![]() | 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 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
A discussion [and ultimate vote] of interest to members is taking place at Talk:Bande à part (film). —Roman Spinner (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
At WP:RSN, we've been having a discussion of whether the NYIIFVF should be considered a major festival for notability purposes ( WP:NFILMS #3), and more specifically whether the fact that it's widely recognized as a scam invalidates the awards it offers, and we'd appreciate input from members of the Film Project. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_International_Independent_Film_and_Video_Festival. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here because we have a little debate over at Paranormal Activity. Thing is, the film was created by an independent director in 2007, and released independently at Screamfest that year. Paramount representatives attended that screening, and decided to acquire the film, modify it (ending included) and re-release it two years later, in 2009. Now, currently the article describes the film as being released in 2007, which would lead to think it's about the independent film, which later happened to have been acquired by some studio and re-released, which is what I personally think is right, since it reflects the actual course of events. But other editors insist that the article should cover mainly the theatrical release, with the original version getting only a passing mention. I will appreciate it if people could drop by and leave their opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance. -- uKER ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not just talking about the infobox or the lead. That's easily solved by mentioning both, but I'm more concerned by what the plot description should be. Should it describe the original film+ending, or the modified commercial version? Also, to the people who said that if we were to follow the guidelines then there would be too many other articles to change, there's WP:OTHER. Other articles being wrong doesn't mean we should keep doing it. -- uKER ( talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had come to terms with the article describing the commercial version and not the original one. In fact, I made the change myself. Problem is, now an editor insists that despite the fact that the article's Plot section describes the ending from the theatrical version, released in 2009, the lead and infobox for some reason should bear the release date from the original version, which is 2007. I'd say we should make our minds here. Either the article is about the original one or the theatrical. If it's to be about the theatrical, fine, the ending is the new one and the date is the new one, with the info on the original presented later. If it's about the original, so be it too, but it's ridiculous to mix things up like that. -- uKER ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The above conversation reminded me that some articles still don't have a plot. Films such as J. Edgar and Jack and Jill still have a huge blank between the lead and cast. RAP ( talk) 14:47 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As I am pressed for time today I thought that I would ask any of you that are interested to take a look at this new article Kimmy Dora and The Temple of Kiyeme. At a quick glance it looks like some of the refs seems okay but both of the external links that we added have zero info about this film on them. I have removed them but you can access them here [1]. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do to help the article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:List of 3-D films#"Foreign language" films.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about the possible deletion of a 1920 Russian film, which claims to be the first film adaptation of the Dracula story. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)#Awards
As seen here, what are thoughts on it? I like it and think it would be useful on articles with lengthy award tables that aren't big enough to justify an individual article but long enough that they seem kind of awkward on the page, but I also thought we could use them on actor/actress articles to hide the sometimes massive filmography tables. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Film will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles (no pun intended!) in film, movies and related areas. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This addition of a line producer seems like an WP:UNDUE weight issue - comments? F911 had 19 various producers; more generally, which types are significant enough to warrant mention? MOS:FILM appears to be silent on this. Rostz ( talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
An AfD is going on here. If anyone is interested, please comment. X.One SOS 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There was an AfD a couple of months ago which highlighted certain failings of this article. Anyone have anything to add to this discussion regarding a possible split? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Doniago has been deleting entire sections from older film articles on the grounds they're unsourced. He's not the only one, but I have to point to a specific example of something that's bothered me for some time. Now, I do wish whoever built these older articles up had listed their sources, but turning articles into stumps is not good policy, and I would like to see it modified. As said by another editor at his talkpage, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help WP.
Doniago's response was I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile. I would rather see a smaller Wikipedia with more reliable content than a large Wikipedia with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation. Then he said I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter. So let's take him up on that.
I restored the Production section to Black Sunday (1977 film) after he put it on the talk page, in a hidden template. I added a ref from IMDb, which is better than nothing, but he reverted me anyway, deleting it again. Having read a good deal on film history over the years, I can say the info on this page looks valid and accurate to me. I don't have time to go looking for better sources on this over 30-year-old film. Until someone does, the section should be restored and perhaps tagged as lacking all the refs one would wish it to have. But it shouldn't be eviscerated. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
WHOA!!!! As the "other editor" being quoted above, let me say two things here. 1 - Doniago and I agreed that we disagreed on this finer point of interpreting policy as regards deleting/tagging, and 2 - we agreed that in any case, the best solution was to set about finding references. The discussion being referred to that we had ended with an agreement that I would use his deletions as a guide for reinstating correctly sourced material.
Doniago and I also mutually recognised that we are both committed to building the encyclopedia. Hence rather than embark on this ridiculous flamewar, why not just find a reference and reinstate the deleted material? That is much easier than creating this sort of grief. Manning ( talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea that entire articles are reduced to stubs because of an "opinion" that unsourced material should be excised is ludicrous. Tag the sections as needing work, and ask for help. Using WP:Bold as an excuse for making arbitrary and non-consensual actions, is at the root of this issue; not the canard of "helping" the project. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
I want to thank Bzuk for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like he said in his edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. Someone may want to take a crack at The Cassandra Crossing, where Doniago also reverted my attempts to restore production material he deleted. I added an IMDb ref, but of course, it wasn't good enough. Of particular interest, the bridge depicted in the film is actually the Garabit viaduct in southern France. Until recently, both articles referred and linked to each other. I'm taking a risk in mentioning that, as none of Garabit Viaduct in fiction is currently backed up by refs, and Doniago might go over and delete that entire section as well. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and kudos again to Bzuk for swinging into action a second time, tracking down refs and restoring an article, this time The Cassandra Crossing. Again, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like this make WP a better site. I placed two refs into the Garabit viaduct article as well. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrap-up - All of this started when I has a discussion with Doniago about deletion of worthwhile content. The two of us concluded by agreeing that we disagreed on the best approach. Although I still prefer the "tag, don't erase' option, I cannot help but note that Doniago's original (and admittedly provocative) actions have now led to at least two articles being correctly sourced. So in my best 'crusty old-timer' voice, let me just say that we're ALL good people and we're all committed to the project. Occasional disagreement on how best to go about things will always happen, but let's not start firebombing the good guys. I still don't endorse Doniago's approach, but hey, like seriously, whatever. Peace, out. Manning ( talk) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
On August 9, 2011 User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section of this 1970 sequel's article, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original 1968 film. It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.
This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.
I only found this by looking back in the article's history. I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save it from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the film's talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from, source it, and then adapt it into the article. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrap-up - Wrap up this discussion. It's been widely discussed and let's settle it down. BattleshipMan ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomballguy ( talk · contribs) has expressed concern over the notability over the Golden Raspberry Awards at the article's talk page. The user in question believes that they are not notable, as they are "defamatory awards meant to insult other actors". However, several other editors, including myself, believe that the awards are notable, as it is significantly covered by reliable sources and meets the general notability guidelines. As such, I am opening up a centralized discussion here to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter here and help build a consensus to see if the Golden Raspberry Awards are really notable to be included or not. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be a deletion monkey, but does Caught in Flight come anyway close to meeting WP:NFF? The only ref states "production will begin in the UK later this year". Anything else to add to help? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Right now there is a discussion going on at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#Animated films regarding the current content and scope of the nabbox. Wider input would be helpful.
