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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
People of the film project,
I have something to alert you. A user called Redcoyote18 has been shortening films' runtime in the info boxes down. From the runtime listed in the references (from the very beginning to the time the credit really ends), he changes it to the runtime from the beginning to the point the story stops (excluding the runtime of the credit).
He has been editing the films' info boxes for months, and has been passing unnoticed, since his edits are small. I've already told him not to shorten the run time, but since he has made so many edits, I have to tell you too.
I've already fixed The Matrix series, Resident Evil series, and Jaws. If you have your film project listed on his contribution list, kindly go check and see if the runtime of the films you're working on matches the reference for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redcoyote18
Thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. He doesn't seem to be blanking anything or put in false contents, though. So I don't think he's vandalizing. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors are fairly useless. They should be broken down by decade.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly see the topic on the discussion page here [2]. Most of its references are in short citations, with only names and page numbers. But the core general reference they are tied to is now missing, rendering over 30 statements in the article without references. It's an FA, so please do something before it's been re-evaluated and got demoted. No one can find a book out of only the name and page numbers. I need someone who worked on it and knows what book they were talking about. Anthonydraco ( talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dot the i#Move? for a discussion on the proposal to move Dot the i to Dot the I. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Brawley Nolte currently redirects to Nick Nolte, and while Brawley is his son, having the link redirect to the top of Nick's article is a bit misleading and has already caused some confusion. I'm not sure that Brawley has enough notability to merit an article of his own, though if anyone wants to set one up I won't stop them. Otherwise, I'm not sure what correct procedure is in this case...can the redirect point to the Personal life section of Nick's article, or should the redirect be removed, or is there a better option? Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose that the low budget film article be merged into the b movie and z movie articles. They both relate enough that I don't think the low budget film article is necessary. I have already proposed this on all of the article's talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently, we mainly reference Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles to help report the critical reception. Some less-tended film articles also reference Movie Review Intelligence (MRI) and Movie Review Query Engine (MRQE). (EDIT: When saving this comment, I found that MRI was blacklisted as spam. This may need revisiting depending on this discussion.) I have noticed from time to time that these websites were being referenced. Looking at the websites' Wikipedia articles today, they seem to have some claim to notability. In my research, I also found this which covers MRI with RT and MC. MRQE is also mentioned in passing in that article. I am wondering what other editors think about referencing MRI or MRQE on Wikipedia? It seems like their reputations have steadily grown since their incarnations, so there could be a case now where there was not before. Or if not now, there could be a case in the near future. A couple points to consider: Are these added figures useful where RT and MC figures already exist? Would it help us move away from the existing duopoly (basically, adding variety), or are they not prominent enough at this point?
A related thought: While {{ Film ratings}} was recently deleted, it seemed mainly due to the individual reviews section. The template did have a section for aggregate scores which I thought could have value. Would it be possible to have an infobox for just the 3-4 aggregator websites? (It may be too soon to suggest that, but I wanted to put that out there.) With the infobox, we could set parameters (including a new aggregator website only when there is consensus) and possibly standardize score descriptions through using {{ H}} hover boxes. It would be the website name, the number of reviews (with hover-over description describing the critics), and the website's score (with hover-over description on how it was determined). It could help us worry less about referencing such websites in prose. What do you all think—of referencing MRI and/or MRQE, and of having an infobox that consolidates aggregate scores? Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have run into a few editors insisting on putting spoilers in beyond the Plot section, such as at Talk:Skyfall#Necessity_of_Spoiler. WP:SPOILERS does not give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at the lead and/or the cast list without having the plot given away. Most people have found ways to discuss the fundamentals of a character without going into their final fate, yet this continuously comes up. Can we get a policy implemented expressing this, here and on the WP:SPOILERS page? - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Not if there is a valid reason for having it there, in line with WP:LEAD. If it fails WP:LEAD, then yes, keep it out, but all information should pass that particular barrier, not just anything we may consider to be a "spoiler". - SchroCat ( talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see this discussion on the article's talk page, and this related discussion on the infobox talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the lead paragraph on the talk page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. As it according to it's talk page banner falls under this project, some input from participants of this project would be appreciated. Regards. MisterShiney ✉ 08:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that today is when the Oscar noms are announced. Usually there's a spate of unsourced additions on the related film articles, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone: right now the pages for Academy Award categories (like this one) use the default {{Infobox award}} template, which has a "current holder" field. This doesn't feel right for stuff like the Academy Awards, because there is only a "most recent winner", not a "current holder"— all the past awards don't go away just because there's a new winner. I have never heard in either written or spoken English a phrase like "Jean Dujardin, current holder of the Best Actor award..." (or even its corollary, "Fredric Marsh, previous holder of the Best Actor award..."). Looking through the infobox parameters I can see that "current holder" is really the only place to put this info, but the wording is problematic. Any thoughts or history I should be aware of? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of links to the Classic Movie Hub website, mostly because one user— Amgcatz—seemed to be spamming the links for promotion, and because the links did not seem to add much to the articles.
Various blogs report that Annmarie Gatti started working on the Classic Movie Hub website in 2009 then went live with it in February 2012. It looks like it invites user information but I don't think it is an open wiki; at any rate the user blogs are not being linked. I don't know the copyright status of its film and actor images, but this page at least appears to ignore the US laws against images of sculptures ( freedom of panorama.)
Here are some examples of how the website was brought to various Wikipedia articles:
To be fair, the images and data appear to conform to Wikipedia:External links such that they are "accurate and on-topic, [containing] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". The images are generally very small and so are not valuable commercially, and they are not able to be downloaded—you cannot "right-click" on them to download.
So what is the thinking of Film project members? Binksternet ( talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(I've never used this wiki before so I hope that I'm doing this correctly.) First of all, thank you for opening this up for discussion. It is much appreciated, and actually very helpful to me in understanding what happened. I respect your insight, and no matter the outcome, I just want to explain a little bit... I had mentioned in my email to Binksternet, that my intent was not to spam; I just thought that I was adding valuable information. I know that I added the links in some spurts, but it was because one idea led to another. I added links about the Clark Gable Museum and the Jimmy Steward Museum, choosing the Classic Movie Hub Page over 1) the Clark Gable Foundation because that site is somewhat convoluted (i.e. not the clearest website to navigate) and 2) the Jimmy.org Page because that page was taking too long to load and was timing out. I added the various lists because I thought that classic movie fans would like to see lists of the iconic/older classic movies (like Pride of the Yankees) vs every sports movie ever made, etc. I similarly added the other lists. Regarding putting the Classic Movie Hub link in the top portion of the link lists (and in hindsight I can see why that would put you off) - I just thought that since the site was specifically related to Classic Era Hollywood Stars (and both Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart are considered movie stars from that era), that it was okay. I can't recall 100%, but I don't think I put either link above the 'king' of movie sites, imdb. I had also fully intended to add other useful links, i.e. Find a Grave biographies, etc. but hadn't done it yet. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and please know that I would love to maintain the privilege of adding content to wikipedia, so any helpful guidelines/parameters/advice on how to approach adding information or links in the future would be greatly appreciated. -- Amgcatz ( talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I was hesitant to do that before (seemed a little overwhelming), but I see your point. Might take a while for me to navigate (i.e. determine what content I can contribute), but let me see what I can do. Thanks! -- Amgcatz ( talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about foreign films (specifically, their titles). Is this the correct place to ask? If not, please redirect me to the proper place. Here is my question. When an American film has several words in the title, they are all capitalized (except for minor prepositions). I have noticed that the foreign counterparts only capitalize the first word and not the subsequent words. Is this the correct format? Or not? Here is a quick example, off the top of my head. The American title of this film is Life Is Beautiful, with all three words capitalized. The Italian title is La vita è bella, with no words capitalized beyond the first. So, what exactly is the correct format? Also, does this apply to book titles as well? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I almost posted this on a talk page somewhere, but I think this is a general problem. I think deletopedia hit and there is no longer a relevant page called "Crime drama". It is, however, a category commonly used in US television. The page for Crime film is defined as "Crime films are films which focus on the lives of criminals." is not the same as a "Crime drama". There's a redirect set from "Crime drama" to the Crime film page. All Crime drama links for detective TV series that aren't " Police procedural" now go to that page. See Rizzoli & Isles, Elementary (TV series), Perception (U.S. TV series) . BTW: I've never even heard of "police procedural." I assume it's either a British expression or literature term. The shows that link there are also called "crime drama" on the respective show's page, e.g. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation But there are crime dramas that don't match the description for police procedural and links for the genre there now go entirely into the wrong direction. Kindly fix this. Should your portal not be the correct audience, kindly repost this where there are competent contributors who can alleviate the issue. THANKS -- 99.11.160.111 ( talk) 23:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently attempted to change [4] the importance of the article Ugetsu on WikiProject Japan's importance scale from "High" to "Mid" to match its source material, but was immediately reverted without explanation [5]. I was motivated by the fact that within the scope of Japanese society and (pop) culture, the film is significantly less important than the book, and seems to have only attained its "High" rank based on its importance in world cinema outside Japan. Within Japan, the film is relatively obscure, while the book is a universally known classic. If this is the case then the film should be ranked highly in WikiProject Film, and not in WikiProject Japan. In order to clear up the relative discrepancy between the book and film, I then changed the ranking of the book [6] (not a sockpuppet -- I don't know how to log in on my phone), but now this book ranks above the probably more important The Love Suicides at Sonezaki and Chūshingura, and the definitely more important Ogura Hyakunin Isshu. Can someone with experience in this area help clear up the problem? Thanks! elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion about moving the article title. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed a number of articles on Japanese films given the names of the films in the format "English Title (日本語表記のタイトル, Rōmaji Hyōki no Taitoru)". This appears in accordance with WP:NCF's guideline for naming foreign films, but the only example given is a Spanish film, where the foreign title in Roman lettering is actually an official name of the film. However, this is not the case with Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. films, where the official title is in a different writing system and romanized title is something Wikipedians have added.
