. If anyone can add even just a few details, it would be greatly appreciated! Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Timeshifter has moved Dazed and Confused to Dazed and Confused (film) for no apparent reason and with no discussion. We already have Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), which has three entries, and this discussion --- granted, it's nearly two years old --- at the disambiguation talk page indicates that the film article is the primary topic. This seemed like a good place for a centralized discussion of the move. I am opposed as it is unnecessary. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should get the move reverted and start an official request to move. Per WP:RM, this was not uncontroversial. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have decided to select the following articles for improvement so that they may qualify for possible GA or FA status:
I bring this up because i believe this could be a great collaboration opportunity for all film project participants in order to show these articles are well maintained and this WikiProject boasts some of the most dedicated editors on Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 23:04 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing the creation of a template that can be used for film and theatre technical articles such as Theatrical property, Costume designer etc. Thoughts?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I may have asked this before so I apologize in advance but does anyone know how reliable http://www.collider.com is? I've been using it here and there as it generally has frequent updates adn has been reliable for me in the past but I'm a bit conflicted on Tower Heist as I have one source from Collider and one from The New York Times which seem to be saying opposite things. But perhaps they are just chronologically opposed. Collider says:
Ratner: It wasn’t a Bernie Madoff-type character, it was kind of like Donald Trump, or something. The movie felt too much like Ocean’s Eleven, which I had actually developed.
Ted Griffin, who actually wrote Ocean’s Eleven for me, came in and came up with this whole idea about the guy who does kind of a Punk’d scheme and loses the employees’ pension fund, which just made it much more relevant. But the original idea was Eddie’s.
Which makes it sound like it being like Ocean's Eleven is a problem. Where as NYT says:
To Mr. Ratner, however, the film had the pleasingly familiar ring of the “Ocean’s Eleven” remake, which was developed as a project for him but which he gave up to make “Rush Hour 2.”
Which makes it seem like it was a good thing. Both interviews/pieces are recent, COllider says that is actual dialog from Ratner while the NYT bit seems like a bio so perhaps it is just a chronology issue and not Collider's reliability? That he liked it was like Ocean's Eleven based on Murphy's idea but that it was too much like it to continue? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Plot section of the Ra.One article is too long, and for your knowledge it's just 50% complete. Shall I create a new article for that? -- Karthik Nadar ( talk) 07:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. This is relevant to this film project, and several people involved in this project took part in previous related discussions. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with this site, normally I'd think it was a one-off but in the past I've had issues with someone on Scream 3 putting in figures for reviews that do not match up with what I see. Well now on Tower Heist User:Aquila89 sees this while I see this. There's an obvious disconnect here so how do Top Critics work? Do they change based on location, can they be modified by a personal users settings? Otherwise why is this happening, does anyone know? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess thatm akes sense in why it shows me the UK Guardian then but why show me the Los Angeles Times? Bizarre set up. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, here [1] is the page which RT explains the criteria for a "Top Critic":
-- DrNegative ( talk) 21:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some other opinions here on what to do about a user who will not allow a budget figure to be included from The Hollywood Reporter? — Mike Allen 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed in film's infoboxes that they have budget and runtime. Should we place the film's rating in it too? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 14:59 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Back when I was active I defended Bad Boys II and edited the section and acted like a fucking fanboy. I don't wanna do that with any other movie page as it will just harm the articles rather than helping them. So I ask, is it best to stay away from criticism sections and just focus on other aspects of the articles or not do anything at all? I don't trust any project page, as they all have one thing in common. They all contradict each other and even themselves, which is the main reason I don't trust them. BlazeTheMovieFan ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ Canadian film list}} has been nominated for deletion. It is part of a series of national film list templates, but currently contains very few links. 70.24.248.23 ( talk) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking clarification on a comment I made in an edit summary earlier today. Regarding this edit I made to the Patton (film) article, I said "All non-documentary films are works of fiction." Is this correct? L1A1 FAL had said "remove all 'fiction' categories- this is a biographical film, since when is that synomyous with fiction?" But, even biographical films, though based on real people and events, are still works of fiction. As I said, I want to clarify this point. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried searching for this in addition to looking for precedent and came up empty. Is there a wiki policy about not linking to characters in films based on real people? For example, the Wyatt Earp portrayed in Tombstone is different from the real-life Wyatt earp in a number of ways, as is the version shown in Deadwood. The same argument could be made for films like Patton Boardwalk Empire or Hoffa; films based on real people placed in various degrees of distorted reality. I'm running into conflict with another editor who is removing links to real people portrayed in Black Hawk Down (film). I see no precedent for this, nor a project guideline...can someone here help me out?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
So, here I am again, with problems involving the definition of a film series... Okay, the problem with the template is with the Film Series sections for Fantastic Four, Punisher and Spider-Man, as they all contain films that are from separate continuities. This is a problem for two reasons:
1) The separate continuities mean that they are separate series, and should not be listed under the same film series section (would be a different story if it said "Film Franchises").
2) There is a consistency issue, as "Hulk" (2003) is separated from "the Incredible Hulk", and the two Captain America films separated from "The First Avenger", whilst this separation doesn't occur in other franchises.
As far as I can see there are two main options to fix this problem:
1) The first is the simplest: restrict this template to just listing continuities, which means that "The Fantastic Four", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and all of the Punisher films are moved to the "Single films" category. The sub-categorisation of the MCU would remain, as that refers to different series within the continuity. However, I'm not a massive fan of the "Single films" category, as it leans more towards just making a list of films with no differentiation between them, meaning they're all jumbled up together.
2) List the "franchises". This means that a Captain America section would be created that includes ALL Captain America films (including "The First Avenger"), and the same for Hulk. This causes issues for the MCU, which could be resolved in a number of ways, such as removing the MCU section, and instead, placing asterisks next to films in the MCU, or the MCU section could remain as a section, either being considered as one of the franchises or separate to the franchises (meaning films such as "Hulk" (2003) would be listed twice). Also, when listing franchises, there is the option for sub-categorisation into separate continuities (e.g. under the "Spider-Man" franchise, having a sub-section for the 2002 continuity, and then another for the 2012 continuity). This ends up looking a lot bigger, but it is less misleading, more informative, and probably a well-organised system. But yes, it does increase the size of this template dramatically.