- J Greb ( talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Charlr6 and I are having a disagreement over adding The Hobbit to the List of most expensive films as in this edit. The Hobbit is released later this year, and on that basis I have opposed the addition of the film to the list, on the grounds that films are only added once they are released. It would be unbalanced of me to just put my side of the argument across, but the discussion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#The_Hobbit could probably benefit from some impartial wisdom if anyone can spare a few minutes. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Have any of you have recent developments about a Good Day to Die Hard, the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie? They said they are start filming it in Hungary in January, which was last month as reported awhile ago. I haven't heard anything new about it this month and I'm sure you guys haven't heard any about it either. BattleshipMan ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't end up being a can of worms, as it looks like this topic has seen some spirited debate in the past. It appears that the Cinema of template runs counter to both Wikipedia's and WikiProject Film's guidance on categorization. As of today, the category holds 24,190 articles, not counting subcategories. Database reports lists American film as a polluted category. I made a {{ editprotected}} request on the Film US template talk page, asking to remove the automatic entry of articles into the American film category. Given that removing this feature could actually remove pages from the category altogether, if they don't have additional subcategories, I don't think an admin will make the edit.
I would love to hear any solutions to this. Over 24,000 pages in a single category? Obviously this doesn't hurt anybody, but it does seem to be categorization without a real use. Nobody is going to wade through that list of movies. However, it does work for countries like Iceland, with 65 pages plus another 22 in subcategories, or Ethiopia and its six pages. Cheers. Encycloshave ( talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the opening sentence of Avatar calls the film an "epic science fiction motion capture film". Now as far as I am aware there is no such thing as a motion capture film, motion capture is just a technique, an aid like a practical effect or CGI and we don't call Star Wars 3 an epic space opera CGI film. I might be wrong on this but it seems incorrect to use motion capture film as a descriptor because the technique is employed in teh film. An editor disagrees with me and the discussion is quite clearly going nowhere since the editor just keeps refuting anything I say so if anyone wants to comment for either viewpoint to actually move the topic toward a conclusion, the discussion is here. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Marc42west ( talk · contribs) has been deleting soured text from this film's Reception section without explanation. I told him Stop removing sourced text and marking it "minor" and ten minutes later he did it again. He's now on the verge of breaking 3 reverts. It deals with the film's critical response before and after it's Sundance screening - it was re-edited without the director and then got bad reviews in Oct. Now it's being given a limited release tomorrow. This user may be involved with the distributor - he has very few other edits. I haven't got involved in reporting people for vandalism or going to Requests for page protection - I thought it best to take it here and let someone more experienced deal with this. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I lowered the rating to start, but this may be to low to some so, please feel free to adjust as the project sees fit. The article had a great deal of unsourced material, but some may still see this as a possible C class. Unsure, so I am making note on all the projects for input.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
For some time now, the Julie Dash article (Julie is a director) has listed, under her filmography, the title "Making Angels." However, this film has never been made. "Making Angels" was listed in the Julie Dash article for the fist time as long ago as 2007; six years later, the title is still in the article under "Filmography," but the film still has not been made.
Whenever a wiki editor questions whether the title of a film that has never been made belongs in the Julie Dash article, someone (a hopeful film producer or other backer of the film, I believe) claims that it belongs there because "Making Angels" is listed in the Internet Movie Database. However, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films notes:
The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source, most especially for future films. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing has been found unacceptable. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable.
I object to people using Wikipedia as a launching pad for trying to produce movies or otherwise helping them get made. I use Wikipedia often in my work as a movie critic and journalist, and I do not like seeing the encyclopedia being polluted by self-promotions and other scurrilous activity. Can anyone help with this false reference in Julie Dash's filmography and see that "Making Angels" is removed? Thanks you in advance. 147.203.126.215 ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:209.216.198.51&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.216.198.240, has been reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SCFilm29, comments to article here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/. Coronerreport ( talk) 05:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Are we required to reference a cast list?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at AfD. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wiki-cineastes. I've created a new article; List of cinematic firsts, the title should hopefully be self explanatory.
Early cinema history is notoriously difficult to verify with claims and counter claims and some of the incremental developments being difficult to differentiate. I've tried to do the best I could, however now feel that putting it open to the wider wiki community will see it improved. Please feel free to fire in and improve it, especially for those firsts where I couldn't find a good, solid reference. yorkshiresky ( talk) 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This years Berlin Film Festival has concluded with the Italian film Caesar Must Die winning the Golden Bear. I invite all members of the Film Project to help expand any of the film articles that were in competition. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a danger of the articles on films turning into reviews as people forget what an encyclopedia should and should not do. Look at the long plot section in The Grey or The Departed for example. How much of this do we need to do our job rather than someone else's? Britmax ( talk) 20:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion about using the term "epic" in the lead of the GA candidate 2001: A Space Odyssey article. If anyone has any comments regarding whether it should be included or not, please contribute. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 22:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I can't stand it when a film's lead paragraph states genre, at least in most cases. For one thing, no two people seem to agree on which genre a film should be in (except in some very specific cases) and because, for some time now, filmmakers have been working in what one could call a cross-genre sort of way, and it can get ridiculous with "horror-comedy-noir with touches of sci-fi" (I just made that up, but I've seen some that come close). In most cases, I prefer the sentence simply say "film" and to let the body of the article describe it enough that people get it. On the Secretary article, I have to keep taking out the supposed genre "Sadomasochistic film", a genre that doesn't exist outside of porn. As a former filmmaker, I find all genres to be a very limiting description. And I've certainly never seen "epic" as a genre. Film institutes make lists all the time, as in "Ten Sexiest Films", "Ten Greatest Women's Movies", etc., but that doesn't mean their list category has been declared a genuine genre. -- TEHodson 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to invite anyone with a knowledge of and interest in Japanese cinema to review the article I have edited on Yasujiro Ozu's Late Spring. I have worked on the article for about eight months, beginning on June 12, 2011. Although it is quite long, I believe that the importance of Late Spring both within the career of Ozu and within the overall history of Japanese cinema more than justifies the length. Indeed, there is quite a bit of detail that I felt I needed to omit.
I wanted the reader with little or no knowledge of Japanese film history to understand: a) the significance of the Shomin-geki genre and the importance of Ozu to that genre; b) the pressures on filmmakers during the American Occupation and its censorship, and how Ozu dealt with those pressures; c) the central importance of both the screenwriter Kôgo Noda and the actress Setsuko Hara on this film and on the director's late period films in general; d) the importance of the theme of tradition versus modernity in this film; e) the central importance to the movie of the Noh play scene (which actually gave the film its title, as is explained there); f) Ozu's complex and subtle approach to characterization, and the relationship of the characters to traditional Japanese archetypes (e.g., the patriarchal father); g) the uniqueness of Ozu's visual style; and h) the ambiguous nature of what he achieved, which is open to many (and contradictory) interpretations.
What I'd like to request do is that anyone who reviews this may: a) suggest possible improvements to the article and b) after corrections, possibly support my attempt to promote the article as a Featured Article, which I intend to do quite soon.
I hope that I can get the article on Late Spring to the point where it sets some kind of standard for a Wikipedia cinema article.
Regards,
Dylanexpert ( talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I just ran into List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch from a link for Sproing, a video game company (the name re-directs to the list article). WP:FILM was tagged on the talk page, so I thought I'd bring it up to you guys; is this article in violation of WP:PLOT? I wasn't really sure why WP:FILM was tagged on this article so I figured I'd ask here. No need to bring something up for PROD or AfD if it meets a standard I'm not aware of. Nomader ( talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I created Film censorship with prose from List of banned films. The article was well overdue for creation. I will need a lot of work to get it up to scratch. There are bare urls, missing sources and there is a lot of content that will have to be written. Can I leave it with the experts? Ta. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 07:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I reported this on Wikipedia:Cleanup waaaaaay back in 2008, and no one did anything about it. Virtually all of the articles on individual entires in the Our Gang film series (see Our Gang filmography for a full list) have synopses copied and pasted from the New York Times website. I've tried to cleanup some of them, but I have a full time job and there are two hundred and twenty of these shorts, so I c an't do this thing myself.