It is actually convention on Chinese topics never to italicize or bolden Chinese text, and I'm pretty sure Japanese topics work the same way. With regard to the romanized titles, MOS:J encourages giving the Japanese for the article title, but hardly any articles give these "Japanese titles" in bold. I was wondering why should film articles be any different?
(I'm posting this both here and on WikiProject Japan to see if I can get some clarification, or if this actually is a real problem maybe we can work out how to fix it.)
elvenscout742 ( talk) 07:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Can people give their input here because I am seriously about to lose my temper with this idiot and I can't deal with him anymore. He removed two characters because he doesn't believe they are important, I put them back because I believe they are and now he's being a petty child over it. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I was reading a couple of the articles on early Kurosawa films just now, and I noticed most of them have "aka XYZ" in the opening sentence. Given the situation in Japan in the 1940s, I doubt many of them were actually released outside Japan until much later. I removed the one at The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and replaced it with a different one, since the only instance I could find of the previous one being used in a reliable source was a book by Donald Richie, where it was given in a long list of variant titles. (I replaced it with the variant title he gave as his title.)
However, I'm not sure we should include "aka" in the opening sentence unless it is actually a title under which the film saw significant distribution in an English-speaking country. Film scholars and Japan scholars seem to make up their own translations of the titles of Japanese films all the time, so we should have redirects, but the current state of affairs in No Regrets for Our Youth, The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and The Most Beautiful seems a bit silly. (I don't mention Sanshiro Sugata Parts I and II, aka Judo Saga I and II, because they were actually released under those titles.)
elvenscout742 ( talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003, but the main article itself Iowa Film Critics is also included in the deletion discussion. More input would be a good idea from some fresh eyes for this discussion. — Cirt ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
On the 2000 release of the DVD there are a couple of interviews, in Mel Gibsons interview he said they used a "Bleach by-pass process" and thats how they tinted the film. I am not sure how that works, but I was wondering can you cite DVD interviews as reference material? Govvy ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, 2014 will see the 75th anniversaries of two iconic films: Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. It would be great if we could get these articles up to GA status some time this year, so I've started work on GWTW myself. The Wizard of Oz article is basically at GA standard in terms of coverage, so if anyone is interested in golden age cinema or is an OZ buff and is looking for something to do, I think it would be a good project. Betty Logan ( talk) 09:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Should the IMDB link "name" parameter use the original language name, or the name as used on IMDB? I restored the link at Double Suicide of Sonezaki to the name used on IMDB, and not the romanization, since it appears as false (doesn't match the title of the IMDB page) and misleading (if the linked page doesn't match the page as stated, the someone may think our link is broken) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What do others think of the filmography section on the article of Filipino film director Brillante Mendoza? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone at WikiProject Film!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The articles Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff both discuss Japanese films, but are named for their US release titles. I tried to include in the intros a reference to the fact that in numerous English-speaking countries the films are known by their Japanese titles, but was reverted. After extensive discussion, I took this to DRN, and was told to come back here. Anyone up for a little mediation? elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been wondering if we should hold an election for project coordinators, since the Film project did have an election back in 2011 and almost two years have passed. Thoughts or ideas? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor seems to think it appropriate to adapt the navbox into an entire list of everything Welles was ever involved in, including linking to Shakespeare plays, because Welles once directed a stage version, etc. There are also duplicate links to different sections of pages (trailers for Citizen Kane for example). Anyone have anything to add here? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to recommend several pages that editors of film-related articles may find useful:
The blue links can be added to your watchlist, where the external links can be added somewhere on your user page for you to review on occasion. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see the following discussions regarding generic lists and lists of films by language:
Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Somehow Template:Bollywood was wrongly made part of this discussion about National_cinema_navigation_templates and now they are being removed from Bollywood-related articles, like films, actors etc. Bollywood ( Hindi cinema) is only a regional cinema and largely a Hindi language cinema, the National cinema navigational template for India is Template:Cinema of India, which is appropriately used in most cases. So now will the involved editors do the needful and correct the mistake, thanks! -- Ekabhishek talk 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
After much debate on Taare Zameen Par's talk page, I would like to have more editor involvement so a consensus can be reached regarding the placement of alternate titles. The film is most known as Taare Zameen Par, and was released in cinemas worldwide under that foreign title. However, the international DVD release years later titled it as "Like Stars on Earth". All of the English sources used (except for ones related to the DVD release) refer to it under the foreign title.