Also, just a quick on-the-side thing, Men in Black and Kick-Ass were originally from other imprints owned by Marvel, and this is clearly illustrated on the
List of films based on Marvel Comics page. Differentiating these from the other films in the template would be a good idea.
The same issue was faced on the List of highest-grossing films page, on the Film Franchises and Series section a little while back, and in the end, they went with a similar layout to option 2. Franchises were listed, and elaborated upon in expandable sections, and the size of the table increased considerably (particularly when fully expanded), but that is a table in an article, and this is a template, so it is not necessarily the best option in this case. I have provided several examples for my given options in my Sandbox, the first corresponding to Option 1 (Series division), and the remaining four corresponding to Option 2 (Franchise division, taking subcategorisation in to consideration). My personal preference lies with the "Franchise division, Continuity subdivision, MCU separated" template, which is the largest. A discussion involving this problem has already begun here, where other editors, Spshu and Osubuckeyeguy have also provided examples, which can be taken into consideration. So what option would you think is best? And if anyone has any other options, yell out. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen "premise" used in place of the "plot" section in several articles (see The Avengers (2012 film). It seems like "premise" is used earlier in the page's development (usually before anyone has seen the film), whereas plot is used later. I didn't see anything about this in the MOS:Film, and I was hoping someone could clarify. Thanks in advance. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For the above film, some edits keep adding that it's "losely based on the Manson Family". When tagged for a source, one was provided, which was a link to the review in the NY Times. Reading the review, it seemed to me that the reviewer was putting their opinion across in regards to the potential link to the Manson Family, so I reverted it (check the edit history). I don't believe this is a reliable source in itself. Any thoughts/comments on this? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a rather contentious discussion on the Brazil talk page here regarding a possible real-life inspiration for the character Harry Tuttle. I would like some other editors to add their opinions about the relevance of this information and the appropriateness of the sources provided. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I happened to see a hidden message within Rango (2011 film) article saying that all plots must be between 400-700 words. I have been trying to find the discussion that reached this consensus. Will someone point me the way? Mice never shop ( talk) 01:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User FrostAcolyte ( talk · contribs) has added the review aggregator IEDb.net to quite a few new film articles. ( site example) This is the site's about us page. What are everyone's opinion on adding this along with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? — Mike Allen 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear on a few things:
Can someone with more experience with image use policy have a look at the new images added here, and give an opinion as to whether they are being legitimately used? Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sunset Boulevard (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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad ( talk) 05:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a quick question. Since Box Office Mojo is owned by the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) according to the website and IMDB is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, should we just change the publisher from Amazon.com to IMDB? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was engaged in a discussion regarding whether Marlon Brando or Christopher Reeve should receive top billing for Superman. Here’s what I initially wrote: “It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star!” Any comments? 67.239.63.243 ( talk) 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muppets. — Cirt ( talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the American cinema task force of WikiProject Film might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added American cinema task force to the WikiProject United States banner since there any no objections. I will begin to asses some of the articles myself. If have any concerns or questions, please let me know or ask at the project. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the page history for a recent redirect/copy & paste move from the former to the latter titles and this discussion. This doesn't help with the issue on caps vs. no caps for film article titles, but I suspect it's a Wiki policy on all articles and not just films. Can anyone help with the relevant policy link? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason or precedent why films that have been directed by more than one person should or shouldn't be included in a director template? There seems to be inconsistency on this issue, so maybe we should draw up some guidelines. This inconsistency can even exist in the same template - for example at Template:John Landis an editor was removing Amazon Women on the Moon, but leaving The Twilight Zone. I'm all for keeping them in - after all these co-directors were involved in directing these movies. The Jean-Pierre Jeunet template is definitely correct in including the films he directed with Marc Caro, and the individual directors involved in Ro.Go.Pa.G. all have this film mentioned in their individual templates ( Godard, Rossellini, Pasolini). Many other examples exist, but for a couple more, how about the directors of Dead of Night, or the directors of Stimulantia. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I came accross this article tagged for proposed deletion. As the film has been released and has recieved coverage in multiple reliable sources, [2] I began some expansion and sourcing and then removed the tag. This is something I would do for ANY film article so tagged. But as much as I might like to make the article better for the poject, and as able as I might be to make the article neutral and encyclopdic, I feel I cannot continue due to my having had a 5-second apearance in the film. And as much as I feel I have the skills to vastly improve the article, I do not wish even a seeming of conflict of interest. I do not personally benefit from the article remaining or being deleted, as my scene was incredibly brief and I do not receive residuals from that minor appearance. As the article is improvable, I bring it here and ask that others look into it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems recently to be a movement against the notability guideline for future films. It is largely overlooked in AfD discussions. Is it time to revisit this guideline? Personally I'm all for it, but I'm getting a little fed up of it being ignored and overridden. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 03:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey y'all. Does anyone recall, or have an opinion on, if music videos fall within the scope of this project? Or if they classify as a film? I've ran into an issue at We Found Love (video). At first, I thought that the {{ Infobox film}} was inappropriate for this article, as it seems that we mainly use it for feature films. However, we also have used it for short films and it seems that we can qualify it as film; the article music video considers them short films. It seems now, there is an issue over the disambiguator "(video)". If we consider these films, then it seems that we should use the same naming conventions explained at WP:NCF and use "(film)". Any input? BOVINEBOY 2008 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. If you look carefully at the info box for The Dungeonmaster, you'll see that it's a little screwed up. I'd like to fix it, but I don't know how. Help would be appreciated. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
B movie has an article, but A Movie and A Film redirect to unexpected places. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, when I was working on the articles You Are the Apple of My Eye and Starry Starry Night, I discovered that Box Office Mojo did not present the full gross figures for the two films. For example, the figures for Taiwan and China are not included, thereby greatly reducing their gross figures. Therefore, should I find other sources with reliable box office gross and add into the one presented by Box Office Mojo, or does anyone know of an alternative to Box Office Mojo? Thanks.-- Lionratz ( talk) 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A proposal that : As this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary users of this wiki are English speakers
Works which are in a foreign language
must have one of
(Basically, do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Bollywood/Japanese/Etc film and c-list star? Those interested in that artist are likely to be using the applicable language wikipedia in any case. Works that would be of interest to those who are not using the applicable language wiki are covered by a-c
Gaijin42 (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−6)
I would like to clarify that I was making no statement on the nationality of an item. Merely the language it was written in. All english media, regardless of where produced would enter under the existing criteria. Foreign language would not be barred, just having a higher bar of notability. However, I do accede to WP:SNOW. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some further input. Note that I nominated it after seeing it WP:REFUNDed. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My favourite subject - films that have yet to enter production! Anyone have anything to add? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone care to help in straightening this article out? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 17:30 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so after about a month of discussion, we've come up with the following template. Noone so far has any problems with it, so I figured I'd check with everyone here. If you have any feedback, yell out.
-- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot italicize the film title even after using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Can someone see through the problem? DdraconiandevilL ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
DISPLAYTITLE}}
to the bottom, thus solving overrides from {{
Infobox film}}
and {{
Infobox album}}
.
jonkerz
♠ 07:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Hey all, we could use some additional input at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)#Writing Credits. Essentially Thunderlippps ( talk · contribs) is insisting that some of the credited writers on the film did not in fact have anything to do with it, and has resorted to edit-warring to get his way. Any additional opinions would be welcome. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw a sad sight today: the state of Wings, the first Best Picture Academy Award winner. How have we neglected this for so long, it's such a historic and legendary film. And it's 85 years old next year (another major film anniversary). Shall we all chip in and make this the way it deserves to be. RAP ( talk) 21:58 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have created User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It is questionable whether the article passes WP:GNG. I started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Alfonso_Gomez-Rejon_.3F that has not gotten much feedback and none since I have done the sandbox creation. I need some more feedback on whehter this article is ready for article space either for WP:FILMMAKER #3 or for WP:IAR rationales.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see this and this. They smack of hoaxes to me, but I could be wrong. Both created by the same user, no refs given, nothing on Google, etc. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Wrong Turn 2: Dead End. Recently, an editor, User:87Stone, has edited the plot summary's fairly good English into what is clearly poor English which appears to be written by someone whose native language is not English. [3] I have reverted him twice, but he persists in restoring his own odd version. [4] [5] He has not provided a single edit summary to justify these changes. Since I originally rewrote this section myself (it was formerly not in very good English and contained a number of inaccuracies), and therefore do not wish to be seen to be laying claim to the section's ownership, and also do not wish to revert him three times, I would appreciate comment on the talk page on these edits. Thanks. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is An Eye for Detail part of this WikiProject? It's a comic book story, not a film. JIP | Talk 15:05, 12 December 2011 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Can someone take a look at this (check recent edit history for more)? I was under the impression that our reception mixed/negative/positive statements came from Metacritic (when possible) which clearly says mixed in this case. I think the IP editor is making an assumption based on the RT score (which is pretty common and I used to think it worked that way, too). Originally, I just restored the original mixed statement. Then once it became clear he wasn't going to let it go, I just removed the sentence entirely to jump straight to the stats (which we've done in the past when reception consensus has been debatable and constantly edit warred over). But the guy is so determined that I'm wondering if I'm not mistaken. He's also a little snarky and wildly misusing the idea of weasel words and I'd rather just back out of it now before I go into edit war/incivility land, regardless of how it shakes out. Millahnna ( talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comments concerning the use of film reviews for early cuts at Red Dawn (2012 film).-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, it is time for a new coordinator election. We are a little late for one since the previous one was in September 2010. The plan is to have a two-week nominations process from October 1 to October 14 and to have a two-week election from October 15 to October 29. The nominations process for the election will be announced via newsletter, which will be distributed in a few days, and there will be a mid-month announcement to invite editors to support candidates in coordinator roles.
Obviously, the lateness of this election reflects the minimal activity of coordinators, not just this past year, but in general. I'm happy to discuss whether having this roundtable of coordinators is still a good idea. We editors seem to have a penchant for discussing a lot of topics on this talk page but tend to have our own pet projects in different corners of WikiProject Film. It's hard to tell if there is ever a chance to do something collaborative on specific topics. If you have any ideas or thoughts in general about the WikiProject structure, feel free to share! Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It might also be worth keeping a banner up with long-term goals, similar to those used by WP:MILHIST and WP:SIMPSONS. It would basically be up to the co-ordinators to update and replace any of these goals as they're completed, giving them an extra janitorial task really. I'm also going to start fielding suggestions for a collaboration to test how well they'll work, I'll start a new section to get some ideas so we can decide on something. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I just updated the list of good articles at WP:FILMSPOT since it was missing some articles from different years. I compared articles listed here to what was in the table and added overlooked articles to the table. Since WP:FILMSPOT is a page that transcludes several pages, I created the shortcut WP:FILMGA for more direct access to the list of good articles. I encourage other editors to list good articles there when they are promoted. I removed some articles that are now featured and some that were delisted, which brings me to my question. Do we want to maintain a list of delisted good articles? We could have a list that we don't actually maintain by identifying articles whose talk pages have the WikiProject Film banner and are in the category " Delisted good articles". Anyone know of a way to generate such a list? Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this nomination? I have no knowledge about this sort of thing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on the discussion in WP:FILM collaboration, we should review the core topics listed at WP:FILMCORE. While the list is primarily based on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? meta-list (as well as IMDb in part), it needs to be updated since the meta-list was updated in January 2011. I've started a discussion at WT:FILMCORE#2011 update to see if we can revise the inclusion formula. Please share your thoughts there! Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a minor question. Fast Five, INception and Star Trek are getting a limited 1-week re-release on IMAX screens but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to mention it as it isn't really enough information to have it's own section but it will probably alter the box office takings somewhat. ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-trek-inception-fast-five-242671) Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It is accurate for us to write what the The Hollywood Reporter reports that an actors makes for a film. Especially when they say "sources say..". See here. — Mike Allen 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a few documentary film articles on Wikipedia that use "(documentary)" instead of "(film)". I plan to make the moves to be consistent, especially when "documentary" is ambivalent about the type of media used. Does anyone have an issue with this? Should the non-film documentaries be titled something else too, like "(series)" or "(TV series)"? Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that 2013 and beyond in film (as well as other pages similar to this) list some films as having "animation" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here also, and I am suggesting that the films on that page and other years in film list another genre instead of animation. Any thoughts? -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Richard III (1955 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
A week has passed since the notification on the article's talk page and here at WT:FILM, and no contributions have been made. I've restarted the featured article review, which you can access here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
List of Scream characters is up for FLC again here. Been up since September 21 and has had no input at all so anyone interested, would be appreciated if you would be involved.