Is there anyone who can assist with this before someone stumbles across them, emails the New York Times and the whole thing becomes a bigger issue than it needs to be? You don't need to write new synopses if you don't have time - just help delete the old ones. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have seen the term "unofficial remake" used sometimes to describe a film (like Main Aisa Hi Hoon, for example). But isn't "unofficial remake" just a nicer way of saying "rip-off"? If the film producers have legal permission to remake a film, then it is not an "unofficial" remake. So that only leaves illegal copying of a film for something to be an "unofficial remake". If that's right, then it would seem that to call a film an "unofficial remake" is to state that the producers of the film have broken copyright law, and therefore such claims should have strong, reliable sources or not be made at all. Am I right, or did I miss something? 99.192.48.193 ( talk) 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What should I do if I want an article, which I recently lifted to GA, published in the newsletter? X.One SOS 06:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film Arrietty should be moved to the official US title The Secret World of Arrietty. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Arrietty#Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title? and the requested move discussion is just below this discussion. Input and comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:DavisJune has been trying to remove any mention of this film being based on the Swedish film Let the Right One In but just the original book despite the fact that (in addition to numerous comments from cast and crew) the closing credits explicitly say that it's based off of the Swedish film's screenplay.
He's insisting that there's no proof for it being a remake despite being told otherwise and is calling any edit referring to it as such 'vandalism'. I'm bringing it over here for attention because he's ignoring the rest of us, not a lot of people visit the talk page at the moment, and if I persist I'll just get blocked for 3RR eventually.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
African Film Festival of Cordoba-FCAT (formerly African Film Festival of Tarifa) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see right column on website) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM).
I'm going to upload texts from their website in this category. -- M.casanova ( talk) 11:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an issue going on at the Whisper of the Heart (film) article. An IP hopper from France has been POV pushing on the article by using the talk page for disruption and adding sourced information without inline citations, posted on the talk page disruptively to prove a point, used all caps in an edit summary (which is considered uncivil), and has insisted that their edits are correct. The IP hopper has breached WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV ( [3], [4]). However, I and Edward321 disagree, since the IP's edits in question have left the article in a mess. The article needs more sources as well, since it has only four sources so far and I am trying to improve the article. As I don't want to get blocked for violating WP:3RR, I have started a discussion, which can be found here. Input from project members should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello to all project members. In my editing over the last year or so I keep coming upon the following two things in the EL sections. Many of you are probably already aware of these but I thought I would post this for those who aren't and for any suggestions as to where we might put these in our style guide.
Now I don't think that either of these is a major problem requiring any special attention. I mention them so that, as you are working on articles that already exist, you might take a second to go and check the EL section and clean these up if they are there. I am also wondering if their is any place in our style guide that we might add these so that future editors can fix the problems also. If not please don't worry about it and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Despite the relevant policies at WP:FILMPLOT and WP:NOT#PLOT and the discussion on the talk page, Easy on the fluids ( talk · contribs), a new user, has bloated up the plot summary in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York to 1,080 words and has accused me of ownership of the article (see [7], [8], [9]). Since he refuses to respond on the article's talk page, I am taking this discussion here to see if other editors can voice their opinion on the matter. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, the edit was made by a sockpuppet. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Another riviting discussion around infobox field parameters can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably an old question. Why there isn't the flag icon and the link inside the film (country name) templates? Thanks. -- M.casanova ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is a GA nominee. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The film Cry Baby Lane aired only once on Nickelodeon and was considered to be somewhat of a lost film given that no one could find anything about it. A decade after it was aired, someone on Reddit found a copy and uploaded it onto the internet. This got quite a bit of buzz on the internet.
This information was later attributed to in an article by The Daily seen here. It gives a brief history of the film as well as interviewing the director. This article is already cited in the article for other information.
User:George Ho removed the mention that it was found on Reddit as it "may violate copyrights" [10].
It's now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cry_Baby_Lane and while I admittedly don't understand everything that's going on, my guess is that George's problem (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "the secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies" and that the "secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies".
I'm not an expert on Wiki policy so if someone could clarify what the rules are in situations like this I would appreciate it. As my understanding goes, I don't think writing about something that would constitute as a copyright violation (someone finding a lost film and uploading it online) would count as being a copyright violation in and out of itself.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of sourced AFI honors from The Towering Inferno, is this an appropriate edit? I would think these would be appropriate for inclusion, but obviously the removing editor feels otherwise. I did a brief search of the archives but didn't find anything pertinent. Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for straightening out my misuse of the term awards (that came from the fact that some articles have them in that section) - that makes sense. I completely agree that "it should be restricted to films that actually made the lists". Moving them and turning them into prose, hopefully, won't be too much of a hassle. Thanks again for taking the time to explain everything. MarnetteD | Talk 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Could use additional eyes on this AFD. Debate ongoing between myself and another editor. Thanks. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user ( user:Gaijin42) sent me many nominations for deletion of African films (see my talk page). On the other hand I got an original barnstar "For your efforts starting missing articles on African films" (by user:Dr. Blofeld). -- M.casanova ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
We are trying to get Late Spring to GA or FA status. After a notification on my talk page, I have made a few suggestions here. All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I created Collage film, importing text from a section on collage film in Collage, not realizing that Found footage addresses precisely the same topic (with the exception of "collage films" that are created by physically collaging found objects onto clear filmstrip, which is a secondary meaning). I believe there needs to be a merge. IMO, found footage is not synonymous with films made from found footage, and so I prefer to merge to Collage film. I believe an article can be written on found film as an example of a filmic found object. The discussion is at Talk:Collage film#Merge discussion. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I asked Are some people here being payed by the commerical film review sites? Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (film) lacks any mention of the plot in the introduction, which is what I pointed to as a general problem in that post. __ meco ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This article contains a list of the FEW fisheye lenses. I´m sure its:
Please help or talk. Tagremover ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I am working on Gran Torino. When talking about the director's filming style and method of acting of the actors, that goes into "Production," correct? Do some film articles have entire sections dedicated to them? WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion for the Cars 2 reviews at Talk:Cars 2#Negative vs. Mixed to see if "negative" or "mixed" is cited terminology in the section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival (Milan, Italy) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see footer) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM). OTRS declaration sent.
I'm going to upload texts from their website like this one. -- M.casanova ( talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
On YouTube, some joker has posted what he claims is film of Civil War soldiers marching in 1863, shot by a "Léon-Alexandre Cànular." This film supposedly has been preserved by the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. But there's nothing about this Canular on Wikipedia, no reliable sources turn up in a Google search, nor in Google Books. The YouTube poster, OnlyJasonere, apparently has his post rigged so nobody can leave a comment contradicting him. Just wondered if anyone on this project knows anything about this hoax? Google reveals at least one newspaper, in Winston-Salem NC, has reposted it as a genuine motion picture from 1863 - but of course it's not. (More likely a clip from Birth of a Nation, IMO.) Wonder if Wikipedia needs an article on the hoax itself? Textorus ( talk) 08:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Total hoax. Taken from a clip of reenactment footage from one of the Gettysburg reenactments. Both clips and some commentary available here: http://lotu2.blogspot.com/2011/03/confederate-soldiers-marching-1863.html Surprised it fooled anyone, they are clearly reenactors, even with all the film effect to make it look old. Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.165.136 ( talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have converted the List of banned films from an awful mish-mash of bulleted lists and random tables into one big sortable table. Took a long time I hafta tell ya! I had already split out some of the longer lists on a country basis to separate articles. I would like to continue with splitting the list on a country basis where it is justified. The remainder, liting of five or so per country, should then go to Film censorship and the List of banned films page is then set up as a disambiguation page for all the separate articles. Does that sound like a good plan? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see discussion here and here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion may interest some people. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dead Man's Shoes (1939 film) is a bit confused. The infobox and IMDb say 1940, while BFI, the title and category say 1939. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Does The Comeback Kid (film) meet notability guidelines for films? It is a made for tv movie and I can't find many sources other than ones like IMDB that just list the cast and plot. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a move proposal here that would relegate the classic zombie films away from the main zombie film and pop culture article, and to a page about spiritual voodoo zombie practices. The pop culture page gets a ton of hits, and it would be a shame to have the presentation of the genre split. As a side note, Zombie (fictional) probably should be part of this project, despite its unfortunate name. LaTeeDa ( talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Talk:Paprika_(2006_film)#Concerns_about_the_reception_section about whether we should remove the Top Critics or change the introductory sentence about "positive reception" or "positive reviews" in the reception section of the Paprika (2006 film) article. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think members of this project need to take a look at this category, which I think is very problematic. Is "Neo-Western" an established term in use by critics? The description on the category page, which is very long, looks to be entirely original research. A discussion needs to commence as to whether this category should remain. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, for example, listal.com list only two:- "Kid" (1990) and "The Brave" (1997)
Mubi (Europe) list just eight. Of course, Wikipedia has first mention on Google but that has to be discounted here in this discussion. In my opinion, it is not a genre and is unworthy of inclusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence, but computer problems prevented me from going online. But, to rejoin the discussion, it seems to me that we are still at the same impasse: are there reliable sources for the term "neo-western" and are those sources in agreement as to a definition? If so, at least a stub article could be written that would provide some justification for the category. Not to repeat myself, but my concern all along has been arbitrary categorization that results from the lack of a solid definition. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Urgent! The Godfather ... again!