The guideline for alternate titles says to put them in the first or second sentence. I brought this up at the Naming Conventions guideline talk page, and the only editor to respond brought up a good point that I agree with: because "Like Stars on Earth" is the DVD title only, the guideline doesn't necessarily apply because it involves a format title rather than an alternative title (like with Blade Runner and Blade Runner: Director's Cut. Additionally, the DVD title is already mentioned later in the lead section along with the DVD release, making it seem unnecessary/redundant to me to have it mentioned again in the opening sentence. The original discussion can be found here. Thanks. Ω pho is 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! We request feedback in the peer review of the article Mother India. Please help so that it gets readied for FAC. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:American male actors (but not any of its brother cats like Category:English male actors) is being considered for deletion. I thought people connected with this project might be interested in weighing in on the discussion there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the articles for this year's award nominated films could be improved a great deal. Anyone concur? RAP ( talk) 17:31 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been going through cast lists at some films recently and have found many links that either go to the entirely wrong person or that go to disambiguation pages. There are other films where most of the links in the cast section go nowehre. This often leads to the development of incorrect links as new articles are formed. Is there any policy about to what extent the cast section should link to articles on the cast. Specifically, is there any policy on what to do with a bunch of links that go nowhere? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Several editors specialize in dab work, you should ask them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Long story short, could someone please create Template:ActingFilmography/doc and transpose it into Template:ActingFilmography? I have no idea how to use this template due to lack of a document. I'm asking this group due to Template:ActingFilmography seeming to fall under this WikiProject's guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Example Film (2012) | Example role |
Hello everyone. So one of my favorite pages to use on here is the 2013 in home video page (along with past years). Another page I love is the List of albums scheduled for release in 2013. The later has a color coding scheme for separating the months. Is there any reason that this has not been implemented in the year in home video pages? I am more than happy to make the change but since this is not how these pages have been done historically, I wanted to get some input. Any thoughts? -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
At the talk page for WikiProject Film's guidelines, there is a discussion about the {{ AllRovi movie}} template and whether or not it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia's film articles. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I put the crystal template on Parkland (film) because the film has just started being filmed and doesn't even have a distributor yet, but the template was removed. What's the guideline on using the crystal template? RNealK ( talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
|future=yes
" parameter in {{
WikiProject Comics}}.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1 is relisted after one month delay. Either join in discussion, or be bold to the article. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just opened an RfC that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It can be found at Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh#RfC on use of "second largest". Please give it a look and comment if you're so inclined. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Johnpacklambert has been mass replacing our actor categories with actresses for women. Pretty sure there was consensus against this for gender equality reasons. Surprised nothing has been said to him so far.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Is tard a typo for turd? The American male actors category was closed as a keep just hours ater we were alerted, that hardly reflects consensus. I accept the actress categories but not if that means we have to start using "male actor" for actor categories.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to add to this Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness#Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Zatōichi (2003 film) -- should another film in the film franchise that wasn't released in the English-language market affect the name of the articles of films that were released in the English language market? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Movie Review Intelligence is currently on the spam blacklist due to the website being solicited as linkspam several years ago. A request was recently made to remove the website from the blacklist, but the request was declined as seen
here. The decline was disputed and discussed with the admin
here, and there is now a follow-up request to add the website to the spam whitelist. The new request can be seen
here.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Due to lack of attention regarding this topic, I'll be leaving it behind for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the topic if another editor expresses interest in resolution on a later date. Here are the relevant links for future reference:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A complete rewrite on Family film and Children's film has been done at User:Robin klein/sandbox/Children's film or Family film. As per discussion at [ [7]] the rewrite on Family Film and Children's Film along with the page Family film and the page Children's film) is to be merged and moved to Children's and Family film. Please help with the merge and move. Thanks Robin klein ( talk) 07:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
[Discussion moved from Village pump (proposals) ]:
I notice the film MOS doesn't really have any guidance on this point, and we don't really have a stable of Film series FAs to drawn from. At some point I want to get the series article for Star Trek (film series) up to snuff. In 2009 it was unilaterally moved from List of Star Trek films to its current title with the defense of "per WP:NCF", although as it stands the series article in my opinion would be better served with a list; the article is a laundry list of IMDB credits, recitation of plot and a million little tables. Do we have any good examples of film series or film lists? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in checking out The Wikipedia Library. Apparently you can sign-up for access to resources like HighBeam and JSTOR that would normally be behind a paywall. Had not seen this before and wanted to share. Do any editors have any experience with this? Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
At Pink Floyd—The Wall, there is a discussion to move the article. It's an interesting case of exactly what punctuation to actually use. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
...that is if they do not reach their fundraising goals. It seems they are cash strapped and are looking for $50K to stay afloat. More info can be found here.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Hello. Here is a link to a page which links itself to the Film Project. [
[8]]. If you look at the main article page, you will also notice that there appears to be some confusion/disambiguation between film, and television.
It looks like this was originally intended as film-specific, BUT-if you look at the edits, including the most recent one which was done by my self to include The Real Housewives, television series, you will notice that most of the list is related to television opening title segments.
The image, which is shared on another page, is most certainly a film image.
Please do not interpret my request that Project Film look at this as an "article for deletion"-request. The info. there is high-quality info. but it may need some tweaking? I would appreciate any advice/suggestions on sorting this out a little because I'd really like to upgrade the opening sequence list as it applies to the television category specifically, or maybe link it to some Television project lists.-TY
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree but I am not experienced enough to contribute a "split"-subject w/o causing a ruckus. TY by the way for the Google Book clue. Also that fact conforms with how the (two) pages currently are listed with "Title sequence"-specifically being the "plus tv"-page and "Opening Sequence"-being more exclusive to film although as your Google Book check pointed-out "title Sequence"-could be both. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject Film might be interested in this discussion on the RS Noticeboard regarding the conditions under which a documentary film can be a reliable source in Wikipedia. The discussion relates specifically to the articles The Queen of Versailles and David A. Siegel. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a request to capitalize La jetée. The request to move the article is here. Would like input on how to work with the letter case in this particular instance. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
All, I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about modifying the guidelines for greater clarity about mentioning nationality in the lead sentence (which is covered at MOS:FILM#Lead section). The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The external link template {{ AllRovi movie}} is nominated for deletion at TfD. The discussion can be found here. Especially since this template is used across many film articles, editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help out, and expand the article on Child's Pose, it has been nominated for inclusion on the in the news section of the main page but before it can appear it needs to be expanded on. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If any members of the project would like to add their thoughts here Talk:Full Metal Jacket#Images it would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new Barnstar 2.0 version of the film barnstar, available here [9]. Frigid Ninja 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
All right. I have a question for the project. Some female actors (i.e. actresses) may prefer to use the term "actor". Would it be appropriate to use either "actors" or "actresses" for female actors? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone seen Rocky 2 recently, or clearly remember the ending? An editor has contested my revert of his edit, which I felt was a "viewer interpretation"; my reasons are at User talk:Betty Logan#Rocki_II_edits. In truth though my memories of it are fuzzy at best so I'm not really sure if my revert was correct anyway. Can someone familiar with the ending have a look, and if the original edit was correct then please feel free to revert mine. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like some other editors to take a look at the cast list for this film and help me answer some questions. I reverted an anonymous editor's changes to the cast list, but, comparing our cast list to that found on IMDb, I noticed some discrepancies, mostly characters whose first names are not given on IMDb. Since the latter's list is said to match the final credits, what is the source for our list? Why is our list not also in credits order? And, last but not least, why are there significant differences in some of these names? I am puzzled by this and would like to hear some other opinions. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This FAR is overdue, so join in discussion. In the meanwhile, do not be afraid to fix the article Jurassic Park. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Films distributed by Disney, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing disagreement between several (two?) editors on this material's worthiness of inclusion. There has been no discussion started, only reverting. Additional eyes and outside opinions might be helpful. 216.16.228.78 ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I was scanning for articles in template categories and found a bunch in the M's of Category:Japanese film director navigational boxes. They are all the result of User:Righteousskills trying to create new director navboxes by substing in code from existing navboxes (in this case using a Japanese director template as a source, hence ending up in that cat). I've given him some pointers on template use but I don't suppose someone here could mentor him a bit? (S)he could be an asset to your Project, they obviously has enthusiasm and a love of films, it just needs to be focussed a bit. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Does a film with only a surviving trailer belong in List of lost films or List of incomplete or partially lost films? I'm doing a cleanup and there are examples in both lists. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
file:LadyGodivafilmposter.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Poster of the movie The Big Circus.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Poster of the movie The Man from the Alamo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
file:The Mark of the Hawk 1957 poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
image:Kingkongvsgodzilla-656x1024.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Kidnapped1960poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, Variety has modified their site design to make the site even more unusable. This means at the moment a lot of variety references are not working. It says they are migrating the content over to the new design so hopefully they will come back, but if not, anything you relied on may need searching on the new site or replacing. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The following are already in this project's Alerts page, but I draw your attention to them as I intend to cite them as precedents to rename other categories to the naming convention "Films based on"... works.