I have also created articles for the upcoming films Freeloaders by Broken Lizard and Neighborhood Watch with Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Richard Ayoade and some other guy I can't recall right now, for those interested in those films. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The following is the text of a discussion I began on The Godfather Part III talk page some time back, and I am here soliciting advice and opinions from other Film Project members on how to move forward on this, as the discussion is at loggerheads.
I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:
First of all, this is poorly-written, though that can be fixed. But, it is really nothing but speculation and idle chatter about a film that was never made, never will be made, and may not have ever been seriously considered. What is the purpose of this information? Coppola thought about making a 4th film, but he didn't, seems to be the sum total of what is offered here. How is this encyclopedic? The source is also questionable, and I have begun a discussion about that on RSN. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get some more eyes on this article? The editor who insists on having this "concept of Pt. IV" section keeps reverting to his preferred version, saying all the concerns have been addressed. Until the discussion here and at the article talk page has ended, the article should be left as it is. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 04:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for undoing the last edit and seeming quite arrogant, i didnt realise the talk page post was from an admin and misunderstood what this talk page was that they offered.
Firstly I'm sorry to be causing such an argument, this is the first time i have been involved in an 'edit war.' Referring to the film's talk page, Republican J seems to adamantly believe my addition is poorly written, but they are yet to describe exactly why. They have also accused me of not addressing any of they're concerns. I have clearly answered all they're points he/she has raised and they keep reverting my edits without a detailed explanation, simply summering up that I have not responded to his/her comments, clearly inaccurate when you read the page.
Unless RJ can give a detailed explanation or offer something in comparison to what they believe is a well written paragraph I do believe it is in fact RJ that is being disruptive to this page not me. Had he/she offered a more detailed insight into my addition I would avoid reposting.
It seems from the above comments and the recent comments from other users on the film's talk page that some users are willing to see this on the directors wiki page rather than on the film's page. I am happy to repost here if that's a common ground we can find. Personally I stand by my original choice of Part 3 as it is the latest/last addition to the series/trilogy, however due to the level of dispute it now holds I shall refrain from reposting it anywhere until we can all find some common ground. If RJ continues to demand more users on board despite this or becomes excessive in demands for better links, avoiding DVD commentary etc, I will have to suggest to an admin that he is blocked from editing the page and will continue this discussion with users who can offer a deeper insight and more detailed discussion.
ToonIsALoon ( talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
On the sections relevance to part 3 itself, part 4 was discussed in detail on part 3's dvd, so that satisfies why I put it on the page. The links do not constitute as unreliable, so the sources are not a problem and do not constitute as trivial. Many film shave placed suggested sequels to films that were never made on Wikipedia and I do not believe this is a problem.
As the subject however has caused an issue over having it's own section, i have opted to abbreviate the majority of it on the page and include it under the pages reception. A more detailed section similar to the original I shall place on Coppola's page.
ToonIsALoon ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone care to take a look in The Fall of Berlin (film) and tell me if there is any chance it would ever be promoted to GA status? I'm not talking about style, lead section etc., just asking if the article sufficiently covers the subject. Cheers. Bahavd Gita ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Those familiar with the article or the film may recall that there is a sex scene with extremely dubious consent in the film (female character is semi-conscious when male character has sex with her). However, because the character involved didn't classify the incident as rape, the consensus on the article's talk page has been a "just the facts ma'am" interpretation in the plot summary ("has sex with her while she is semi-conscious" is the current text) and the varying criticisms of the scene are detailed with sources in the reception section. The article will stay stable for a long time and then another round of edits will attempt to change the text with little or no discussion on the talk page (this time none). Would anyone care to weigh in (for or against current consensus) on the talk page? It's such a controversial issue that I feel more voices are needed. Or maybe just more eyeballs if current consensus is acceptable to others. Millahnna ( talk) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
An idea a lot of people seem interested in came up in the above section on co-ordinator elections, and that's the notion of a group collaboration across the wikiproject. Without waiting for a decision to be reached on co-ordinators, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start fielding some suggestions now on a possible collaboration. Just start flinging ideas out and we can see which among them are popular enough to warrant beginning. Personally, I like the idea of choosing a film whose 25th, 30th or 50th (etc) release anniversary will be in the coming months, to bring to FA status in order to be featured on the main page on that date. Alongside this, a relevant Good Topic can be worked on so that we don't end up with a case of too many chefs on one article - for instance, the filmography for the chosen film could also be brought to GA status to create the topic. or perhaps several entries in a film series could be grouped together. Any suggestions are welcome, as is any preliminary support for any ideas suggested. GRAPPLE X 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
All core film articles at start-class or better: 79.9% complete | ||
Stub-class core film articles improved to start-class or better: 0% complete | |
I'll stick one of the bars on the main WP:FILM page today, but which one do you guys prefer? The fuller-but-slower-moving top one or the emptier-but-faster-moving bottom one? GRAPPLE X 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, WP:FILMCORE has now been updated fully. I've amended the progress bars above to reflect that, so if no one objects I'll stick them on the front page tonight. GRAPPLE X 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Films with anniversaries in 2012 are listed below. Editors can vote for multiple films or add other films below. There can be collaboration on more than one film, so vote for the ones you'd like to work on. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello to the members of this project. If you are so inclined your input is requested at this thread Talk:Films with live action and animation#Define the combination. An IP has decided that a large part of the list should be removed. While there is no doubt that it could be pared down, I feel that more input is needed to determine just how much trimming should be done. As this article does not seem to be on many watchlists anymore I am hoping for more discussion than has currently taken place. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can add to the conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 13:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Crom! Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) has been nominated for consideration as a Featured Article. Fine was the day when Arnold Schwarzenegger took up the sword and played out the role under the auspices of John Milius, Edward R. Pressman, and Dino De Laurentiis. Please read the article and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Jappalang ( talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that a large number of the Category:Bowery Boys films do not have a project tag on their talk page. If anyone who has a knowledge of the ins and outs of all the specifics that go into tagging these has time on their hands (as unlikely as that may be) I thought I would make you aware of the situation. I don't know that this is a high, or even low, priority and as I say I am sure that most of you are busy with other things but I thought I would bring it to your attention just in case. Thanks for your time and good work all your film and anniversary collaborations work. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at the Brazil talk page as to whether it is a fantasy film. I would like some other editors to weigh in on this, please. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks in the main to the hardwork User:Adtran has put in, the List of submissions to the 84th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film is now complete. I've created articles for all the missing entries over the last few weeks. If anyone has any extra information for any of these films, please feel free to expand them. Some have already had lots of work done to them ( the Indian entry) and some are in questionable states ( the Portuguese entry and the Eygptian film director). Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Voting for the October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