Take a look at The Godfather. A new editor has made close on 200 uninterrupted edits over the past two days, and is still doing so. No edit summaries.
Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The List of biggest box office bombs has recently caught my attention (due to the publicity around John Carter, which now tops the list). I have concerns regarding the list, which I have brought up on the talk page, as well as at the No Original Research noticeboard (see this thread). The list's main (and almost only) contributor is Clicklander ( talk · contribs), who has been reverting removal of what I believe is original research. Comments from experience editors would be appreciated! :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all since Mlm42 is mentioning me, I do not find it fair to delete my comments from this discussion. Secondly, to determin whether or not this list should be split or shrink, you should look at the definition of a bomb. According to the definition a bomb has nothing to do with return on investment. What defines a bomb is simply the huge amount of money it looses. I do not see why you should make two lists for one unique definition. Clicklander ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that you deleted my post. I Just saw that my post was deleted. I also do not claim ownership for any wikipedia article in noways. The article List of biggest box office bombs started from me but many other wikipedia editors contribute it as well to be as it is today. The fact that we disagree in some aspects does not mean that I do not respect other’s opinions. Clicklander ( talk) 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't se any film that lost only $7–8 million. Could you show me one? If there is any it should be removed. If there are other films that lost more that any in the list, then they should be added. That simple! Clicklander ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read again the definition carefully. A poor ROI does not necessarily mean big losses. The two examples of films you gave, one with $50 million and the other with $200 budget, meet the definition exactly in the same level since they lost the same regardless the initial investment. Regarding Alexander, it is a flop as it didn't meet the expectations in the box office, but according to the definition it is not a bomb, as it didn’t generate losses in the end. In the opposite way, a film with very poor ROI but with very low investment cost cannot be considered as bomb either. All films in the list have been chosen to be there because of their huge loss. That’s the only criterion! As for your question up to what amount of loss a bomb should be added in the list, my answer is, I do not know! To limit the number of the bombs to a top 50 could be an option or another option could be to put a threshold for the losses. For the time being losses under $30 million are considered from the editors as minor bombs but this can be under discussion. Clicklander ( talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it always worthy to note in an article if a film has been screened at a film festival?
The Living Daylights was screened at a September 1987 film festival in Deauville, France with 39 other films (apparently the 13th Deauville American Film Festival - the Spanish source says "El Festival de Cine de Deauville, Francia"). The El Nuevo Herald said "En el programa del festival figuran unos cuarenta filmes, la mayoria de los cuales seran presentados en primicia mundial, entre los que se cuentan Man on Fire, de Elie Chouraqui, interpretado por Scott Glenn y Jade Malle, y The Living Daylights, en el que actuan Timothy Dalton y Maryam d'Albo."
A user pointed out that the premiere of The Living Daylights was held on June 29, 1987, and it had already screened across the US and Europe before the Deauville festival.
But at the same time the Deauville film festival is Wikipedia notable. Is is it still worthy to say in the article that the film screened there? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else think that this film simply isn't notable? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In WT:STARWARS i mentioned a large number of articles that had no third party reliable source. The wikiproject seems to be slightly inactive and only got one approval to redirect the articles. As a start to gain attention, i only redirected the documentary articles. A certain Editor reverted them saying i ddn't have a good reason, however in the project's talk page, did not make it clear why. So in effort to avoid an edit war, i come here in help of getting a stronger consensus. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone who is interested could add their thoughts here Talk:Titanic (1943 film)#Edits of April 2012 it would be appreciated. This article does not seem to be on many watchlists and if any of the items involved could be improved that would be great. On a side note with the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic coming up next week it is possible that articles for all of the film adaptations could see higher than normal traffic so it anyone wants to add them to their watchlist that would be most helpful. Thanks for your time and input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently created categories of Japanese films by various years have been created (eg, Category:1999 Japanese films). I've raised these at CfD here. Input is welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a split proposal at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series that could really benefit from the consideration of the project. This article receives 200,000 hits a month and is ranked in the top 700 articles on Wikipedia, as well as being a featured list. It is obviously a key article within the Film Project so it is important that major alterations to it are carefully considered. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
While reviewing new articles, I have tagged some Indian Marathi films, such as Nirop and Gandha, for notability. The author, AnimeshKulkarni ( talk), is asking me why I tagged these films. He plans to write articles on many Indian films, including all category National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi films. Since I am not at all an expert on foreign language films, but I did have doubts about notability of these films, I am posting here to ask for comments.
Are all the films awarded the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi, and beyond those, all the films in the Indian category:National Film Awards notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that things have changed over the years and that the number of participants in the film project has fluctuated. There is nothing wrong with that and this has happened in several other projects. I am wondering of we should just remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Coordinators section on our projects main page. Per this User talk:Erik#Are you there Erik hasn't edited since last November and I miss his input. The other editors listed are all still active but I think they are pursuing regular editing rather specific project items. If there are any other sections of our main page that you think should be updated please fell free to suggest them. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The Tag & Assess doesn't need anyone to lead it, just a bot to do the flagging, which anyone can request. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people". Is this it? Because then we really need to stop this trend. The coordinators haven't coordinated anything so far, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators does not mention anything about "leading by example" (the page has no real substance whatsoever -- it sounds like something a politician may say). But let's say the coordinators actually coordinated stuff, then we do still not need to hold elections. In order to hold elections and add elevated user roles, there must exist some justification. In this case, there is none, unless you count "'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people" which any editor can do.
A horror example of this trend can be found at WP:HORROR, a project with 25 members and 4 coordinator positions: Coordinator, Deputy Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator and Editor-in-Chief. Seriously?!?!?
We tried it, it didn't work, now get rid of it. jonkerz ♠talk 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I quit the position after becoming the target of some rabid WP:OWN editors, now both gone (or in hibernation) but the damage was done. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
An editor had created a completely new article for the 3D release of Titanic: Titanic in 3D. I redirected this article to the 3D release section of the main article at Titanic_(1997_film)#3-D_conversion_and_2012_re-release, because generally we don't create new articles about re-releases or 3D versions but he reverted it. For example, the Star Wars special editions, The Avatar Special Edition, and the Phantom Menace and Lion King 3D releases are all covered on the main article. What is more, most of the content is actually copied over from the main article, there is virtually no distinct content.