– Fayenatic L ondon 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have rewritten the article Film director. It had been tagged for years and I felt the time had come to try to do something about it... Please check my changes. Moreover I like to suggest to remove one or more the old lists because they are terribly long and one can also get there rather easily by merely using the categories at the bottom of this article. NordhornerII ( talk) _The man from Nordhorn 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. On the article for Amour (and possibly other articles), an IP has added that it has won several awards from the Burgundy Film Critics, stating "It is an association of french critics". But are they notable? Google searching either "Burgundy Film Critics Awards" or "Burgundy Film Critics" doesn't hint towards notability. Does anyone have any further info? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone go through Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source and add sources to all the film posters found in this cleanup catgory? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. There seems to be a disagreement over how to present the cast listing on the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article. The discussion is at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#Cast listing. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Members of the project may be interested in the discussions going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Gadyukin and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucharest Film Festival. You will note that, in furtherance of their project/fantasy/hoax, those involved have created ads, You tube videos and have gone so far as to create pages at IMDb like this [10] and this [11]. It does illustrate how little fact checking is done at IMDb. Another difference is that there is no way to find out who/how/when the IMDb pages were created. At least we can dig into WikiP's edit history to track things. We can also get the hoaxes deleted through the AFD process. I wonder if IMDb even has a process to get rid of made up pages like these. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if I could please have some thoughts on the article of the 1936 HG Wells film Things to Come, particularly in relation to the age-old question of WP:FILMRELEASE, along with other pointless additions of US information into the infobox of a British film. Earlier I removed the superfluous US information from the infobox only to have it reverted for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The US dates and other information is not particularly notable in itself—certainly not for the infobox—but could be in the article body instead. I'd be very grateful to hear the thoughts of others on the US material. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The title of the 2005 film is now discussed. Please join in to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried to submit an AFC to get an article going about this Fiennes' documentary, Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow. I just learned about the movie in a presentation at the local museum, and I wanted to read more. My first choice would have been to just read a Wikipedia article about it, and there I would find the links to its website, the director, the artist. But there was no Wikipedia article, just a few mentions in the director's, artist's and musician's articles, and my Google search for the tile AND movie OR film gave me half a million hits.
It seemed a no-brainer to start a Wikipedia article, but I ran into an editor who is demanding an unspecified number of references and deems The Guardian and The New York Times, to be questionable sources. I added half a dozen more sources, but I cannot win a battle with a user who calls NYTimes a "questionable" source.
For outsiders at Wikipedia it is completely arbitrary what will be sufficient for an article. Learning that the NYTimes is a questionable source is the sort of arbitrary stuff that outsiders at Wikipedia are frequently faced with. I think this could be an article. It does meet the stated requirements of having two reviews in notable sources (the Times is not a questionable source), and it has multiple other reviews. It opened at Cannes in 2010, a non-invited film, but still notable enough to open there. It has been released in over a dozen countries.
Flat out, it is notable. I have more sources to add, but for now I put it in the director's article. It should be a stand alone film article, though.
What else do I need? Thanks. - 68.99.89.234 ( talk) 04:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow | |
---|---|
Directed by | Sophie Fiennes |
Produced by | Sophie Fiennes Émilie Blézat Kees Kasander |
Cinematography | Remko Schnorr |
Edited by | Ethel Shepherd |
Music by |
Jörg Widmann György Ligeti |
Production companies | Amoeba Film Kasander Film Company Sciapode |
Release dates |
|
Running time | 105 minutes |
Country | France |
Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow is a 2010 Sophie Fiennes documentary about German industrial artist Anselm Kiefer's creation of a Gesamtkunstwerk in an abandoned factory complex outside Barjac, France. [1] [2] [3] Kiefer moved to the South of France from Germany in 1993 and began creating his art installation, "La Ribaute" on 35 acres of land belonging to an old silk factory. [4] The film begins with a lengthy silence to show the tunnels and spaces the artist created before showing the artist and his process in creating a large landscape painting. The film opened at Cannes in 2010 as a special screening. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "By Sheri Linden" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
... if the word "Award" isn't the last word? I'm planning to create an article about PMPC Star Awards for Movies (there's also PMPC Star Awards for Television and PMPC Star Awards for Music), and I want to be guided on how it should be named. – H T D 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear film buffs: I have been reviewing new pages, and I sometimes come across film articles where the only sources are movie databases. I don't know enough about these to tell which ones have editor-overseen content. I'm pretty sure that the IMDB is all user-generated, and therefore not reliable, but what about the others? AllMovie seems to keep editor reviews and user reviews separate, as does Turner Classic. Has your project made a list of these web sites and which parts of them are or are not populated by knowledgeable people as apposed to fans? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the name of the film described in the article A Late Quartet has been changed by the distributors to Performance which means it ought to be moved to Performance (2012 film). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted an editor who added an animated gif ( File:GremlinsStripeShootsBilly.gif) to the Gremlins article. Are such images ever considered acceptable? I do not recall ever seeing one. His rationale for the image's use seems flawed. Is this image even kosher? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is blatantly violating plot summary guidelines at The Thing (1982 film). I'm close to 3RR and don't know whether reverting plot bloating would qualify as an exemption. They're not engaging in dialogue and I have left a note at the article's Talk page as well as their Talk page. Would greatly appreciate other editors' assistance! Doniago ( talk) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I am transferring over part of the discussion at Talk:List of lost silent films (1925-1929) for more input.
TCM's trivia is no better a source than IMDb's, especially when it's worded exactly the same. [13] Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The article film producer has been rewritten. It resembles now in regards to its structure the articles film director, line producer and executive producer. Please check it out and rectify whatever isn't alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII ( talk • contribs) 00:20, March 15, 2013
Quick note for the participants of WikiProject Film. Someone recently created Category:Abandoned film projects for films who were abandoned before principal photography even began. This is distinct from Category:Unfinished films (abandoned before completing principal photography) and Category:Unreleased films (abandoned after the completion of principal photography). I'm not entirely convinced that the new category is needed but if it is kept, a number of entries in Category:Unfinished films need to be moved to the new category. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between Category:Abandoned film projects and Category:Cancelled films. From my perspective, the easiest way forward is to simply dump the problem on you guys. :-) Pichpich ( talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I know, I know it's a pathetic subject but the user is being an unrelenting pain and edit warring over it. I've reported him to AIV but imagine nothing will come of it. The credits as they stand are based off the poster on the article, not any personal preference just the cast as it stands on the poster. The user replaced them with film ordering because he believes the credits is based off importance in the film; he ignored me when I mentioned alphabetic or in-order-of-appearance lists. I put them back to the poster one because the poster is right there, easily checkable without owning the film and helps prevent the kind of stuff this user is sadly doing. No messing about, it's just THERE. He iwll not let it go, and I'm assuming he is a fanboy because there is no way someone should be causing me this much hassle because of film credits, but the way he keeps going on about prominence makes me think its fanboying, he wants it because it credits cast members higher than others, earlier edits he made to the article had him saying pretty much this along the lines of "Carrey is clearly more important to the film based on the official synopsis" when putting him higher. As far as I am aware there is no guideline or rule that says one must be used over the other, so in this case what is there is perfectly acceptable, especially since the cast sections are not based off importance EVEN IF film credits WERE, and can as easily be entirely a block of prose. I would appreciate a 3rd opinion in the discussion either way to end it because I never want to speak to this user again. Thankfully this is the last article I started work on before my semi-retirement and I will not be dealing with this or his kind again. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Says it has been broken since 2011. Is this true?
Rich
Farmbrough,
07:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
[14] possibly under the scope of the project.....I think.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 03:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi: sorry if this has been discussed here before. Do we have any rules/guidelines on how to identify the nationality of a film? Case in point: The Quiet Man, which is currently described as an Irish-American film. IMO this makes no sense as other sources describe it as a strictly American film: production company, distributor, director, stars - all American. I have tried to raise this issue on the talk page of that film, but there has been no response so far. Usually it seems that the nationality of the production company is the key in identifying nationality, and co-productions are labelled as having multiple nationality (eg German/French).
Similarly, what about the year? Is this always the year of initial release? Some "official" sources like filmportal.de use a different approach. E.g. The Indian Tomb (1959 film) is identified there as a 1958/59 film, because the filming happened in 1958 whilst the initial release was in 1959. Any thoughts? Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
People of the film project,
I have something to alert you. A user called Redcoyote18 has been shortening films' runtime in the info boxes down. From the runtime listed in the references (from the very beginning to the time the credit really ends), he changes it to the runtime from the beginning to the point the story stops (excluding the runtime of the credit).