See the project talk. I think it might be a good idea, seeing as Halloween is coming up, that this month have something special towards the Horror Project, I don't know really what to think of, perhaps a drive on Horror film articles or something like that, which should boost participation in the project. Also, if somebody could help over at the election page there, it'd be great. -- Tærkast ( Discuss) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've finished creating List of awards and nominations received by David Lynch tonight (this morning... sleep, Grapple, sleep) and since it's my first attempt at a comprehensive list article, I'd like a few more experienced list-writers to give it the once-over if they could. I'm reasonably happy with it, although there's one issue with the "infobox"-style table at the start, in that I can't get the "Total number of accolades" section to line up as two columns taking up the full width together, for some reason. It's probably something ridiculously simple, too, knowing me. Any advice, comments, anything would be welcome, as I'd like to take this to FLC if it seems ready. I've just DYK nominated it too so I'm hoping that will draw in some feedback as well. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this tag being added to some articles recently ( example). It's a minor point that the article is a stub and a documentary, so it's not likely to have a plot anyway. I think these should be better placed onto the talkpage of the article concerned instead. We have the parameters already for no infobox, no image, etc, and that works well. I fear this could start a drive-by tagging spree of no-plot, no-production, no-awards, no-release-history, etc. It also places the article into the category Category:Wikipedia articles without plot summaries. This could be better managed as WP film articles without plot summaries. I'm sure books have plots too. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Could I get more opinions on if we should include the "Dead Letter Awards" for zombie films? I can't find any notability for these awards in reliable sources, but an editor insists that they are. The discussion is about Resident Evil: Afterlife here. — Mike Allen 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The Secret World of Arrietty is an animated film that was originally released in Japan, with a Japanese voice cast. The film is being re-released in the US with an English voice cast. Should the English voice cast be included in the infobox? Would this be too busy to include? There are also three other positions involved with the English version, including an English Language Version Director (Gary Rydstrom), English Language Version Executive Producers (Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall), and English Language Screenwriter (Karey Kirkpatrick). My gut feeling is that this is a little excessive to include in the infobox, but I haven't done a lot of work with Japanese films converted to American films. Is my gut instinct right? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 16:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on here in which other editors might want to participate. As I am involved in that discussion, and it has been contentious, I am going to withdraw and encourage other editors to offer their opinions and perspectives. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I have created List of film archives. It is a very important list. I hope you can help me to complete this page. Thanks. emijrp ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the guidelines' talk page about the guidelines' "Box office" section. You can see the discussion here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly, sorry for always coming here and begging for comments and stuff when I was putting The Human Centipede (First Sequence) through three successive FACs. I'm sure you'll all be glad to hear however that eventually the article passed! It's now not only one of the most popular articles on wikipedia (ok, so well inside the top 1,000) but it's also now a Featured Article! Hooray!
The reason I return here to WikiProject Film talk is to let interested readers know that there is currently a discussion going on about the film possibly being the main page featured article on Halloween this year. The discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. So far there are seven people who think this would be good, and two who think this is the worst idea in the world ever.
The article has not been formally nominated for this yet, but it would still be cool to hear what people think about this idea. Personally I think it would be cool to have a popular article about a Horror film on Halloween, but that's just me, all thoughts are very much welcomed. cya! Coolug ( talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to some editors: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-24/WikiProject report on WikiProject logos. Traditionally, we've used whatever is available in the Commons, like File:Video-x-generic.svg and its similarly bland predecessors. Not to mention that WP:FILM is Dullsville on the front. I don't have any skills here, but am hoping that someone here will find some inspiration? :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an editor (AbsoluteGleek92) who has contributed prolifically to film articles. Editors who have crossed paths with him may wish to weigh in. The discussion is here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Film project members. I've been spending some time editing film awards pages and noticed that we don't really have a standard in some areas. I'm raising those issues which i've noticed in hopes we can decide on guidelines to help maintain better pages.
These are of course just a small sample of what we have. My suggestion is to pick a color so we can all work with it and stop rainbow color award sections like in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. We can also choose to pick a different color for different categories - Film Awards and Festivals, Film franchises, directors.
Ok, so here is a first pass I made for the category order for a film (film series and film awards might use a different order), a few notes at the end.
(After last section and after all footer templates, line series, director filmographies, etc)
(- One empty line here -)
{{DEFAULTSORT:Noun, Article}} - This is only needed if the title starts with an article.
<!-- Primary film categories - Year, Country, Genre, Language -->
[[Category:(Year) films]] -
Category:Films by year /
Category:Films by decade for year + genre.[1]
[[Category:(Country) films]] -
Category:Films by country /
Category:Films by genre by country for country + genre
[[Category:(Genre) films]] -
Category:Films by genre by country use sub-categories /
Category:Films by type (Documentary films, Sequel films, etc)
[[Category:(Language)-language films]] -
Category:Films by language
<!-- Film Series category -->
[[Category:(Film Series)]]
<!-- Credit categories -->
Category:Directorial debut films
[[Category:Films by (director)]] -
Category:Films by director
Category:Films by source [2]
Category:Screenplays by author
<!-- Company categories -->
[[Category:(Studio) films]] -
Category:Films by studio /
Category:Films by producer
<!-- Award categories -->
Category:Film awards - order alphabetically.
<!-- Setting categories -->
[[Category:Films set in (location)]] -
Category:Films by country of setting [3][4]
<!-- Filming location categories -->
[[Category:Films shot in (location)]] -
Category:Films by country of shooting location
<!-- Technical categories -->
Category:Films by technology
<!-- Additional categories -->
Category:Films by topic - [5]
Category:Public domain - [6]
Category:Soundtracks
(-- Two empty lines here --)
{{xxx-film-stub}}
(- One empty line here -)
[[Interwiki links]]
1 -
Category:Films by date has
Category:Films by decade and
Category:Films by century shouldn't
Category:Films by decade be a sub of
Category:Films by century?