Does anyone else agree with the content fork, or do you think we should cover the 3D release on the main Titanic (1997 film) article? My view on this in regards to all film articles, is that all re-releases should be covered on the main article, and only if the re-release section becomes too big should we consider forking the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
A combine/merge tag has been placed on the Titanic in 3D article, direct further comments there. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (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 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
A discussion [and ultimate vote] of interest to members is taking place at Talk:Bande à part (film). —Roman Spinner (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
At WP:RSN, we've been having a discussion of whether the NYIIFVF should be considered a major festival for notability purposes ( WP:NFILMS #3), and more specifically whether the fact that it's widely recognized as a scam invalidates the awards it offers, and we'd appreciate input from members of the Film Project. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_International_Independent_Film_and_Video_Festival. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here because we have a little debate over at Paranormal Activity. Thing is, the film was created by an independent director in 2007, and released independently at Screamfest that year. Paramount representatives attended that screening, and decided to acquire the film, modify it (ending included) and re-release it two years later, in 2009. Now, currently the article describes the film as being released in 2007, which would lead to think it's about the independent film, which later happened to have been acquired by some studio and re-released, which is what I personally think is right, since it reflects the actual course of events. But other editors insist that the article should cover mainly the theatrical release, with the original version getting only a passing mention. I will appreciate it if people could drop by and leave their opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance. -- uKER ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not just talking about the infobox or the lead. That's easily solved by mentioning both, but I'm more concerned by what the plot description should be. Should it describe the original film+ending, or the modified commercial version? Also, to the people who said that if we were to follow the guidelines then there would be too many other articles to change, there's WP:OTHER. Other articles being wrong doesn't mean we should keep doing it. -- uKER ( talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had come to terms with the article describing the commercial version and not the original one. In fact, I made the change myself. Problem is, now an editor insists that despite the fact that the article's Plot section describes the ending from the theatrical version, released in 2009, the lead and infobox for some reason should bear the release date from the original version, which is 2007. I'd say we should make our minds here. Either the article is about the original one or the theatrical. If it's to be about the theatrical, fine, the ending is the new one and the date is the new one, with the info on the original presented later. If it's about the original, so be it too, but it's ridiculous to mix things up like that. -- uKER ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The above conversation reminded me that some articles still don't have a plot. Films such as J. Edgar and Jack and Jill still have a huge blank between the lead and cast. RAP ( talk) 14:47 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As I am pressed for time today I thought that I would ask any of you that are interested to take a look at this new article Kimmy Dora and The Temple of Kiyeme. At a quick glance it looks like some of the refs seems okay but both of the external links that we added have zero info about this film on them. I have removed them but you can access them here [1]. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do to help the article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:List of 3-D films#"Foreign language" films.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about the possible deletion of a 1920 Russian film, which claims to be the first film adaptation of the Dracula story. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)#Awards
As seen here, what are thoughts on it? I like it and think it would be useful on articles with lengthy award tables that aren't big enough to justify an individual article but long enough that they seem kind of awkward on the page, but I also thought we could use them on actor/actress articles to hide the sometimes massive filmography tables. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Film will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles (no pun intended!) in film, movies and related areas. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This addition of a line producer seems like an WP:UNDUE weight issue - comments? F911 had 19 various producers; more generally, which types are significant enough to warrant mention? MOS:FILM appears to be silent on this. Rostz ( talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
An AfD is going on here. If anyone is interested, please comment. X.One SOS 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There was an AfD a couple of months ago which highlighted certain failings of this article. Anyone have anything to add to this discussion regarding a possible split? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Doniago has been deleting entire sections from older film articles on the grounds they're unsourced. He's not the only one, but I have to point to a specific example of something that's bothered me for some time. Now, I do wish whoever built these older articles up had listed their sources, but turning articles into stumps is not good policy, and I would like to see it modified. As said by another editor at his talkpage, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help WP.
Doniago's response was I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile. I would rather see a smaller Wikipedia with more reliable content than a large Wikipedia with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation. Then he said I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter. So let's take him up on that.
I restored the Production section to Black Sunday (1977 film) after he put it on the talk page, in a hidden template. I added a ref from IMDb, which is better than nothing, but he reverted me anyway, deleting it again. Having read a good deal on film history over the years, I can say the info on this page looks valid and accurate to me. I don't have time to go looking for better sources on this over 30-year-old film. Until someone does, the section should be restored and perhaps tagged as lacking all the refs one would wish it to have. But it shouldn't be eviscerated. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
WHOA!!!! As the "other editor" being quoted above, let me say two things here. 1 - Doniago and I agreed that we disagreed on this finer point of interpreting policy as regards deleting/tagging, and 2 - we agreed that in any case, the best solution was to set about finding references. The discussion being referred to that we had ended with an agreement that I would use his deletions as a guide for reinstating correctly sourced material.
Doniago and I also mutually recognised that we are both committed to building the encyclopedia. Hence rather than embark on this ridiculous flamewar, why not just find a reference and reinstate the deleted material? That is much easier than creating this sort of grief. Manning ( talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea that entire articles are reduced to stubs because of an "opinion" that unsourced material should be excised is ludicrous. Tag the sections as needing work, and ask for help. Using WP:Bold as an excuse for making arbitrary and non-consensual actions, is at the root of this issue; not the canard of "helping" the project. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
I want to thank Bzuk for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like he said in his edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. Someone may want to take a crack at The Cassandra Crossing, where Doniago also reverted my attempts to restore production material he deleted. I added an IMDb ref, but of course, it wasn't good enough. Of particular interest, the bridge depicted in the film is actually the Garabit viaduct in southern France. Until recently, both articles referred and linked to each other. I'm taking a risk in mentioning that, as none of Garabit Viaduct in fiction is currently backed up by refs, and Doniago might go over and delete that entire section as well. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and kudos again to Bzuk for swinging into action a second time, tracking down refs and restoring an article, this time The Cassandra Crossing. Again, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like this make WP a better site. I placed two refs into the Garabit viaduct article as well. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrap-up - All of this started when I has a discussion with Doniago about deletion of worthwhile content. The two of us concluded by agreeing that we disagreed on the best approach. Although I still prefer the "tag, don't erase' option, I cannot help but note that Doniago's original (and admittedly provocative) actions have now led to at least two articles being correctly sourced. So in my best 'crusty old-timer' voice, let me just say that we're ALL good people and we're all committed to the project. Occasional disagreement on how best to go about things will always happen, but let's not start firebombing the good guys. I still don't endorse Doniago's approach, but hey, like seriously, whatever. Peace, out. Manning ( talk) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
On August 9, 2011 User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section of this 1970 sequel's article, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original 1968 film. It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.
This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.
I only found this by looking back in the article's history. I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save it from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the film's talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from, source it, and then adapt it into the article. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrap-up - Wrap up this discussion. It's been widely discussed and let's settle it down. BattleshipMan ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomballguy ( talk · contribs) has expressed concern over the notability over the Golden Raspberry Awards at the article's talk page. The user in question believes that they are not notable, as they are "defamatory awards meant to insult other actors". However, several other editors, including myself, believe that the awards are notable, as it is significantly covered by reliable sources and meets the general notability guidelines. As such, I am opening up a centralized discussion here to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter here and help build a consensus to see if the Golden Raspberry Awards are really notable to be included or not. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be a deletion monkey, but does Caught in Flight come anyway close to meeting WP:NFF? The only ref states "production will begin in the UK later this year". Anything else to add to help? Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Right now there is a discussion going on at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#Animated films regarding the current content and scope of the nabbox. Wider input would be helpful.
- J Greb ( talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Charlr6 and I are having a disagreement over adding The Hobbit to the List of most expensive films as in this edit. The Hobbit is released later this year, and on that basis I have opposed the addition of the film to the list, on the grounds that films are only added once they are released. It would be unbalanced of me to just put my side of the argument across, but the discussion at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#The_Hobbit could probably benefit from some impartial wisdom if anyone can spare a few minutes. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Have any of you have recent developments about a Good Day to Die Hard, the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie? They said they are start filming it in Hungary in January, which was last month as reported awhile ago. I haven't heard anything new about it this month and I'm sure you guys haven't heard any about it either. BattleshipMan ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't end up being a can of worms, as it looks like this topic has seen some spirited debate in the past. It appears that the Cinema of template runs counter to both Wikipedia's and WikiProject Film's guidance on categorization. As of today, the category holds 24,190 articles, not counting subcategories. Database reports lists American film as a polluted category. I made a {{ editprotected}} request on the Film US template talk page, asking to remove the automatic entry of articles into the American film category. Given that removing this feature could actually remove pages from the category altogether, if they don't have additional subcategories, I don't think an admin will make the edit.