He has been editing the films' info boxes for months, and has been passing unnoticed, since his edits are small. I've already told him not to shorten the run time, but since he has made so many edits, I have to tell you too.
I've already fixed The Matrix series, Resident Evil series, and Jaws. If you have your film project listed on his contribution list, kindly go check and see if the runtime of the films you're working on matches the reference for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redcoyote18
Thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. He doesn't seem to be blanking anything or put in false contents, though. So I don't think he's vandalizing. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors are fairly useless. They should be broken down by decade.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly see the topic on the discussion page here [2]. Most of its references are in short citations, with only names and page numbers. But the core general reference they are tied to is now missing, rendering over 30 statements in the article without references. It's an FA, so please do something before it's been re-evaluated and got demoted. No one can find a book out of only the name and page numbers. I need someone who worked on it and knows what book they were talking about. Anthonydraco ( talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dot the i#Move? for a discussion on the proposal to move Dot the i to Dot the I. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Brawley Nolte currently redirects to Nick Nolte, and while Brawley is his son, having the link redirect to the top of Nick's article is a bit misleading and has already caused some confusion. I'm not sure that Brawley has enough notability to merit an article of his own, though if anyone wants to set one up I won't stop them. Otherwise, I'm not sure what correct procedure is in this case...can the redirect point to the Personal life section of Nick's article, or should the redirect be removed, or is there a better option? Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose that the low budget film article be merged into the b movie and z movie articles. They both relate enough that I don't think the low budget film article is necessary. I have already proposed this on all of the article's talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently, we mainly reference Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles to help report the critical reception. Some less-tended film articles also reference Movie Review Intelligence (MRI) and Movie Review Query Engine (MRQE). (EDIT: When saving this comment, I found that MRI was blacklisted as spam. This may need revisiting depending on this discussion.) I have noticed from time to time that these websites were being referenced. Looking at the websites' Wikipedia articles today, they seem to have some claim to notability. In my research, I also found this which covers MRI with RT and MC. MRQE is also mentioned in passing in that article. I am wondering what other editors think about referencing MRI or MRQE on Wikipedia? It seems like their reputations have steadily grown since their incarnations, so there could be a case now where there was not before. Or if not now, there could be a case in the near future. A couple points to consider: Are these added figures useful where RT and MC figures already exist? Would it help us move away from the existing duopoly (basically, adding variety), or are they not prominent enough at this point?
A related thought: While {{ Film ratings}} was recently deleted, it seemed mainly due to the individual reviews section. The template did have a section for aggregate scores which I thought could have value. Would it be possible to have an infobox for just the 3-4 aggregator websites? (It may be too soon to suggest that, but I wanted to put that out there.) With the infobox, we could set parameters (including a new aggregator website only when there is consensus) and possibly standardize score descriptions through using {{ H}} hover boxes. It would be the website name, the number of reviews (with hover-over description describing the critics), and the website's score (with hover-over description on how it was determined). It could help us worry less about referencing such websites in prose. What do you all think—of referencing MRI and/or MRQE, and of having an infobox that consolidates aggregate scores? Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have run into a few editors insisting on putting spoilers in beyond the Plot section, such as at Talk:Skyfall#Necessity_of_Spoiler. WP:SPOILERS does not give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at the lead and/or the cast list without having the plot given away. Most people have found ways to discuss the fundamentals of a character without going into their final fate, yet this continuously comes up. Can we get a policy implemented expressing this, here and on the WP:SPOILERS page? - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Not if there is a valid reason for having it there, in line with WP:LEAD. If it fails WP:LEAD, then yes, keep it out, but all information should pass that particular barrier, not just anything we may consider to be a "spoiler". - SchroCat ( talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see this discussion on the article's talk page, and this related discussion on the infobox talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the lead paragraph on the talk page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. As it according to it's talk page banner falls under this project, some input from participants of this project would be appreciated. Regards. MisterShiney ✉ 08:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that today is when the Oscar noms are announced. Usually there's a spate of unsourced additions on the related film articles, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone: right now the pages for Academy Award categories (like this one) use the default {{Infobox award}} template, which has a "current holder" field. This doesn't feel right for stuff like the Academy Awards, because there is only a "most recent winner", not a "current holder"— all the past awards don't go away just because there's a new winner. I have never heard in either written or spoken English a phrase like "Jean Dujardin, current holder of the Best Actor award..." (or even its corollary, "Fredric Marsh, previous holder of the Best Actor award..."). Looking through the infobox parameters I can see that "current holder" is really the only place to put this info, but the wording is problematic. Any thoughts or history I should be aware of? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of links to the Classic Movie Hub website, mostly because one user— Amgcatz—seemed to be spamming the links for promotion, and because the links did not seem to add much to the articles.
Various blogs report that Annmarie Gatti started working on the Classic Movie Hub website in 2009 then went live with it in February 2012. It looks like it invites user information but I don't think it is an open wiki; at any rate the user blogs are not being linked. I don't know the copyright status of its film and actor images, but this page at least appears to ignore the US laws against images of sculptures ( freedom of panorama.)
Here are some examples of how the website was brought to various Wikipedia articles:
To be fair, the images and data appear to conform to Wikipedia:External links such that they are "accurate and on-topic, [containing] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". The images are generally very small and so are not valuable commercially, and they are not able to be downloaded—you cannot "right-click" on them to download.
So what is the thinking of Film project members? Binksternet ( talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(I've never used this wiki before so I hope that I'm doing this correctly.) First of all, thank you for opening this up for discussion. It is much appreciated, and actually very helpful to me in understanding what happened. I respect your insight, and no matter the outcome, I just want to explain a little bit... I had mentioned in my email to Binksternet, that my intent was not to spam; I just thought that I was adding valuable information. I know that I added the links in some spurts, but it was because one idea led to another. I added links about the Clark Gable Museum and the Jimmy Steward Museum, choosing the Classic Movie Hub Page over 1) the Clark Gable Foundation because that site is somewhat convoluted (i.e. not the clearest website to navigate) and 2) the Jimmy.org Page because that page was taking too long to load and was timing out. I added the various lists because I thought that classic movie fans would like to see lists of the iconic/older classic movies (like Pride of the Yankees) vs every sports movie ever made, etc. I similarly added the other lists. Regarding putting the Classic Movie Hub link in the top portion of the link lists (and in hindsight I can see why that would put you off) - I just thought that since the site was specifically related to Classic Era Hollywood Stars (and both Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart are considered movie stars from that era), that it was okay. I can't recall 100%, but I don't think I put either link above the 'king' of movie sites, imdb. I had also fully intended to add other useful links, i.e. Find a Grave biographies, etc. but hadn't done it yet. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and please know that I would love to maintain the privilege of adding content to wikipedia, so any helpful guidelines/parameters/advice on how to approach adding information or links in the future would be greatly appreciated. -- Amgcatz ( talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I was hesitant to do that before (seemed a little overwhelming), but I see your point. Might take a while for me to navigate (i.e. determine what content I can contribute), but let me see what I can do. Thanks! -- Amgcatz ( talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about foreign films (specifically, their titles). Is this the correct place to ask? If not, please redirect me to the proper place. Here is my question. When an American film has several words in the title, they are all capitalized (except for minor prepositions). I have noticed that the foreign counterparts only capitalize the first word and not the subsequent words. Is this the correct format? Or not? Here is a quick example, off the top of my head. The American title of this film is Life Is Beautiful, with all three words capitalized. The Italian title is La vita è bella, with no words capitalized beyond the first. So, what exactly is the correct format? Also, does this apply to book titles as well? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I almost posted this on a talk page somewhere, but I think this is a general problem. I think deletopedia hit and there is no longer a relevant page called "Crime drama". It is, however, a category commonly used in US television. The page for Crime film is defined as "Crime films are films which focus on the lives of criminals." is not the same as a "Crime drama". There's a redirect set from "Crime drama" to the Crime film page. All Crime drama links for detective TV series that aren't " Police procedural" now go to that page. See Rizzoli & Isles, Elementary (TV series), Perception (U.S. TV series) . BTW: I've never even heard of "police procedural." I assume it's either a British expression or literature term. The shows that link there are also called "crime drama" on the respective show's page, e.g. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation But there are crime dramas that don't match the description for police procedural and links for the genre there now go entirely into the wrong direction. Kindly fix this. Should your portal not be the correct audience, kindly repost this where there are competent contributors who can alleviate the issue. THANKS -- 99.11.160.111 ( talk) 23:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently attempted to change [4] the importance of the article Ugetsu on WikiProject Japan's importance scale from "High" to "Mid" to match its source material, but was immediately reverted without explanation [5]. I was motivated by the fact that within the scope of Japanese society and (pop) culture, the film is significantly less important than the book, and seems to have only attained its "High" rank based on its importance in world cinema outside Japan. Within Japan, the film is relatively obscure, while the book is a universally known classic. If this is the case then the film should be ranked highly in WikiProject Film, and not in WikiProject Japan. In order to clear up the relative discrepancy between the book and film, I then changed the ranking of the book [6] (not a sockpuppet -- I don't know how to log in on my phone), but now this book ranks above the probably more important The Love Suicides at Sonezaki and Chūshingura, and the definitely more important Ogura Hyakunin Isshu. Can someone with experience in this area help clear up the problem? Thanks! elvenscout742 ( talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion about moving the article title. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed a number of articles on Japanese films given the names of the films in the format "English Title (日本語表記のタイトル, Rōmaji Hyōki no Taitoru)". This appears in accordance with WP:NCF's guideline for naming foreign films, but the only example given is a Spanish film, where the foreign title in Roman lettering is actually an official name of the film. However, this is not the case with Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. films, where the official title is in a different writing system and romanized title is something Wikipedians have added.