2 - Seems as if
Category:Films based on literature is overlapping with its parent category
Category:Films based on works.
3 -
Category:Films by geographic setting has continent, country and city. Shouldn't country be a sub of continent and city a sub of country?
4 -
Category:Films by city of setting seems as if this category should be deleted as for example, UK films by city are found also in
Category:Films by country of setting (after picking
Category:Films set in the United Kingdom) and also in
Category:Films by city of setting
5 -
Category:Films by topic seems to need a clean up. Some of the categories start with "films about (topic)" others are "(topic) films"
6 - There should be a category for films in the public domain.
Feedback - thoughts, improvments, etc.--
Gonnym (
talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone in this wikiproject should merge the articles on Shaky camera and Hand-held camera. 67.101.5.42 ( talk) 06:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a requested move to move Home Alone (currently the article for the film series) to Home Alone (film series) and to move Home Alone (film) (the original film) to Home Alone. Should the search term take a reader to the article for the original film or to the article for the film series (provided there is one), with the latter generally meaning multiple films share the keywords (in this case, "Home Alone")? Where is the reader expecting to go? The request can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I was surprised to see Category:Film series so broken up, considering that there are not that many film series (especially compared to topics in other categories). I think that the subcategories should be non-diffusing per WP:DUPCAT. For example, all the articles in Category:Action films by series will also be categorized with Category:Film series. Diffusing helps with categories where there are too many articles, such as breaking out a genre category by decade, but it's not needed here. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Would some previously uninvolved editors care to weigh in on the discussion underway on this talk page? It would be a big help. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This Indian film is the subject of a discussion about moving it from its Indian title to an English one. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The template {{ HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, all! Based on the straw poll to choose a film article for collaboration, the most voted-for article is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), whose 75th anniversary is in December next year. (See the talk page to get started!) After that, The Godfather (40th anniversary on March 15, 2012) and Full Metal Jacket (25th anniversary on June 26, 2012) were tied. So we will have runoff voting for these two, so they are listed below. Please support the preferred film with your signature. Below it is a discussion subsection if you want to discuss how to make a choice. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I support Full Metal Jacket because I think that The Godfather's anniversary is too soon to collaborate, get the article reviewed and copy-edited, and succeed in the FAC process. There would be more time with Full Metal Jacket, and I would argue that the 25th anniversary is more of an identifiable milestone than the 40th. (No problem with supporting The Godfather 10 years from now!) Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was easy. Seven editors (three in the discussion) support Full Metal Jacket. I cleaned up the talk page (e.g., archived old discussions) and added a {{ to do}} template. Take a look here. May as well get started! WickerGuy, you're the Kubrick aficionado, have any books that can be referenced for the article? Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket will be one of the two WikiProject Film collaborations for milestone anniversaries in 2012. The film's 25th anniversary is on June 26, 2012, so the goal is to get the article to featured status and to request its appearance on the main page for the anniversary. This collaboration and the one for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) will be included in this month's newsletter. Since Snow White's anniversary is not until December of 2012, this topic takes precedence. On the film article's talk page, I've kicked off a preliminary discussion with some initial thoughts and invite others to weigh in. Let's do that whole thing where many hands make light work. Some of us have already started helping -- thanks, Darkwarriorblake and Lugnuts! Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Like Full Metal Jacket, The Princess Bride also celebrates 25 years next year. I have discussed at the Page improvements discussion here about certain articles getting a reboot, to which Erik suggested TPB as a collaborative piece. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 18:58 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the upcoming newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/October 2011 Newsletter. I put together last month's newsletter on my own, but I'm hoping that some editors could help me with this one. I've added some details so far, and there are instructions here on how to find content to include. If anyone can add even just a few details, it would be greatly appreciated! Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Timeshifter has moved Dazed and Confused to Dazed and Confused (film) for no apparent reason and with no discussion. We already have Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), which has three entries, and this discussion --- granted, it's nearly two years old --- at the disambiguation talk page indicates that the film article is the primary topic. This seemed like a good place for a centralized discussion of the move. I am opposed as it is unnecessary. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should get the move reverted and start an official request to move. Per WP:RM, this was not uncontroversial. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have decided to select the following articles for improvement so that they may qualify for possible GA or FA status:
I bring this up because i believe this could be a great collaboration opportunity for all film project participants in order to show these articles are well maintained and this WikiProject boasts some of the most dedicated editors on Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 23:04 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing the creation of a template that can be used for film and theatre technical articles such as Theatrical property, Costume designer etc. Thoughts?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I may have asked this before so I apologize in advance but does anyone know how reliable http://www.collider.com is? I've been using it here and there as it generally has frequent updates adn has been reliable for me in the past but I'm a bit conflicted on Tower Heist as I have one source from Collider and one from The New York Times which seem to be saying opposite things. But perhaps they are just chronologically opposed. Collider says:
Ratner: It wasn’t a Bernie Madoff-type character, it was kind of like Donald Trump, or something. The movie felt too much like Ocean’s Eleven, which I had actually developed.
Ted Griffin, who actually wrote Ocean’s Eleven for me, came in and came up with this whole idea about the guy who does kind of a Punk’d scheme and loses the employees’ pension fund, which just made it much more relevant. But the original idea was Eddie’s.
Which makes it sound like it being like Ocean's Eleven is a problem. Where as NYT says:
To Mr. Ratner, however, the film had the pleasingly familiar ring of the “Ocean’s Eleven” remake, which was developed as a project for him but which he gave up to make “Rush Hour 2.”