I would love to hear any solutions to this. Over 24,000 pages in a single category? Obviously this doesn't hurt anybody, but it does seem to be categorization without a real use. Nobody is going to wade through that list of movies. However, it does work for countries like Iceland, with 65 pages plus another 22 in subcategories, or Ethiopia and its six pages. Cheers. Encycloshave ( talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the opening sentence of Avatar calls the film an "epic science fiction motion capture film". Now as far as I am aware there is no such thing as a motion capture film, motion capture is just a technique, an aid like a practical effect or CGI and we don't call Star Wars 3 an epic space opera CGI film. I might be wrong on this but it seems incorrect to use motion capture film as a descriptor because the technique is employed in teh film. An editor disagrees with me and the discussion is quite clearly going nowhere since the editor just keeps refuting anything I say so if anyone wants to comment for either viewpoint to actually move the topic toward a conclusion, the discussion is here. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Marc42west ( talk · contribs) has been deleting soured text from this film's Reception section without explanation. I told him Stop removing sourced text and marking it "minor" and ten minutes later he did it again. He's now on the verge of breaking 3 reverts. It deals with the film's critical response before and after it's Sundance screening - it was re-edited without the director and then got bad reviews in Oct. Now it's being given a limited release tomorrow. This user may be involved with the distributor - he has very few other edits. I haven't got involved in reporting people for vandalism or going to Requests for page protection - I thought it best to take it here and let someone more experienced deal with this. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I lowered the rating to start, but this may be to low to some so, please feel free to adjust as the project sees fit. The article had a great deal of unsourced material, but some may still see this as a possible C class. Unsure, so I am making note on all the projects for input.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
For some time now, the Julie Dash article (Julie is a director) has listed, under her filmography, the title "Making Angels." However, this film has never been made. "Making Angels" was listed in the Julie Dash article for the fist time as long ago as 2007; six years later, the title is still in the article under "Filmography," but the film still has not been made.
Whenever a wiki editor questions whether the title of a film that has never been made belongs in the Julie Dash article, someone (a hopeful film producer or other backer of the film, I believe) claims that it belongs there because "Making Angels" is listed in the Internet Movie Database. However, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films notes:
The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source, most especially for future films. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing has been found unacceptable. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable.
I object to people using Wikipedia as a launching pad for trying to produce movies or otherwise helping them get made. I use Wikipedia often in my work as a movie critic and journalist, and I do not like seeing the encyclopedia being polluted by self-promotions and other scurrilous activity. Can anyone help with this false reference in Julie Dash's filmography and see that "Making Angels" is removed? Thanks you in advance. 147.203.126.215 ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:209.216.198.51&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.216.198.240, has been reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SCFilm29, comments to article here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/. Coronerreport ( talk) 05:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Are we required to reference a cast list?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at AfD. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wiki-cineastes. I've created a new article; List of cinematic firsts, the title should hopefully be self explanatory.
Early cinema history is notoriously difficult to verify with claims and counter claims and some of the incremental developments being difficult to differentiate. I've tried to do the best I could, however now feel that putting it open to the wider wiki community will see it improved. Please feel free to fire in and improve it, especially for those firsts where I couldn't find a good, solid reference. yorkshiresky ( talk) 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This years Berlin Film Festival has concluded with the Italian film Caesar Must Die winning the Golden Bear. I invite all members of the Film Project to help expand any of the film articles that were in competition. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a danger of the articles on films turning into reviews as people forget what an encyclopedia should and should not do. Look at the long plot section in The Grey or The Departed for example. How much of this do we need to do our job rather than someone else's? Britmax ( talk) 20:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion about using the term "epic" in the lead of the GA candidate 2001: A Space Odyssey article. If anyone has any comments regarding whether it should be included or not, please contribute. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 22:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I can't stand it when a film's lead paragraph states genre, at least in most cases. For one thing, no two people seem to agree on which genre a film should be in (except in some very specific cases) and because, for some time now, filmmakers have been working in what one could call a cross-genre sort of way, and it can get ridiculous with "horror-comedy-noir with touches of sci-fi" (I just made that up, but I've seen some that come close). In most cases, I prefer the sentence simply say "film" and to let the body of the article describe it enough that people get it. On the Secretary article, I have to keep taking out the supposed genre "Sadomasochistic film", a genre that doesn't exist outside of porn. As a former filmmaker, I find all genres to be a very limiting description. And I've certainly never seen "epic" as a genre. Film institutes make lists all the time, as in "Ten Sexiest Films", "Ten Greatest Women's Movies", etc., but that doesn't mean their list category has been declared a genuine genre. -- TEHodson 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to invite anyone with a knowledge of and interest in Japanese cinema to review the article I have edited on Yasujiro Ozu's Late Spring. I have worked on the article for about eight months, beginning on June 12, 2011. Although it is quite long, I believe that the importance of Late Spring both within the career of Ozu and within the overall history of Japanese cinema more than justifies the length. Indeed, there is quite a bit of detail that I felt I needed to omit.
I wanted the reader with little or no knowledge of Japanese film history to understand: a) the significance of the Shomin-geki genre and the importance of Ozu to that genre; b) the pressures on filmmakers during the American Occupation and its censorship, and how Ozu dealt with those pressures; c) the central importance of both the screenwriter Kôgo Noda and the actress Setsuko Hara on this film and on the director's late period films in general; d) the importance of the theme of tradition versus modernity in this film; e) the central importance to the movie of the Noh play scene (which actually gave the film its title, as is explained there); f) Ozu's complex and subtle approach to characterization, and the relationship of the characters to traditional Japanese archetypes (e.g., the patriarchal father); g) the uniqueness of Ozu's visual style; and h) the ambiguous nature of what he achieved, which is open to many (and contradictory) interpretations.
What I'd like to request do is that anyone who reviews this may: a) suggest possible improvements to the article and b) after corrections, possibly support my attempt to promote the article as a Featured Article, which I intend to do quite soon.
I hope that I can get the article on Late Spring to the point where it sets some kind of standard for a Wikipedia cinema article.
Regards,
Dylanexpert ( talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I just ran into List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch from a link for Sproing, a video game company (the name re-directs to the list article). WP:FILM was tagged on the talk page, so I thought I'd bring it up to you guys; is this article in violation of WP:PLOT? I wasn't really sure why WP:FILM was tagged on this article so I figured I'd ask here. No need to bring something up for PROD or AfD if it meets a standard I'm not aware of. Nomader ( talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I created Film censorship with prose from List of banned films. The article was well overdue for creation. I will need a lot of work to get it up to scratch. There are bare urls, missing sources and there is a lot of content that will have to be written. Can I leave it with the experts? Ta. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 07:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I reported this on Wikipedia:Cleanup waaaaaay back in 2008, and no one did anything about it. Virtually all of the articles on individual entires in the Our Gang film series (see Our Gang filmography for a full list) have synopses copied and pasted from the New York Times website. I've tried to cleanup some of them, but I have a full time job and there are two hundred and twenty of these shorts, so I c an't do this thing myself.