It is actually convention on Chinese topics never to italicize or bolden Chinese text, and I'm pretty sure Japanese topics work the same way. With regard to the romanized titles, MOS:J encourages giving the Japanese for the article title, but hardly any articles give these "Japanese titles" in bold. I was wondering why should film articles be any different?
(I'm posting this both here and on WikiProject Japan to see if I can get some clarification, or if this actually is a real problem maybe we can work out how to fix it.)
elvenscout742 ( talk) 07:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Can people give their input here because I am seriously about to lose my temper with this idiot and I can't deal with him anymore. He removed two characters because he doesn't believe they are important, I put them back because I believe they are and now he's being a petty child over it. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I was reading a couple of the articles on early Kurosawa films just now, and I noticed most of them have "aka XYZ" in the opening sentence. Given the situation in Japan in the 1940s, I doubt many of them were actually released outside Japan until much later. I removed the one at The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and replaced it with a different one, since the only instance I could find of the previous one being used in a reliable source was a book by Donald Richie, where it was given in a long list of variant titles. (I replaced it with the variant title he gave as his title.)
However, I'm not sure we should include "aka" in the opening sentence unless it is actually a title under which the film saw significant distribution in an English-speaking country. Film scholars and Japan scholars seem to make up their own translations of the titles of Japanese films all the time, so we should have redirects, but the current state of affairs in No Regrets for Our Youth, The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and The Most Beautiful seems a bit silly. (I don't mention Sanshiro Sugata Parts I and II, aka Judo Saga I and II, because they were actually released under those titles.)
elvenscout742 ( talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003, but the main article itself Iowa Film Critics is also included in the deletion discussion. More input would be a good idea from some fresh eyes for this discussion. — Cirt ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
On the 2000 release of the DVD there are a couple of interviews, in Mel Gibsons interview he said they used a "Bleach by-pass process" and thats how they tinted the film. I am not sure how that works, but I was wondering can you cite DVD interviews as reference material? Govvy ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, 2014 will see the 75th anniversaries of two iconic films: Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. It would be great if we could get these articles up to GA status some time this year, so I've started work on GWTW myself. The Wizard of Oz article is basically at GA standard in terms of coverage, so if anyone is interested in golden age cinema or is an OZ buff and is looking for something to do, I think it would be a good project. Betty Logan ( talk) 09:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Should the IMDB link "name" parameter use the original language name, or the name as used on IMDB? I restored the link at Double Suicide of Sonezaki to the name used on IMDB, and not the romanization, since it appears as false (doesn't match the title of the IMDB page) and misleading (if the linked page doesn't match the page as stated, the someone may think our link is broken) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What do others think of the filmography section on the article of Filipino film director Brillante Mendoza? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone at WikiProject Film!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The articles Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff both discuss Japanese films, but are named for their US release titles. I tried to include in the intros a reference to the fact that in numerous English-speaking countries the films are known by their Japanese titles, but was reverted. After extensive discussion, I took this to DRN, and was told to come back here. Anyone up for a little mediation? elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been wondering if we should hold an election for project coordinators, since the Film project did have an election back in 2011 and almost two years have passed. Thoughts or ideas? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor seems to think it appropriate to adapt the navbox into an entire list of everything Welles was ever involved in, including linking to Shakespeare plays, because Welles once directed a stage version, etc. There are also duplicate links to different sections of pages (trailers for Citizen Kane for example). Anyone have anything to add here? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to recommend several pages that editors of film-related articles may find useful:
The blue links can be added to your watchlist, where the external links can be added somewhere on your user page for you to review on occasion. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see the following discussions regarding generic lists and lists of films by language:
Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Somehow Template:Bollywood was wrongly made part of this discussion about National_cinema_navigation_templates and now they are being removed from Bollywood-related articles, like films, actors etc. Bollywood ( Hindi cinema) is only a regional cinema and largely a Hindi language cinema, the National cinema navigational template for India is Template:Cinema of India, which is appropriately used in most cases. So now will the involved editors do the needful and correct the mistake, thanks! -- Ekabhishek talk 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
After much debate on Taare Zameen Par's talk page, I would like to have more editor involvement so a consensus can be reached regarding the placement of alternate titles. The film is most known as Taare Zameen Par, and was released in cinemas worldwide under that foreign title. However, the international DVD release years later titled it as "Like Stars on Earth". All of the English sources used (except for ones related to the DVD release) refer to it under the foreign title.