Which makes it seem like it was a good thing. Both interviews/pieces are recent, COllider says that is actual dialog from Ratner while the NYT bit seems like a bio so perhaps it is just a chronology issue and not Collider's reliability? That he liked it was like Ocean's Eleven based on Murphy's idea but that it was too much like it to continue? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Plot section of the Ra.One article is too long, and for your knowledge it's just 50% complete. Shall I create a new article for that? -- Karthik Nadar ( talk) 07:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. This is relevant to this film project, and several people involved in this project took part in previous related discussions. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with this site, normally I'd think it was a one-off but in the past I've had issues with someone on Scream 3 putting in figures for reviews that do not match up with what I see. Well now on Tower Heist User:Aquila89 sees this while I see this. There's an obvious disconnect here so how do Top Critics work? Do they change based on location, can they be modified by a personal users settings? Otherwise why is this happening, does anyone know? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess thatm akes sense in why it shows me the UK Guardian then but why show me the Los Angeles Times? Bizarre set up. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, here [1] is the page which RT explains the criteria for a "Top Critic":
-- DrNegative ( talk) 21:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some other opinions here on what to do about a user who will not allow a budget figure to be included from The Hollywood Reporter? — Mike Allen 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed in film's infoboxes that they have budget and runtime. Should we place the film's rating in it too? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 14:59 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Back when I was active I defended Bad Boys II and edited the section and acted like a fucking fanboy. I don't wanna do that with any other movie page as it will just harm the articles rather than helping them. So I ask, is it best to stay away from criticism sections and just focus on other aspects of the articles or not do anything at all? I don't trust any project page, as they all have one thing in common. They all contradict each other and even themselves, which is the main reason I don't trust them. BlazeTheMovieFan ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ Canadian film list}} has been nominated for deletion. It is part of a series of national film list templates, but currently contains very few links. 70.24.248.23 ( talk) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking clarification on a comment I made in an edit summary earlier today. Regarding this edit I made to the Patton (film) article, I said "All non-documentary films are works of fiction." Is this correct? L1A1 FAL had said "remove all 'fiction' categories- this is a biographical film, since when is that synomyous with fiction?" But, even biographical films, though based on real people and events, are still works of fiction. As I said, I want to clarify this point. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried searching for this in addition to looking for precedent and came up empty. Is there a wiki policy about not linking to characters in films based on real people? For example, the Wyatt Earp portrayed in Tombstone is different from the real-life Wyatt earp in a number of ways, as is the version shown in Deadwood. The same argument could be made for films like Patton Boardwalk Empire or Hoffa; films based on real people placed in various degrees of distorted reality. I'm running into conflict with another editor who is removing links to real people portrayed in Black Hawk Down (film). I see no precedent for this, nor a project guideline...can someone here help me out?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
So, here I am again, with problems involving the definition of a film series... Okay, the problem with the template is with the Film Series sections for Fantastic Four, Punisher and Spider-Man, as they all contain films that are from separate continuities. This is a problem for two reasons:
1) The separate continuities mean that they are separate series, and should not be listed under the same film series section (would be a different story if it said "Film Franchises").
2) There is a consistency issue, as "Hulk" (2003) is separated from "the Incredible Hulk", and the two Captain America films separated from "The First Avenger", whilst this separation doesn't occur in other franchises.
As far as I can see there are two main options to fix this problem:
1) The first is the simplest: restrict this template to just listing continuities, which means that "The Fantastic Four", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and all of the Punisher films are moved to the "Single films" category. The sub-categorisation of the MCU would remain, as that refers to different series within the continuity. However, I'm not a massive fan of the "Single films" category, as it leans more towards just making a list of films with no differentiation between them, meaning they're all jumbled up together.
2) List the "franchises". This means that a Captain America section would be created that includes ALL Captain America films (including "The First Avenger"), and the same for Hulk. This causes issues for the MCU, which could be resolved in a number of ways, such as removing the MCU section, and instead, placing asterisks next to films in the MCU, or the MCU section could remain as a section, either being considered as one of the franchises or separate to the franchises (meaning films such as "Hulk" (2003) would be listed twice). Also, when listing franchises, there is the option for sub-categorisation into separate continuities (e.g. under the "Spider-Man" franchise, having a sub-section for the 2002 continuity, and then another for the 2012 continuity). This ends up looking a lot bigger, but it is less misleading, more informative, and probably a well-organised system. But yes, it does increase the size of this template dramatically.
Also, just a quick on-the-side thing, Men in Black and Kick-Ass were originally from other imprints owned by Marvel, and this is clearly illustrated on the
List of films based on Marvel Comics page. Differentiating these from the other films in the template would be a good idea.
The same issue was faced on the List of highest-grossing films page, on the Film Franchises and Series section a little while back, and in the end, they went with a similar layout to option 2. Franchises were listed, and elaborated upon in expandable sections, and the size of the table increased considerably (particularly when fully expanded), but that is a table in an article, and this is a template, so it is not necessarily the best option in this case. I have provided several examples for my given options in my Sandbox, the first corresponding to Option 1 (Series division), and the remaining four corresponding to Option 2 (Franchise division, taking subcategorisation in to consideration). My personal preference lies with the "Franchise division, Continuity subdivision, MCU separated" template, which is the largest. A discussion involving this problem has already begun here, where other editors, Spshu and Osubuckeyeguy have also provided examples, which can be taken into consideration. So what option would you think is best? And if anyone has any other options, yell out. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen "premise" used in place of the "plot" section in several articles (see The Avengers (2012 film). It seems like "premise" is used earlier in the page's development (usually before anyone has seen the film), whereas plot is used later. I didn't see anything about this in the MOS:Film, and I was hoping someone could clarify. Thanks in advance. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For the above film, some edits keep adding that it's "losely based on the Manson Family". When tagged for a source, one was provided, which was a link to the review in the NY Times. Reading the review, it seemed to me that the reviewer was putting their opinion across in regards to the potential link to the Manson Family, so I reverted it (check the edit history). I don't believe this is a reliable source in itself. Any thoughts/comments on this? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a rather contentious discussion on the Brazil talk page here regarding a possible real-life inspiration for the character Harry Tuttle. I would like some other editors to add their opinions about the relevance of this information and the appropriateness of the sources provided. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I happened to see a hidden message within Rango (2011 film) article saying that all plots must be between 400-700 words. I have been trying to find the discussion that reached this consensus. Will someone point me the way? Mice never shop ( talk) 01:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User FrostAcolyte ( talk · contribs) has added the review aggregator IEDb.net to quite a few new film articles. ( site example) This is the site's about us page. What are everyone's opinion on adding this along with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? — Mike Allen 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear on a few things:
Can someone with more experience with image use policy have a look at the new images added here, and give an opinion as to whether they are being legitimately used? Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sunset Boulevard (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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad ( talk) 05:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a quick question. Since Box Office Mojo is owned by the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) according to the website and IMDB is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, should we just change the publisher from Amazon.com to IMDB? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was engaged in a discussion regarding whether Marlon Brando or Christopher Reeve should receive top billing for Superman. Here’s what I initially wrote: “It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star!” Any comments? 67.239.63.243 ( talk) 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muppets. — Cirt ( talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the American cinema task force of WikiProject Film might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added American cinema task force to the WikiProject United States banner since there any no objections. I will begin to asses some of the articles myself. If have any concerns or questions, please let me know or ask at the project. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the page history for a recent redirect/copy & paste move from the former to the latter titles and this discussion. This doesn't help with the issue on caps vs. no caps for film article titles, but I suspect it's a Wiki policy on all articles and not just films. Can anyone help with the relevant policy link? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason or precedent why films that have been directed by more than one person should or shouldn't be included in a director template? There seems to be inconsistency on this issue, so maybe we should draw up some guidelines. This inconsistency can even exist in the same template - for example at Template:John Landis an editor was removing Amazon Women on the Moon, but leaving The Twilight Zone. I'm all for keeping them in - after all these co-directors were involved in directing these movies. The Jean-Pierre Jeunet template is definitely correct in including the films he directed with Marc Caro, and the individual directors involved in Ro.Go.Pa.G. all have this film mentioned in their individual templates ( Godard, Rossellini, Pasolini). Many other examples exist, but for a couple more, how about the directors of Dead of Night, or the directors of Stimulantia. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I came accross this article tagged for proposed deletion. As the film has been released and has recieved coverage in multiple reliable sources, [2] I began some expansion and sourcing and then removed the tag. This is something I would do for ANY film article so tagged. But as much as I might like to make the article better for the poject, and as able as I might be to make the article neutral and encyclopdic, I feel I cannot continue due to my having had a 5-second apearance in the film. And as much as I feel I have the skills to vastly improve the article, I do not wish even a seeming of conflict of interest. I do not personally benefit from the article remaining or being deleted, as my scene was incredibly brief and I do not receive residuals from that minor appearance. As the article is improvable, I bring it here and ask that others look into it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems recently to be a movement against the notability guideline for future films. It is largely overlooked in AfD discussions. Is it time to revisit this guideline? Personally I'm all for it, but I'm getting a little fed up of it being ignored and overridden. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 03:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey y'all. Does anyone recall, or have an opinion on, if music videos fall within the scope of this project? Or if they classify as a film? I've ran into an issue at We Found Love (video). At first, I thought that the {{ Infobox film}} was inappropriate for this article, as it seems that we mainly use it for feature films. However, we also have used it for short films and it seems that we can qualify it as film; the article music video considers them short films. It seems now, there is an issue over the disambiguator "(video)". If we consider these films, then it seems that we should use the same naming conventions explained at WP:NCF and use "(film)". Any input? BOVINEBOY 2008 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. If you look carefully at the info box for The Dungeonmaster, you'll see that it's a little screwed up. I'd like to fix it, but I don't know how. Help would be appreciated. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
B movie has an article, but A Movie and A Film redirect to unexpected places. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, when I was working on the articles You Are the Apple of My Eye and Starry Starry Night, I discovered that Box Office Mojo did not present the full gross figures for the two films. For example, the figures for Taiwan and China are not included, thereby greatly reducing their gross figures. Therefore, should I find other sources with reliable box office gross and add into the one presented by Box Office Mojo, or does anyone know of an alternative to Box Office Mojo? Thanks.-- Lionratz ( talk) 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A proposal that : As this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary users of this wiki are English speakers
Works which are in a foreign language
must have one of
(Basically, do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Bollywood/Japanese/Etc film and c-list star? Those interested in that artist are likely to be using the applicable language wikipedia in any case. Works that would be of interest to those who are not using the applicable language wiki are covered by a-c
Gaijin42 (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−6)
I would like to clarify that I was making no statement on the nationality of an item. Merely the language it was written in. All english media, regardless of where produced would enter under the existing criteria. Foreign language would not be barred, just having a higher bar of notability. However, I do accede to WP:SNOW. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some further input. Note that I nominated it after seeing it WP:REFUNDed. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My favourite subject - films that have yet to enter production! Anyone have anything to add? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone care to help in straightening this article out? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 17:30 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so after about a month of discussion, we've come up with the following template. Noone so far has any problems with it, so I figured I'd check with everyone here. If you have any feedback, yell out.
-- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot italicize the film title even after using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Can someone see through the problem? DdraconiandevilL ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
DISPLAYTITLE}}
to the bottom, thus solving overrides from {{
Infobox film}}
and {{
Infobox album}}
.
jonkerz
♠ 07:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Hey all, we could use some additional input at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)#Writing Credits. Essentially Thunderlippps ( talk · contribs) is insisting that some of the credited writers on the film did not in fact have anything to do with it, and has resorted to edit-warring to get his way. Any additional opinions would be welcome. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw a sad sight today: the state of Wings, the first Best Picture Academy Award winner. How have we neglected this for so long, it's such a historic and legendary film. And it's 85 years old next year (another major film anniversary). Shall we all chip in and make this the way it deserves to be. RAP ( talk) 21:58 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have created User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It is questionable whether the article passes WP:GNG. I started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Alfonso_Gomez-Rejon_.3F that has not gotten much feedback and none since I have done the sandbox creation. I need some more feedback on whehter this article is ready for article space either for WP:FILMMAKER #3 or for WP:IAR rationales.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see this and this. They smack of hoaxes to me, but I could be wrong. Both created by the same user, no refs given, nothing on Google, etc. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Wrong Turn 2: Dead End. Recently, an editor, User:87Stone, has edited the plot summary's fairly good English into what is clearly poor English which appears to be written by someone whose native language is not English. [3] I have reverted him twice, but he persists in restoring his own odd version. [4] [5] He has not provided a single edit summary to justify these changes. Since I originally rewrote this section myself (it was formerly not in very good English and contained a number of inaccuracies), and therefore do not wish to be seen to be laying claim to the section's ownership, and also do not wish to revert him three times, I would appreciate comment on the talk page on these edits. Thanks. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is An Eye for Detail part of this WikiProject? It's a comic book story, not a film. JIP | Talk 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)