Is there anyone who can assist with this before someone stumbles across them, emails the New York Times and the whole thing becomes a bigger issue than it needs to be? You don't need to write new synopses if you don't have time - just help delete the old ones. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have seen the term "unofficial remake" used sometimes to describe a film (like Main Aisa Hi Hoon, for example). But isn't "unofficial remake" just a nicer way of saying "rip-off"? If the film producers have legal permission to remake a film, then it is not an "unofficial" remake. So that only leaves illegal copying of a film for something to be an "unofficial remake". If that's right, then it would seem that to call a film an "unofficial remake" is to state that the producers of the film have broken copyright law, and therefore such claims should have strong, reliable sources or not be made at all. Am I right, or did I miss something? 99.192.48.193 ( talk) 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What should I do if I want an article, which I recently lifted to GA, published in the newsletter? X.One SOS 06:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film Arrietty should be moved to the official US title The Secret World of Arrietty. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Arrietty#Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title? and the requested move discussion is just below this discussion. Input and comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:DavisJune has been trying to remove any mention of this film being based on the Swedish film Let the Right One In but just the original book despite the fact that (in addition to numerous comments from cast and crew) the closing credits explicitly say that it's based off of the Swedish film's screenplay.
He's insisting that there's no proof for it being a remake despite being told otherwise and is calling any edit referring to it as such 'vandalism'. I'm bringing it over here for attention because he's ignoring the rest of us, not a lot of people visit the talk page at the moment, and if I persist I'll just get blocked for 3RR eventually.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
African Film Festival of Cordoba-FCAT (formerly African Film Festival of Tarifa) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see right column on website) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM).
I'm going to upload texts from their website in this category. -- M.casanova ( talk) 11:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an issue going on at the Whisper of the Heart (film) article. An IP hopper from France has been POV pushing on the article by using the talk page for disruption and adding sourced information without inline citations, posted on the talk page disruptively to prove a point, used all caps in an edit summary (which is considered uncivil), and has insisted that their edits are correct. The IP hopper has breached WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV ( [3], [4]). However, I and Edward321 disagree, since the IP's edits in question have left the article in a mess. The article needs more sources as well, since it has only four sources so far and I am trying to improve the article. As I don't want to get blocked for violating WP:3RR, I have started a discussion, which can be found here. Input from project members should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello to all project members. In my editing over the last year or so I keep coming upon the following two things in the EL sections. Many of you are probably already aware of these but I thought I would post this for those who aren't and for any suggestions as to where we might put these in our style guide.
Now I don't think that either of these is a major problem requiring any special attention. I mention them so that, as you are working on articles that already exist, you might take a second to go and check the EL section and clean these up if they are there. I am also wondering if their is any place in our style guide that we might add these so that future editors can fix the problems also. If not please don't worry about it and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Despite the relevant policies at WP:FILMPLOT and WP:NOT#PLOT and the discussion on the talk page, Easy on the fluids ( talk · contribs), a new user, has bloated up the plot summary in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York to 1,080 words and has accused me of ownership of the article (see [7], [8], [9]). Since he refuses to respond on the article's talk page, I am taking this discussion here to see if other editors can voice their opinion on the matter. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, the edit was made by a sockpuppet. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Another riviting discussion around infobox field parameters can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably an old question. Why there isn't the flag icon and the link inside the film (country name) templates? Thanks. -- M.casanova ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is a GA nominee. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The film Cry Baby Lane aired only once on Nickelodeon and was considered to be somewhat of a lost film given that no one could find anything about it. A decade after it was aired, someone on Reddit found a copy and uploaded it onto the internet. This got quite a bit of buzz on the internet.
This information was later attributed to in an article by The Daily seen here. It gives a brief history of the film as well as interviewing the director. This article is already cited in the article for other information.
User:George Ho removed the mention that it was found on Reddit as it "may violate copyrights" [10].
It's now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cry_Baby_Lane and while I admittedly don't understand everything that's going on, my guess is that George's problem (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "the secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies" and that the "secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies".
I'm not an expert on Wiki policy so if someone could clarify what the rules are in situations like this I would appreciate it. As my understanding goes, I don't think writing about something that would constitute as a copyright violation (someone finding a lost film and uploading it online) would count as being a copyright violation in and out of itself.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of sourced AFI honors from The Towering Inferno, is this an appropriate edit? I would think these would be appropriate for inclusion, but obviously the removing editor feels otherwise. I did a brief search of the archives but didn't find anything pertinent. Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for straightening out my misuse of the term awards (that came from the fact that some articles have them in that section) - that makes sense. I completely agree that "it should be restricted to films that actually made the lists". Moving them and turning them into prose, hopefully, won't be too much of a hassle. Thanks again for taking the time to explain everything. MarnetteD | Talk 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Could use additional eyes on this AFD. Debate ongoing between myself and another editor. Thanks. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user ( user:Gaijin42) sent me many nominations for deletion of African films (see my talk page). On the other hand I got an original barnstar "For your efforts starting missing articles on African films" (by user:Dr. Blofeld). -- M.casanova ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
We are trying to get Late Spring to GA or FA status. After a notification on my talk page, I have made a few suggestions here. All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I created Collage film, importing text from a section on collage film in Collage, not realizing that Found footage addresses precisely the same topic (with the exception of "collage films" that are created by physically collaging found objects onto clear filmstrip, which is a secondary meaning). I believe there needs to be a merge. IMO, found footage is not synonymous with films made from found footage, and so I prefer to merge to Collage film. I believe an article can be written on found film as an example of a filmic found object. The discussion is at Talk:Collage film#Merge discussion. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I asked Are some people here being payed by the commerical film review sites? Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (film) lacks any mention of the plot in the introduction, which is what I pointed to as a general problem in that post. __ meco ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This article contains a list of the FEW fisheye lenses. I´m sure its:
Please help or talk. Tagremover ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I am working on Gran Torino. When talking about the director's filming style and method of acting of the actors, that goes into "Production," correct? Do some film articles have entire sections dedicated to them? WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion for the Cars 2 reviews at Talk:Cars 2#Negative vs. Mixed to see if "negative" or "mixed" is cited terminology in the section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival (Milan, Italy) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see footer) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM). OTRS declaration sent.
I'm going to upload texts from their website like this one. -- M.casanova ( talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
On YouTube, some joker has posted what he claims is film of Civil War soldiers marching in 1863, shot by a "Léon-Alexandre Cànular." This film supposedly has been preserved by the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. But there's nothing about this Canular on Wikipedia, no reliable sources turn up in a Google search, nor in Google Books. The YouTube poster, OnlyJasonere, apparently has his post rigged so nobody can leave a comment contradicting him. Just wondered if anyone on this project knows anything about this hoax? Google reveals at least one newspaper, in Winston-Salem NC, has reposted it as a genuine motion picture from 1863 - but of course it's not. (More likely a clip from Birth of a Nation, IMO.) Wonder if Wikipedia needs an article on the hoax itself? Textorus ( talk) 08:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Total hoax. Taken from a clip of reenactment footage from one of the Gettysburg reenactments. Both clips and some commentary available here: http://lotu2.blogspot.com/2011/03/confederate-soldiers-marching-1863.html Surprised it fooled anyone, they are clearly reenactors, even with all the film effect to make it look old. Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.165.136 ( talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have converted the List of banned films from an awful mish-mash of bulleted lists and random tables into one big sortable table. Took a long time I hafta tell ya! I had already split out some of the longer lists on a country basis to separate articles. I would like to continue with splitting the list on a country basis where it is justified. The remainder, liting of five or so per country, should then go to Film censorship and the List of banned films page is then set up as a disambiguation page for all the separate articles. Does that sound like a good plan? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see discussion here and here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion may interest some people. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dead Man's Shoes (1939 film) is a bit confused. The infobox and IMDb say 1940, while BFI, the title and category say 1939. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Does The Comeback Kid (film) meet notability guidelines for films? It is a made for tv movie and I can't find many sources other than ones like IMDB that just list the cast and plot. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a move proposal here that would relegate the classic zombie films away from the main zombie film and pop culture article, and to a page about spiritual voodoo zombie practices. The pop culture page gets a ton of hits, and it would be a shame to have the presentation of the genre split. As a side note, Zombie (fictional) probably should be part of this project, despite its unfortunate name. LaTeeDa ( talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Talk:Paprika_(2006_film)#Concerns_about_the_reception_section about whether we should remove the Top Critics or change the introductory sentence about "positive reception" or "positive reviews" in the reception section of the Paprika (2006 film) article. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think members of this project need to take a look at this category, which I think is very problematic. Is "Neo-Western" an established term in use by critics? The description on the category page, which is very long, looks to be entirely original research. A discussion needs to commence as to whether this category should remain. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, for example, listal.com list only two:- "Kid" (1990) and "The Brave" (1997)
Mubi (Europe) list just eight. Of course, Wikipedia has first mention on Google but that has to be discounted here in this discussion. In my opinion, it is not a genre and is unworthy of inclusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence, but computer problems prevented me from going online. But, to rejoin the discussion, it seems to me that we are still at the same impasse: are there reliable sources for the term "neo-western" and are those sources in agreement as to a definition? If so, at least a stub article could be written that would provide some justification for the category. Not to repeat myself, but my concern all along has been arbitrary categorization that results from the lack of a solid definition. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Urgent! The Godfather ... again!