The guideline for alternate titles says to put them in the first or second sentence. I brought this up at the Naming Conventions guideline talk page, and the only editor to respond brought up a good point that I agree with: because "Like Stars on Earth" is the DVD title only, the guideline doesn't necessarily apply because it involves a format title rather than an alternative title (like with Blade Runner and Blade Runner: Director's Cut. Additionally, the DVD title is already mentioned later in the lead section along with the DVD release, making it seem unnecessary/redundant to me to have it mentioned again in the opening sentence. The original discussion can be found here. Thanks. Ω pho is 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! We request feedback in the peer review of the article Mother India. Please help so that it gets readied for FAC. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:American male actors (but not any of its brother cats like Category:English male actors) is being considered for deletion. I thought people connected with this project might be interested in weighing in on the discussion there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the articles for this year's award nominated films could be improved a great deal. Anyone concur? RAP ( talk) 17:31 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been going through cast lists at some films recently and have found many links that either go to the entirely wrong person or that go to disambiguation pages. There are other films where most of the links in the cast section go nowehre. This often leads to the development of incorrect links as new articles are formed. Is there any policy about to what extent the cast section should link to articles on the cast. Specifically, is there any policy on what to do with a bunch of links that go nowhere? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Several editors specialize in dab work, you should ask them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Long story short, could someone please create Template:ActingFilmography/doc and transpose it into Template:ActingFilmography? I have no idea how to use this template due to lack of a document. I'm asking this group due to Template:ActingFilmography seeming to fall under this WikiProject's guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Example Film (2012) | Example role |
Hello everyone. So one of my favorite pages to use on here is the 2013 in home video page (along with past years). Another page I love is the List of albums scheduled for release in 2013. The later has a color coding scheme for separating the months. Is there any reason that this has not been implemented in the year in home video pages? I am more than happy to make the change but since this is not how these pages have been done historically, I wanted to get some input. Any thoughts? -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
At the talk page for WikiProject Film's guidelines, there is a discussion about the {{ AllRovi movie}} template and whether or not it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia's film articles. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I put the crystal template on Parkland (film) because the film has just started being filmed and doesn't even have a distributor yet, but the template was removed. What's the guideline on using the crystal template? RNealK ( talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
|future=yes
" parameter in {{
WikiProject Comics}}.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1 is relisted after one month delay. Either join in discussion, or be bold to the article. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just opened an RfC that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It can be found at Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh#RfC on use of "second largest". Please give it a look and comment if you're so inclined. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Johnpacklambert has been mass replacing our actor categories with actresses for women. Pretty sure there was consensus against this for gender equality reasons. Surprised nothing has been said to him so far.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Is tard a typo for turd? The American male actors category was closed as a keep just hours ater we were alerted, that hardly reflects consensus. I accept the actress categories but not if that means we have to start using "male actor" for actor categories.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to add to this Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness#Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Zatōichi (2003 film) -- should another film in the film franchise that wasn't released in the English-language market affect the name of the articles of films that were released in the English language market? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Movie Review Intelligence is currently on the spam blacklist due to the website being solicited as linkspam several years ago. A request was recently made to remove the website from the blacklist, but the request was declined as seen
here. The decline was disputed and discussed with the admin
here, and there is now a follow-up request to add the website to the spam whitelist. The new request can be seen
here.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Due to lack of attention regarding this topic, I'll be leaving it behind for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the topic if another editor expresses interest in resolution on a later date. Here are the relevant links for future reference:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A complete rewrite on Family film and Children's film has been done at User:Robin klein/sandbox/Children's film or Family film. As per discussion at [ [7]] the rewrite on Family Film and Children's Film along with the page Family film and the page Children's film) is to be merged and moved to Children's and Family film. Please help with the merge and move. Thanks Robin klein ( talk) 07:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
[Discussion moved from Village pump (proposals) ]:
I notice the film MOS doesn't really have any guidance on this point, and we don't really have a stable of Film series FAs to drawn from. At some point I want to get the series article for Star Trek (film series) up to snuff. In 2009 it was unilaterally moved from List of Star Trek films to its current title with the defense of "per WP:NCF", although as it stands the series article in my opinion would be better served with a list; the article is a laundry list of IMDB credits, recitation of plot and a million little tables. Do we have any good examples of film series or film lists? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in checking out The Wikipedia Library. Apparently you can sign-up for access to resources like HighBeam and JSTOR that would normally be behind a paywall. Had not seen this before and wanted to share. Do any editors have any experience with this? Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
At Pink Floyd—The Wall, there is a discussion to move the article. It's an interesting case of exactly what punctuation to actually use. The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
...that is if they do not reach their fundraising goals. It seems they are cash strapped and are looking for $50K to stay afloat. More info can be found here.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Hello. Here is a link to a page which links itself to the Film Project. [
[8]]. If you look at the main article page, you will also notice that there appears to be some confusion/disambiguation between film, and television.
It looks like this was originally intended as film-specific, BUT-if you look at the edits, including the most recent one which was done by my self to include The Real Housewives, television series, you will notice that most of the list is related to television opening title segments.
The image, which is shared on another page, is most certainly a film image.
Please do not interpret my request that Project Film look at this as an "article for deletion"-request. The info. there is high-quality info. but it may need some tweaking? I would appreciate any advice/suggestions on sorting this out a little because I'd really like to upgrade the opening sequence list as it applies to the television category specifically, or maybe link it to some Television project lists.-TY
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree but I am not experienced enough to contribute a "split"-subject w/o causing a ruckus. TY by the way for the Google Book clue. Also that fact conforms with how the (two) pages currently are listed with "Title sequence"-specifically being the "plus tv"-page and "Opening Sequence"-being more exclusive to film although as your Google Book check pointed-out "title Sequence"-could be both. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject Film might be interested in this discussion on the RS Noticeboard regarding the conditions under which a documentary film can be a reliable source in Wikipedia. The discussion relates specifically to the articles The Queen of Versailles and David A. Siegel. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a request to capitalize La jetée. The request to move the article is here. Would like input on how to work with the letter case in this particular instance. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
All, I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about modifying the guidelines for greater clarity about mentioning nationality in the lead sentence (which is covered at MOS:FILM#Lead section). The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The external link template {{ AllRovi movie}} is nominated for deletion at TfD. The discussion can be found here. Especially since this template is used across many film articles, editors are invited to comment. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help out, and expand the article on Child's Pose, it has been nominated for inclusion on the in the news section of the main page but before it can appear it needs to be expanded on. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If any members of the project would like to add their thoughts here Talk:Full Metal Jacket#Images it would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new Barnstar 2.0 version of the film barnstar, available here [9]. Frigid Ninja 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
All right. I have a question for the project. Some female actors (i.e. actresses) may prefer to use the term "actor". Would it be appropriate to use either "actors" or "actresses" for female actors? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone seen Rocky 2 recently, or clearly remember the ending? An editor has contested my revert of his edit, which I felt was a "viewer interpretation"; my reasons are at User talk:Betty Logan#Rocki_II_edits. In truth though my memories of it are fuzzy at best so I'm not really sure if my revert was correct anyway. Can someone familiar with the ending have a look, and if the original edit was correct then please feel free to revert mine. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like some other editors to take a look at the cast list for this film and help me answer some questions. I reverted an anonymous editor's changes to the cast list, but, comparing our cast list to that found on IMDb, I noticed some discrepancies, mostly characters whose first names are not given on IMDb. Since the latter's list is said to match the final credits, what is the source for our list? Why is our list not also in credits order? And, last but not least, why are there significant differences in some of these names? I am puzzled by this and would like to hear some other opinions. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This FAR is overdue, so join in discussion. In the meanwhile, do not be afraid to fix the article Jurassic Park. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Films distributed by Disney, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing disagreement between several (two?) editors on this material's worthiness of inclusion. There has been no discussion started, only reverting. Additional eyes and outside opinions might be helpful. 216.16.228.78 ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I was scanning for articles in template categories and found a bunch in the M's of Category:Japanese film director navigational boxes. They are all the result of User:Righteousskills trying to create new director navboxes by substing in code from existing navboxes (in this case using a Japanese director template as a source, hence ending up in that cat). I've given him some pointers on template use but I don't suppose someone here could mentor him a bit? (S)he could be an asset to your Project, they obviously has enthusiasm and a love of films, it just needs to be focussed a bit. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Does a film with only a surviving trailer belong in List of lost films or List of incomplete or partially lost films? I'm doing a cleanup and there are examples in both lists. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
file:LadyGodivafilmposter.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Poster of the movie The Big Circus.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Poster of the movie The Man from the Alamo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
file:The Mark of the Hawk 1957 poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
image:Kingkongvsgodzilla-656x1024.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Kidnapped1960poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, Variety has modified their site design to make the site even more unusable. This means at the moment a lot of variety references are not working. It says they are migrating the content over to the new design so hopefully they will come back, but if not, anything you relied on may need searching on the new site or replacing. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The following are already in this project's Alerts page, but I draw your attention to them as I intend to cite them as precedents to rename other categories to the naming convention "Films based on"... works.
– Fayenatic L ondon 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have rewritten the article Film director. It had been tagged for years and I felt the time had come to try to do something about it... Please check my changes. Moreover I like to suggest to remove one or more the old lists because they are terribly long and one can also get there rather easily by merely using the categories at the bottom of this article. NordhornerII ( talk) _The man from Nordhorn 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. On the article for Amour (and possibly other articles), an IP has added that it has won several awards from the Burgundy Film Critics, stating "It is an association of french critics". But are they notable? Google searching either "Burgundy Film Critics Awards" or "Burgundy Film Critics" doesn't hint towards notability. Does anyone have any further info? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone go through Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source and add sources to all the film posters found in this cleanup catgory? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. There seems to be a disagreement over how to present the cast listing on the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article. The discussion is at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#Cast listing. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Members of the project may be interested in the discussions going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Gadyukin and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucharest Film Festival. You will note that, in furtherance of their project/fantasy/hoax, those involved have created ads, You tube videos and have gone so far as to create pages at IMDb like this [10] and this [11]. It does illustrate how little fact checking is done at IMDb. Another difference is that there is no way to find out who/how/when the IMDb pages were created. At least we can dig into WikiP's edit history to track things. We can also get the hoaxes deleted through the AFD process. I wonder if IMDb even has a process to get rid of made up pages like these. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if I could please have some thoughts on the article of the 1936 HG Wells film Things to Come, particularly in relation to the age-old question of WP:FILMRELEASE, along with other pointless additions of US information into the infobox of a British film. Earlier I removed the superfluous US information from the infobox only to have it reverted for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The US dates and other information is not particularly notable in itself—certainly not for the infobox—but could be in the article body instead. I'd be very grateful to hear the thoughts of others on the US material. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The title of the 2005 film is now discussed. Please join in to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried to submit an AFC to get an article going about this Fiennes' documentary, Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow. I just learned about the movie in a presentation at the local museum, and I wanted to read more. My first choice would have been to just read a Wikipedia article about it, and there I would find the links to its website, the director, the artist. But there was no Wikipedia article, just a few mentions in the director's, artist's and musician's articles, and my Google search for the tile AND movie OR film gave me half a million hits.
It seemed a no-brainer to start a Wikipedia article, but I ran into an editor who is demanding an unspecified number of references and deems The Guardian and The New York Times, to be questionable sources. I added half a dozen more sources, but I cannot win a battle with a user who calls NYTimes a "questionable" source.
For outsiders at Wikipedia it is completely arbitrary what will be sufficient for an article. Learning that the NYTimes is a questionable source is the sort of arbitrary stuff that outsiders at Wikipedia are frequently faced with. I think this could be an article. It does meet the stated requirements of having two reviews in notable sources (the Times is not a questionable source), and it has multiple other reviews. It opened at Cannes in 2010, a non-invited film, but still notable enough to open there. It has been released in over a dozen countries.
Flat out, it is notable. I have more sources to add, but for now I put it in the director's article. It should be a stand alone film article, though.
What else do I need? Thanks. - 68.99.89.234 ( talk) 04:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow | |
---|---|
Directed by | Sophie Fiennes |
Produced by | Sophie Fiennes Émilie Blézat Kees Kasander |
Cinematography | Remko Schnorr |
Edited by | Ethel Shepherd |
Music by |
Jörg Widmann György Ligeti |
Production companies | Amoeba Film Kasander Film Company Sciapode |
Release dates |
|
Running time | 105 minutes |
Country | France |
Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow is a 2010 Sophie Fiennes documentary about German industrial artist Anselm Kiefer's creation of a Gesamtkunstwerk in an abandoned factory complex outside Barjac, France. [1] [2] [3] Kiefer moved to the South of France from Germany in 1993 and began creating his art installation, "La Ribaute" on 35 acres of land belonging to an old silk factory. [4] The film begins with a lengthy silence to show the tunnels and spaces the artist created before showing the artist and his process in creating a large landscape painting. The film opened at Cannes in 2010 as a special screening. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "By Sheri Linden" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
... if the word "Award" isn't the last word? I'm planning to create an article about PMPC Star Awards for Movies (there's also PMPC Star Awards for Television and PMPC Star Awards for Music), and I want to be guided on how it should be named. – H T D 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear film buffs: I have been reviewing new pages, and I sometimes come across film articles where the only sources are movie databases. I don't know enough about these to tell which ones have editor-overseen content. I'm pretty sure that the IMDB is all user-generated, and therefore not reliable, but what about the others? AllMovie seems to keep editor reviews and user reviews separate, as does Turner Classic. Has your project made a list of these web sites and which parts of them are or are not populated by knowledgeable people as apposed to fans? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the name of the film described in the article A Late Quartet has been changed by the distributors to Performance which means it ought to be moved to Performance (2012 film). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted an editor who added an animated gif ( File:GremlinsStripeShootsBilly.gif) to the Gremlins article. Are such images ever considered acceptable? I do not recall ever seeing one. His rationale for the image's use seems flawed. Is this image even kosher? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is blatantly violating plot summary guidelines at The Thing (1982 film). I'm close to 3RR and don't know whether reverting plot bloating would qualify as an exemption. They're not engaging in dialogue and I have left a note at the article's Talk page as well as their Talk page. Would greatly appreciate other editors' assistance! Doniago ( talk) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I am transferring over part of the discussion at Talk:List of lost silent films (1925-1929) for more input.
TCM's trivia is no better a source than IMDb's, especially when it's worded exactly the same. [13] Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The article film producer has been rewritten. It resembles now in regards to its structure the articles film director, line producer and executive producer. Please check it out and rectify whatever isn't alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII ( talk • contribs) 00:20, March 15, 2013
Quick note for the participants of WikiProject Film. Someone recently created Category:Abandoned film projects for films who were abandoned before principal photography even began. This is distinct from Category:Unfinished films (abandoned before completing principal photography) and Category:Unreleased films (abandoned after the completion of principal photography). I'm not entirely convinced that the new category is needed but if it is kept, a number of entries in Category:Unfinished films need to be moved to the new category. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between Category:Abandoned film projects and Category:Cancelled films. From my perspective, the easiest way forward is to simply dump the problem on you guys. :-) Pichpich ( talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I know, I know it's a pathetic subject but the user is being an unrelenting pain and edit warring over it. I've reported him to AIV but imagine nothing will come of it. The credits as they stand are based off the poster on the article, not any personal preference just the cast as it stands on the poster. The user replaced them with film ordering because he believes the credits is based off importance in the film; he ignored me when I mentioned alphabetic or in-order-of-appearance lists. I put them back to the poster one because the poster is right there, easily checkable without owning the film and helps prevent the kind of stuff this user is sadly doing. No messing about, it's just THERE. He iwll not let it go, and I'm assuming he is a fanboy because there is no way someone should be causing me this much hassle because of film credits, but the way he keeps going on about prominence makes me think its fanboying, he wants it because it credits cast members higher than others, earlier edits he made to the article had him saying pretty much this along the lines of "Carrey is clearly more important to the film based on the official synopsis" when putting him higher. As far as I am aware there is no guideline or rule that says one must be used over the other, so in this case what is there is perfectly acceptable, especially since the cast sections are not based off importance EVEN IF film credits WERE, and can as easily be entirely a block of prose. I would appreciate a 3rd opinion in the discussion either way to end it because I never want to speak to this user again. Thankfully this is the last article I started work on before my semi-retirement and I will not be dealing with this or his kind again. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Says it has been broken since 2011. Is this true?
Rich
Farmbrough,
07:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
[14] possibly under the scope of the project.....I think.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 03:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi: sorry if this has been discussed here before. Do we have any rules/guidelines on how to identify the nationality of a film? Case in point: The Quiet Man, which is currently described as an Irish-American film. IMO this makes no sense as other sources describe it as a strictly American film: production company, distributor, director, stars - all American. I have tried to raise this issue on the talk page of that film, but there has been no response so far. Usually it seems that the nationality of the production company is the key in identifying nationality, and co-productions are labelled as having multiple nationality (eg German/French).
Similarly, what about the year? Is this always the year of initial release? Some "official" sources like filmportal.de use a different approach. E.g. The Indian Tomb (1959 film) is identified there as a 1958/59 film, because the filming happened in 1958 whilst the initial release was in 1959. Any thoughts? Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)