Take a look at The Godfather. A new editor has made close on 200 uninterrupted edits over the past two days, and is still doing so. No edit summaries.
Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The List of biggest box office bombs has recently caught my attention (due to the publicity around John Carter, which now tops the list). I have concerns regarding the list, which I have brought up on the talk page, as well as at the No Original Research noticeboard (see this thread). The list's main (and almost only) contributor is Clicklander ( talk · contribs), who has been reverting removal of what I believe is original research. Comments from experience editors would be appreciated! :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all since Mlm42 is mentioning me, I do not find it fair to delete my comments from this discussion. Secondly, to determin whether or not this list should be split or shrink, you should look at the definition of a bomb. According to the definition a bomb has nothing to do with return on investment. What defines a bomb is simply the huge amount of money it looses. I do not see why you should make two lists for one unique definition. Clicklander ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that you deleted my post. I Just saw that my post was deleted. I also do not claim ownership for any wikipedia article in noways. The article List of biggest box office bombs started from me but many other wikipedia editors contribute it as well to be as it is today. The fact that we disagree in some aspects does not mean that I do not respect other’s opinions. Clicklander ( talk) 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't se any film that lost only $7–8 million. Could you show me one? If there is any it should be removed. If there are other films that lost more that any in the list, then they should be added. That simple! Clicklander ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read again the definition carefully. A poor ROI does not necessarily mean big losses. The two examples of films you gave, one with $50 million and the other with $200 budget, meet the definition exactly in the same level since they lost the same regardless the initial investment. Regarding Alexander, it is a flop as it didn't meet the expectations in the box office, but according to the definition it is not a bomb, as it didn’t generate losses in the end. In the opposite way, a film with very poor ROI but with very low investment cost cannot be considered as bomb either. All films in the list have been chosen to be there because of their huge loss. That’s the only criterion! As for your question up to what amount of loss a bomb should be added in the list, my answer is, I do not know! To limit the number of the bombs to a top 50 could be an option or another option could be to put a threshold for the losses. For the time being losses under $30 million are considered from the editors as minor bombs but this can be under discussion. Clicklander ( talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it always worthy to note in an article if a film has been screened at a film festival?
The Living Daylights was screened at a September 1987 film festival in Deauville, France with 39 other films (apparently the 13th Deauville American Film Festival - the Spanish source says "El Festival de Cine de Deauville, Francia"). The El Nuevo Herald said "En el programa del festival figuran unos cuarenta filmes, la mayoria de los cuales seran presentados en primicia mundial, entre los que se cuentan Man on Fire, de Elie Chouraqui, interpretado por Scott Glenn y Jade Malle, y The Living Daylights, en el que actuan Timothy Dalton y Maryam d'Albo."
A user pointed out that the premiere of The Living Daylights was held on June 29, 1987, and it had already screened across the US and Europe before the Deauville festival.
But at the same time the Deauville film festival is Wikipedia notable. Is is it still worthy to say in the article that the film screened there? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else think that this film simply isn't notable? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In WT:STARWARS i mentioned a large number of articles that had no third party reliable source. The wikiproject seems to be slightly inactive and only got one approval to redirect the articles. As a start to gain attention, i only redirected the documentary articles. A certain Editor reverted them saying i ddn't have a good reason, however in the project's talk page, did not make it clear why. So in effort to avoid an edit war, i come here in help of getting a stronger consensus. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone who is interested could add their thoughts here Talk:Titanic (1943 film)#Edits of April 2012 it would be appreciated. This article does not seem to be on many watchlists and if any of the items involved could be improved that would be great. On a side note with the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic coming up next week it is possible that articles for all of the film adaptations could see higher than normal traffic so it anyone wants to add them to their watchlist that would be most helpful. Thanks for your time and input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently created categories of Japanese films by various years have been created (eg, Category:1999 Japanese films). I've raised these at CfD here. Input is welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a split proposal at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series that could really benefit from the consideration of the project. This article receives 200,000 hits a month and is ranked in the top 700 articles on Wikipedia, as well as being a featured list. It is obviously a key article within the Film Project so it is important that major alterations to it are carefully considered. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
While reviewing new articles, I have tagged some Indian Marathi films, such as Nirop and Gandha, for notability. The author, AnimeshKulkarni ( talk), is asking me why I tagged these films. He plans to write articles on many Indian films, including all category National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi films. Since I am not at all an expert on foreign language films, but I did have doubts about notability of these films, I am posting here to ask for comments.
Are all the films awarded the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi, and beyond those, all the films in the Indian category:National Film Awards notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that things have changed over the years and that the number of participants in the film project has fluctuated. There is nothing wrong with that and this has happened in several other projects. I am wondering of we should just remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Coordinators section on our projects main page. Per this User talk:Erik#Are you there Erik hasn't edited since last November and I miss his input. The other editors listed are all still active but I think they are pursuing regular editing rather specific project items. If there are any other sections of our main page that you think should be updated please fell free to suggest them. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The Tag & Assess doesn't need anyone to lead it, just a bot to do the flagging, which anyone can request. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people". Is this it? Because then we really need to stop this trend. The coordinators haven't coordinated anything so far, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators does not mention anything about "leading by example" (the page has no real substance whatsoever -- it sounds like something a politician may say). But let's say the coordinators actually coordinated stuff, then we do still not need to hold elections. In order to hold elections and add elevated user roles, there must exist some justification. In this case, there is none, unless you count "'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people" which any editor can do.
A horror example of this trend can be found at WP:HORROR, a project with 25 members and 4 coordinator positions: Coordinator, Deputy Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator and Editor-in-Chief. Seriously?!?!?
We tried it, it didn't work, now get rid of it. jonkerz ♠talk 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I quit the position after becoming the target of some rabid WP:OWN editors, now both gone (or in hibernation) but the damage was done. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
An editor had created a completely new article for the 3D release of Titanic: Titanic in 3D. I redirected this article to the 3D release section of the main article at Titanic_(1997_film)#3-D_conversion_and_2012_re-release, because generally we don't create new articles about re-releases or 3D versions but he reverted it. For example, the Star Wars special editions, The Avatar Special Edition, and the Phantom Menace and Lion King 3D releases are all covered on the main article. What is more, most of the content is actually copied over from the main article, there is virtually no distinct content.
Does anyone else agree with the content fork, or do you think we should cover the 3D release on the main Titanic (1997 film) article? My view on this in regards to all film articles, is that all re-releases should be covered on the main article, and only if the re-release section becomes too big should we consider forking the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
A combine/merge tag has been placed on the Titanic in 3D article, direct further comments there. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC).