![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
The article Sholay is in peer review. Please review the article. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
At We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks. It was first shown in 2012 in preview form (at least to the New York Times) in Los Angeles, and may even be copyrighted 2012 (?), but lots of sources are quite sensibly saying it's a 2013 film, since it debuted in 2013 at Sundance. I'll go with whatever consensus film folk come up with. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to throw themselves into an interesting situation, there is an article called American Godzilla for which there is a request to move it to just Zilla. It is an interesting case for which I would not mind additional viewpoints. Discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The redirect Non-narrative film, currently targetted at non-fiction, is being discussed at RfD. As part of that I have suggested merging that concept into the article fictional film (which would require only a little rewording, as it is presently mainly about the contrast) and renaming it something like Narrative and non-narrative film. Your views and comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Non-narrative film would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The above is up for Featured Article again. It's a solid article and one that should be among the very best the project can offer, but the last attempt failed purely on lack of interest, noone got involved, I am posting here so people are aware and that perhaps we can avoid the same situation again. The comments of the members here are valued, or if you know a non film project user who might have some interest in the film itself. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Should we bother including "stylized" titles in lead's of films? I don't know how much it helps people recognize a film as it's just some usually some advertising or poster stylized text. I'm thinking like it's shown on Scary Movie 5, where it says "Scary Movie 5 (stylized as Scary MoVie)". Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to reach consensus, or otherwise move this forward, I'll ask for your opinions on the following statement:
I personally oppose this proposal, what do you think? Should we develop this into something that separates the wheat (Se7en) from the chaff (GoodFellas)? Anyway, opinions on the above proposal would be a good start. drewmunn talk 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to rain on your parade Sdd and thanks for getting things going. Perhaps we could rework things this way as this seems reflect the discussion above. Depending on which of these sections other editors like responding to we could collapse the one that isn't used.
The article Journey (film series) is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series) due to only two films in the series. I invite editors to weigh in to determine a consensus and perhaps set a precedent since MOS:FILM#Film series is currently empty. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On the talk page of Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA Kyle ( talk · contribs) is an editor who works for the MPAA and is proposing updates to one of the article's sections. His proposal can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page of R.I.P.D. based on adding genres to films that haven't been released yet. If anyone is willing to take part in the discussion it would be greatly appreciated! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 23:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The article on the film Sholay is in peer review. Please help in improving the article. All comments will be highly valued. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A set of proposals regarding awards in infoboxes has begun here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards in infobox. Any thoughts and input will be appreciated. Also, if you think this link should be included on any other projects talk page please feel free to cut and paste this to them. MarnetteD | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As the company expands from its single location into a chain (currently with 5 locations), should the article be renamed to ArcLight Cinemas to better cover the entire company? Alternatively, if the Hollywood location is notable enough to have a standalone article, then should a new article be created to cover the chain? -- Hawaiian717 ( talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The GA reviewer is requesting a copyedit to clean up the prose, can someone take a look at the article? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Star Trek Into Darkness was released yesterday in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, parts of Europe, Peru. It was released in Mexico today. These are not special "premiere" screenings, but showings in the usual theaters open to the general public. But one editor over at the page is insisting that this does not count as a "general release" and so a plot summary cannot be posted yet. In an edit summary he has claimed that "since it isn't in general release, there's no way to verify plot." he also has asked people who disagree with him to ask over here for confirmation that he is right. Anyone want to weigh in? 99.192.50.95 ( talk) 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair Jack it was once it was in general release within the UK. You refused to see it as a general release until editors unanimously called you up as wrong. Hat off to you though buddy, you did take a break from the page to cool down (intentionally or not) and when you came back you had a much cooler head on your shoulders. :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
File:The Red Movie Poster.jpg has been nominated for deletoin -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Several film-related requested moves are underway:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am wondering if other editors see the new English-language file at File:Sightseers film poster.jpg. I replaced the French-language poster, but I still see the French-language poster as the main image of the file page. The French-language poster also still shows at Sightseers. I tried a hard refresh to see if the page would update, but that did not work. I'm wondering if it is a problem with the image upload system itself. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Morning! Would a couple of you be able to mosey on down to the Skyfall talk page and take a look at the conversation occuring at the bottom regarding edit warring. Much appreciated! drewmunn talk 08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has notifications that we can use to our benefit. In addition to seeing new messages on our user talk pages, we can also see when other editors mention our user names (in linked form) on another talk page. This can be used to "summon" other editors, to give them a heads-up of a discussion they may want to join. (Especially if there is a likelihood that the person does not have a page on his or her watchlist.) Templates to this end that I've seen so far are {{ user link}} and {{ replyto}}. The latter is probably best used to direct a specific comment in discussions with multiple participants, where the former can be used for the aforementioned "summoning". This is what I have seen so far; if there are other ways to benefit from the notifications, share with us here. :) Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The article Kahaani is a featured article candidate. Please comment in the FAC page. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ Jo Swerling}} was created a couple of days ago and added to a whole raft of film articles. As I understood it we only added "director" templates to films articles, so I was wondering how commonplace it is to add screenwriter templates? Personally I think it's an open door for template spam, since it is not unusual for a script to pass through several writers, some of which may have made relatively small contibutions. Do we have any guidelines on which templates should be added to articles? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that these template can be fun to make but these really are a template too far. They will be prone to bloating since there will be many examples of X was brought in to rework the script and received an onscreen credit even though the bulk of the work was done by Y. I would recommend listing them as a group at WP:TFD and see whther a consensus can be arrived at there. MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated the film article to be part of the "Did you know..." project. I want your help on researching the novel or film and expanding or copyediting either article. There are sources to look at:
[1] and
[2]. To Google it, type "The Joy Luck Club" (film OR movie)
in
Google Books. --
George Ho (
talk)
08:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I just put up Cult film for peer review. I've almost completely rewritten the article, expanding it greatly, but I've received little feedback. I've raised a few issues in the peer review, but any feedback at all would be welcome. This is my first major undertaking, in six years of sporadic editing. I think the article looks pretty decent, but I'm obviously a bit biased. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Some editors maybe interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As part of a group nomination. The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, film editors. On behalf of the Vital Articles project, I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the Vital Articles/Expanded main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the existing VA/E sublist of films, as well as 21 active discussions regarding actors and actresses, and seven discussions regarding film directors and producers. As regular editors in WikiProject Film, we would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Template up for deletion, please discuss. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There's a discussion regarding the reception section of the Les Miserables film article. The discussion is at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Reception section. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Would be grateful for some help with the correct title of Blue Is the Warmest Colour. Please see the edit history and talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone point me in the right direction of the MOS that deals with French naming conventions. For example, should the French title in the intro of Blue Is the Warmest Colour be La vie d'Adèle or La Vie d'Adèle? Apparently this is something everyone knows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks. drewmunn talk 10:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Just curious if A-Class reviews still exist here? I followed a instruction here and created this. But it doesn't seem to clearly be used as a assessment now. Should the instruction page still be here then? Jhenderson 777 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus (or ideally a policy) regarding posting links to full copies of movies on YouTube? I'm in a dispute with an editor regarding the appropriateness of doing so. I'm presuming the link itself is legal and not a copyvio. Cheers! Doniago ( talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am surprised that this is even up for discussion. It seems to me that nothing could be more relevant to an article about a film than a full YouTube video of that film, which is an authorized upload (not copyvio), and is viewable for free just for watching a couple of ads. Hgrosser ( talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not a commercial link just because there are ads to support it. A commercial link is a site or page whose main purpose is to sell things. Articles on companies have links to their official sites (usually as the first one in the list), many of whose main purpose is to promote the sale of those companies’ products. Just about every worthwhile video on YouTube is preceded by an ad that you have to sit through. Just about every site on the Web, that you don’t have to sign up and pay for, has ads to support it. If somehow we could embed links to over-the-air broadcast channels in articles, would that be unacceptable just because these channels are filled with annoying commercials? In this specific case of Starship Troopers there’s only a single additional ad in the middle of the film, which is shown by a yellow dot in the video timeline, and which you can force to play at the beginning if you wish by clicking to the right of it, after which you can view the film undisturbed. Hgrosser ( talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
All external links go to 'commercial sites' (and also the references); for every external link that we add, someone is making money with that site. Every site is commercial, even cnn.com and wikipedia.org. Thát is not the point of not linking to commercial sites, and that is not a reason to exclude the link - it is a reason when an external site just has a 'buy me' button, no added info, no nothing else. Does it primarily exist to sell, or does it give significant extra info?
Looking at this site, however, I find "In April 2009, Crackle blocked access to anyone not in the United States of America. On June 8, 2010, Crackle announced it had opened up access to selected content on the site to viewers in the UK, Canada and Australia" worrying .. it is simply not available in the majority of the world, where many English speaking people live (including countries which have English as their main language like India, or me as a non-native English, born in a country that does not have access, living in a country that also does not have access, still, most of the movies I watch have, at best, English subtitles, sometimes subtitles in a language I do not speak/read, or most of the time, simply have no subtitles ...). That, simply, fails an important part of our WP:EL guideline - the material is inaccessible to a large part of the readers. Moreover, there are still people who can not access YouTube, even in the supported countries, due to the devices they are using (viewing YouTube movies needs the correct software), or speed-restrictions. For me, YouTube links (in general) simply fail WP:EL in such ways, that they should not be linked unless they really add something that is otherwise detrimental to the understanding of the page - which is not the case with the full movie.
Is this content available through the official site of the movie - http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/starshiptroopers/ ? If Sony, through Crackle, provides this movie online, this link should be there from the sonypictures page, which would make YouTube and/or Crackle not necessary (if a mainpage of a subject prominently links to their facebook and twitter, we do not also include the facebook and twitter in our list of external links, the official site if enough).
By the way, I think that there is already a linkfarm on the page, do all these external links provide unique information that is a) not already in the Wikipedia article itself, and b) is not already provided by all the others, and is that unique information that site number 5 is giving really extending the information that is not already there through the others (and similar, as I mention above, does the YouTube full video add anything significant that is not provided already?). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I planned to create Deep Blue (2003 film) to provide a blue link at Walking with Dinosaurs (film), and in my looking around, I noticed Deep Blue (2001 film). It is supposedly directed by Dwight H. Little, who is known for a few other films. However, I could not find coverage about the 2001 film. I only saw mentions of verifiability, but I suspect that such mentions were only cribbed from IMDb. AMG (at The New York Times) does not mention Deep Blue, and BFI's Film Index International (very comprehensive) mentions all the other films under Dwight Little except this one. Is Deep Blue a hoax or some obscure personal project? I wanted to bring it up in particular since this is a director known for other works and since IMDb's listings were likely referenced by sources that do mention it. Anyone else able to shed further light on the matter? Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Gertie the Dinosaur for Featured Article status. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review. All feedback is much appreciated. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 13:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The navigation templates {{ Common}}, {{ Pink}}, {{ RZA}}, {{ Erykah Badu}} (and probably more) are being inserted in film articles because of each person's appearance. Per MOS:FILM#Navigation, these should not be placed in such articles. I'm removing what I can but could use a hand. Anyone have a way to automate removal? Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) had 2012 in it's title because another film supposedly had that title. But now one editor moved the other film's name saying that the film wasn't referred to as that. Does this mean that the 2012 film should probably be renamed to as just (film) in it's title? Jhenderson 777 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
So I have just come across Darkwarriorblake and User:Asd17 edit warring over on Fast and Furious 6 over the rounding of the Box office totals. I point out that GA articles that are specific according to the Box Office Mojo and other reliable sources and then he comes out out a load of other GA articles (all of which he edits) all with rounded. Info box parameters aren't very specific and nor is MOS. Any insight you could all provide would be great.
I am for being specific because the info box is ideal for posting precise figures like that and it is a lot easier to read rounded numbers within the context of the article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not a question of if you stealth edited or not. Point is that there are two competently opposing views. Neither is correct or incorrect, but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it. Despite other editors disagreeing with you. 95% of the articles I come across editors are using the full number in the info box and rounding in the article. Mainly because the rounding is, unless they are providing a direct reference to the amount the film made, is a lot easier to read. Besides, where do we round from? The nearest Million? Hundred Thousand? Thousand? Hundred? Who gets to decide it? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact you prefer another format over another implies you don't like the other one. You don't like it because you don't think it is a reliable precise figure. Don't forget we are an encyclopedia guys, it is our job to provide precise figures where appropriate and where they are found. Especially when those figures are so regularly available. Darkwarriorblake is the only editor I have come accross who is actively reverting other editors and edit warring over another equally correct format. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Is the rounding of some numbers really worth all of this? If this keeps up much longer, this may qualify for WP:LAME. If you make the change to one number (rounded or not) and someone reverts you, here's some advice: let it go. Like I said already, it's not worth it. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the film director, Steve Anderson (director).
Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be welcomed, at Talk:Steve Anderson (director). — Cirt ( talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Eyes needed to determine whether the prominent addition of the opinion of an unknown reviewer writing for a non-notable website should be removed per WP:WEIGHT or not. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Are we satisfied that the closing admin made the right decision on this move review? I don't think I am... Have left something on the closing admin's talk page... -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but someone's created Mission: Impossible 5 (movie) and it needs serious work (possible deletion). Anyone have any views on what the best course of action. I'd move it to the correct location, but don't want to if we're just going to delete it. drewmunn talk 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There's a genre discussion regarding the use of The Iron Giant's lead section over at Talk:The Iron Giant#Genres in the lead. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Captain_Assassin! has been busy creating redirects to films that have yet to enter production, in some cases redirecting to actors who may or may not be in the film, with the targets not including any information about said film. How do we feel about this? See Cleo (film), The Golden Tux, etc. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
He's still at it! I know User:JohnCD has put something on his talk page too. User:Captain Assassin! agrees to stop, but then continues. Should we take the issue to WP:AN?
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 10 where many screenshots are up for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any input regarding the inclusion of Spider-Man (1977 film) in Template:Marvel Comics films at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#1977 Spider-man film? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for the notability of film series articles? In the past, I've heard there should be at least three films, but I cannot find anything to back that up. In particular I am referring to the notability of DC Cinematic Universe. To complicate things, I have only found a handful of sources that actually uses the term, and nothing official.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize this isn't in regards to a film article, but I believe some of the same principles that were used as a basis for WP:FILMRATING may apply at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. I've asked for feedback at WT:TV and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television without results thus far. Thank you for your time. Doniago ( talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lead sentence for lost films (ones that we're sure are definitely lost because a reliable source says so), should the film be referred to in the present or past tense? WP:FILMLEAD only deals with a work that still (presumably) exists. Pinkadelica ♣ 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but recent edits indicate that this needs to be discussed again. Over at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Corvoe altered the infobox cast list, with the edit summary "Changing infobox cast list per the infobox film template". He made similar changes in various other articles. SchroCat reverted, and Corvoe reverted back. Today, I reverted to the earlier version, my basic argument being that the actor's names are visible on the poster, even without enlarging it, and common sense seems to dictate that this is the main cast. The names Corvoe added are not even visible on the poster, even if enlarged, so their addition seems dubious to me. I fully believe that Corvoe is acting in good faith, I simply feel that these edits defy common sense, and can lead to confusion. If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list? I know, speaking only for myself, that this has been a source of confusion in the past. Do we need to consider altering the infobox film template? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I was just following the template. Truth be told, I agree that the idea of basing it on the billing block seems sort of off when it comes to cast members being listed above (or below) the title, but I've been reverted and told that I was wrong for the same things I'm now reverting. The names I added are visible on a higher resolution version of the same poster used in the article. I'm not trying to be a pig headed policy thumper, I'm just operating under the assumption that most people aren't aware that the billing block is where the cast list is technically supposed to originate from. I'll stop making these edits until this is resolved. I'm actually on your side in the matter, Jacobite. I think you said it best: "If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list?" I would definitely agree that that makes sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that a lot of film awards have navigational succession templates (for want of a better word) that link to other templates. [9] I've nominated a few for deletion. Hopefully you'll see what I mean. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
All, I have been concerned about the conduct of Wikipedia editors of film articles, either toward each other or toward novices. I ask you to remember that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is grounded in policy as seen at Wikipedia:Civility, and I reiterate the "nutshell" version here:
Many of us here are well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to film. It can be a chore to reiterate our knowledge to new editors all the time, but in such exchanges we have the opportunity to educate or even recruit, however informally. Nor does our knowledge excuse hostile conduct toward others. I believe a lot of such interactions stem from edit warring, and edit warring is not restricted to one person. I encourage you to move slowly in such conflicts. Consider holding off on reverting even if the article is now on a "bad version" in your eyes. Try to prompt a discussion with the other editor. If that is a struggle, this talk page is always available as a place to post notifications about conflicts at individual articles. There are enough of us following this page that we can help weigh in, and I think our perspectives vary enough to avoid groupthink.
When talking to another editor, consider the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The main point for me is to " focus on content". Many of you know your policies and guidelines; reference them! Use examples. In discussions, consider a passive tone. Instead of saying "You're wrong because", say "I disagree because". Wikipedia is not a battleground; policy says, "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue." All this advice goes to editors old and new. I have seen behavior that is, quite frankly, dickish. I do not want to see new editors follow older ones in edit warring and hostile conduct. If you want to express, express positively. Tell others that you agree, or even commend them. If it is going to be negative, take a breath and re-frame your response. I hope you'll consider this. Make it part of your personal editing philosophy. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have nominated Greed for Featured Article consideration and it has been suggested to me that I notify this board about the nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past year or so and I think that it is up to standards and would be great addition to the growing list of featured films (only one other silent film has been featured so far). Anyway, I am just following through on the suggestion to post a notice here. It was previously nominated a few months back but was denied based purely on no one commenting on it one way or another, which is what appears to be happening now. Deoliveirafan ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Opinions are needed for the second James Berardinelli article deletion debate. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes this has been an issue for page moves (Avatar, Titantic, etc), but WP:PDAB has recently become policy via this. Maybe our trusty WP:NCF should be updated to include this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The article for Atlas Shrugged: Part II includes the statement: "Despite not being screened to critics in advance, the film was noted for positive audience interest." The source given for the claim is an article on the Fox News website. That article reports, "despite its review moratorium, Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." So since RT is the source of the claim that Fox reports, I removed it from the article noting in my edit summary that the RT "audience interest" information is not considered usable according to the Film MOS. Another editor reverted my edit saying that since Fox News is being used as the source, and not RT directly that it can be included. This makes no sense to me, so I posted on the talk page and mentioned I would ask here for input. Comments on the subject can be made here: Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Thanks 99.192.73.242 ( talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article Chris Field (Los Angeles musician), DIFF.
Further suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Chris Field (Los Angeles musician).
— Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a mess at The Weavers (1905) (the page has been moved five times already) about whether or not the Manaki brothers (Balkan filmmakers) produced two separate films, one called Baba Despina/Grandmother Despina, and one called The Weavers, or if they are the same films. I don't have time yet to research the matter, but I hope others can weigh in to clear up the mess of content and page titles. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: I think I figured it out. See Talk:The Weavers (1905) for research on the matter. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about the RT site to be honest - what do others know about "adjusted scores"? I'm referencing this edit on the article Mud. Does anyone else think a score of 105.184% doesn't feel right, despite the source from their website? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a French ( RAP Connection) and a German ( Ride or Die – Fahr zur Hölle, Baby!) article about Ride or Die. Whenever I try somehow to link them all together, I get the error message this was impossible because the French and the German article were already connected. Je ne comprends pas. NordhornerII ( talk _The man from Nordhorn 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has any thoughts to offer on Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction#One source is sufficient.3F I'd appreciate hearing them. I'm concerned that for this kind of list it may be appropriate to have more than one citation per entry. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hate to keep coming here requesting input, but we've got another situation here regarding including actors' salaries for films. DonIago ( talk) 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion relating to this project at Template talk:Infobox film#Point me to the guideline about linking twice in the infobox.3F. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article today. It was created by this SPA Charleshh25 ( talk · contribs) over three years ago and the person hasn't edited since. One of the two refs provided no longer has any info about the project on it and I can find no info about wjether the project is still in the works or not. Some of you are more proficient at internet searches than I am so could you please check for any new info. If there is none my next question is how should we proceed in dealing with the article? Should we make some brief mention of it as a shelved project on Burr Steers article and add a redirect to the film article or should we just run an AFD and let things take their course. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that this bot is incorrectly tagging masses of images as being orphaned when they are not. Examples include File:ATownCalledPanic.jpg, File:Mother film poster.jpg and File:Dogtooth(2009) poster.jpg. If you have any on your watchlist, please double check them. I've reverted and let the bot owner know. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If you would like to use article feedback on an article that you've written, you can enable it by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to the article's categories. While not all feedback will be useful, there may be some helpful suggestions. I was browsing the feedback this morning and saw someone say that Man of Steel (film) reported the CinemaScore results incorrectly as seen here (choose "Resolved" from the drop-down). I corrected the information. When an article has feedback enabled, you can read feedback by going to the talk page and clicking "View reader feedback" on the top. Thought I would share in case anyone wanted to experiment with it. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Product 500 days of summer soundtrack.jpg, used at (500) Days of Summer, is posted at FfD here. Posting notification here due to previous attempts at removal being reverted; seeking wider consensus to resolve this matter. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at The Dark Knight regarding the page title. Any input from the members of this project is appreciated. Randomuser112 ( talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in helping to create and expand documentary film articles? I'm sure that many of you stream them on Netflix as well and I feel like documentaries possess a lot of educational density. I'm a fairly new editor so if you don't mind helping me learn along the way, don't be afraid to let me know! Jamodalamo ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My memory may be faulty but I thought that we had a past discussion where it was decided that we would only place the original theatrical release run time for a film in the infobox. Alternate, directors or restoration cuts, etc were to be discussed in the appropriate section in the article. Cutting down on infobox bloat and the need to give context to the alternate run times were among the reasons behind this. There were to be some exceptions like Once Upon a Time in America where the European and US releases had different run times. Now, as I say I could be wrong about this, but if we did discuss it and come to a conclusion we didn't make any changes to the instructions at the "film infobox" template. So we could either reopen - or start - the conversation now and finish up by acting on whatever consensus we come to. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what I have been striving for. The problem is that currently we do not have any guidelines or instructions at the film template page and, thus, we have the mess at the Alexander infobox. I opened this to get input as to what we want to say in the new guideline. Since the "infobox film template" is full protected I thought I would get opinions on what wording we wanted before filing an edit request for the change. If we don't get any more input in the next couple of days we can have a go at writing the guideline and then file the request. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There's a discussion regarding the countries in The NeverEnding Story (film) article. The discussion is located at Talk:The NeverEnding Story (film)#Countries. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. Bye! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 16:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This AFD has been going on for a month now and has already been relisted twice. I'd like to avoid getting it relisted a third time. Any participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Jauersock dude?/ dude. 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
My first article, a bio of child silent film star Miriam Battista Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Battista, was rejected on the grounds of insufficient notability and unverifiable references. As a newbie, I didn't understand that primary sources are not welcome on Wikipedia (more's the pity...), so I'll put in the effort to find secondary sources to replace the primary ones. But there's a basic problem/challenge here: for a biography subject born in 1912 whose heyday was in the 1920's, there are not a lot of secondary materials with web links! I have access to plenty of newspaper articles, reviews, playbills, etc., but none of them exist online.
Has anyone else dealt with this problem? If so, how??
Any and all assistance will be very welcome! -- Ailemadrah ( talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they believe influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually never do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At Tim Burton, people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox — which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions.
Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to make sure a related project is aware, I've put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I am copying this discussion to Template talk:Infobox person with a request for action. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hello, there is an ongoing discussion taking place at Batman Begins regarding the need to cite a source to back up the claim that it is the first part of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Your input is appreciated. Thanks! drewmunn talk 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{ Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article " Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.
— Wavelength ( talk) 04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to add content to Jacques Rivette. There are two films in Rivette's filmography titled: Duelle and Noroît. In the French language, neither of these titles are real words and therefore cannot be literally translated. They are both portmanteaus. I have direct sources for English translations of both titles. Duelle roughly translates to "Twhy-light" and Noroît roughly translates to "Nor'west". Both of these translations come directly from the source, which I clarified in the body of the article. This appears to be a tricky case since there cannot be literal translations for either "words" used in the film's titles. The phrase "roughly translated as" used in the body of the article refers to the fact that a play on words cannot be accurately translated from one language to another and not to something completely made up by the author of the source (or by myself).
User:Robsinden has been reverting these translations in a section of the article that is clearly intended for the English translation of all titles. Not everything can be clear cut and by the book, and ambiguity does exist. So I figured I'd come here to have the issue resolved. -- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There is not a contradiction in saying that a translation is both a rough translation and a release title. In fact, it is good information to include in the article in cases like this. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please consider joining the discussion at Talk:Jinx (G.I. Joe)#Jinx quote box, regarding whether a quote about the character in G.I. Joe: Retaliation needs to be in a quote box or not. Thank you. Fortdj33 ( talk) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Would welcome any extra eyes to look at the article for Tim Kirk (producer) and the related AfD discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Les Forgerons.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
image:WallaceReid.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 10:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Is a two-part TV miniseries considered a film? An IP removed all the film categories from Wallenberg: A Hero's Story, which set me to wondering. As a more extreme example, The Winds of War (miniseries) is categorized as a 1983 film and is included in the template "Films directed by Dan Curtis". Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
File:LeonGaumont.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, all. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (a.k.a. WP:ACTOR) has been a defunct WikiProject for some time now. I am wondering if other editors were interested in reviving it in a minimalist fashion. Here at WikiProject Film, our key strengths are this forum and the guidelines that establish our best practices. I would like to replicate that at WP:ACTOR. I believe it would be beneficial to create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Actors and filmmakers to provide better guidance. In my experience, there are a lot of frustrating tables in actors and filmmakers' articles. Not to mention that I've noticed a lot of "Filmography" sections are just split into list articles. For example, when I go to Bruce Willis, I have to go down to "Filmography" and click yet again to another article to even see the body of work that defines him just as much as his career. In that case, there could at least be a simple list where the filmography sub-article would be more detailed. Would others be interested in discussing that kind of thing? If so, I hope you can add WT:ACTOR to your watchlist. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
|filmbio-work-group=yes
to the {{
WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. In fact, there are several task forces associated with this project, where the parameters |film=yes
or |cinema=yes
should probably be removed, since the article deals with a person, and doesn't really fall under the scope of WikiProject Film.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)image:Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, the article about Truffaut's milestone Les Mistons is no longer a stub. Somebody please re-evaluate. Thanxalot. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Over at The Blue Angel, User:Beyond My Ken keeps adding biographical information relating to the death of one of the stars in a concentration camp 14 years after the film's release. [10] [11] Whilst relevant to the biography of the actor in question, I fail to see the specific relevance at the film's article. Thoughts? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a request to move The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler as seen here. You can read the story behind the renaming here. Maybe with this new wave of "brand awareness" (looking at you, Marvel's The Avengers), we won't have to worry about disambiguating future films. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Despite all these films having received titles, the provisional informal numerical placeholder titles (The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2) are all still mentioned in the articles' leads. As we have a redirects from these numerical titles, and the leads mention that they are sequels, it seems redundant and unprofessional to still refer to these "titles". -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as " PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, most of them covered by WP:NCF. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, I was wondering if anyone knows if WP:NCF was created with community consensus? (That version was imported from WP:NC) I know things used to be different ten years ago, for example WP:NC is now at WP:AT, but pages still being named after the first. Also, this is the oldest version of the page, older versions appear to be lost or in Nostalgia. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor told me that IMDB is not an allowed source not just to find references of countries of production but for everything else, is that true because I find IMDB to be a very good. reliable and reputable source? ÓCorcráin ( talk) 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. More eyes might be needed on the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film) article. There's a person, using different IPs, who keeps adding an old version of the article that has, for example, an overly detailed plot section and an overly detailed section about the film's sequel (the sequel now has its own article). Though I have not yet looked in the article's edit history to see if it is an old version of the article, it's easy to see that it's an old version by comparing the overly detailed section about the sequel to the less detailed version of that section...and when comparing the existence of the interwiki links (an outdated method) to the non-interwiki links version. See here. The IP might also have edited the old version before pressing "Save page"; for example, the inappropriate capitalization of "Reception" for "Critical reception," which the IP has also done elsewhere. Looking the edit history of that "elsewhere IP," this person is perhaps reverting to an older version of other articles as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:17, 25 July 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
The article Sholay is in peer review. Please review the article. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
At We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks. It was first shown in 2012 in preview form (at least to the New York Times) in Los Angeles, and may even be copyrighted 2012 (?), but lots of sources are quite sensibly saying it's a 2013 film, since it debuted in 2013 at Sundance. I'll go with whatever consensus film folk come up with. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to throw themselves into an interesting situation, there is an article called American Godzilla for which there is a request to move it to just Zilla. It is an interesting case for which I would not mind additional viewpoints. Discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The redirect Non-narrative film, currently targetted at non-fiction, is being discussed at RfD. As part of that I have suggested merging that concept into the article fictional film (which would require only a little rewording, as it is presently mainly about the contrast) and renaming it something like Narrative and non-narrative film. Your views and comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Non-narrative film would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The above is up for Featured Article again. It's a solid article and one that should be among the very best the project can offer, but the last attempt failed purely on lack of interest, noone got involved, I am posting here so people are aware and that perhaps we can avoid the same situation again. The comments of the members here are valued, or if you know a non film project user who might have some interest in the film itself. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Should we bother including "stylized" titles in lead's of films? I don't know how much it helps people recognize a film as it's just some usually some advertising or poster stylized text. I'm thinking like it's shown on Scary Movie 5, where it says "Scary Movie 5 (stylized as Scary MoVie)". Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to reach consensus, or otherwise move this forward, I'll ask for your opinions on the following statement:
I personally oppose this proposal, what do you think? Should we develop this into something that separates the wheat (Se7en) from the chaff (GoodFellas)? Anyway, opinions on the above proposal would be a good start. drewmunn talk 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to rain on your parade Sdd and thanks for getting things going. Perhaps we could rework things this way as this seems reflect the discussion above. Depending on which of these sections other editors like responding to we could collapse the one that isn't used.
The article Journey (film series) is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series) due to only two films in the series. I invite editors to weigh in to determine a consensus and perhaps set a precedent since MOS:FILM#Film series is currently empty. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On the talk page of Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA Kyle ( talk · contribs) is an editor who works for the MPAA and is proposing updates to one of the article's sections. His proposal can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page of R.I.P.D. based on adding genres to films that haven't been released yet. If anyone is willing to take part in the discussion it would be greatly appreciated! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 23:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The article on the film Sholay is in peer review. Please help in improving the article. All comments will be highly valued. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A set of proposals regarding awards in infoboxes has begun here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards in infobox. Any thoughts and input will be appreciated. Also, if you think this link should be included on any other projects talk page please feel free to cut and paste this to them. MarnetteD | Talk 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As the company expands from its single location into a chain (currently with 5 locations), should the article be renamed to ArcLight Cinemas to better cover the entire company? Alternatively, if the Hollywood location is notable enough to have a standalone article, then should a new article be created to cover the chain? -- Hawaiian717 ( talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The GA reviewer is requesting a copyedit to clean up the prose, can someone take a look at the article? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Star Trek Into Darkness was released yesterday in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, parts of Europe, Peru. It was released in Mexico today. These are not special "premiere" screenings, but showings in the usual theaters open to the general public. But one editor over at the page is insisting that this does not count as a "general release" and so a plot summary cannot be posted yet. In an edit summary he has claimed that "since it isn't in general release, there's no way to verify plot." he also has asked people who disagree with him to ask over here for confirmation that he is right. Anyone want to weigh in? 99.192.50.95 ( talk) 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair Jack it was once it was in general release within the UK. You refused to see it as a general release until editors unanimously called you up as wrong. Hat off to you though buddy, you did take a break from the page to cool down (intentionally or not) and when you came back you had a much cooler head on your shoulders. :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
File:The Red Movie Poster.jpg has been nominated for deletoin -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 06:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Several film-related requested moves are underway:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am wondering if other editors see the new English-language file at File:Sightseers film poster.jpg. I replaced the French-language poster, but I still see the French-language poster as the main image of the file page. The French-language poster also still shows at Sightseers. I tried a hard refresh to see if the page would update, but that did not work. I'm wondering if it is a problem with the image upload system itself. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Morning! Would a couple of you be able to mosey on down to the Skyfall talk page and take a look at the conversation occuring at the bottom regarding edit warring. Much appreciated! drewmunn talk 08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has notifications that we can use to our benefit. In addition to seeing new messages on our user talk pages, we can also see when other editors mention our user names (in linked form) on another talk page. This can be used to "summon" other editors, to give them a heads-up of a discussion they may want to join. (Especially if there is a likelihood that the person does not have a page on his or her watchlist.) Templates to this end that I've seen so far are {{ user link}} and {{ replyto}}. The latter is probably best used to direct a specific comment in discussions with multiple participants, where the former can be used for the aforementioned "summoning". This is what I have seen so far; if there are other ways to benefit from the notifications, share with us here. :) Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The article Kahaani is a featured article candidate. Please comment in the FAC page. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ Jo Swerling}} was created a couple of days ago and added to a whole raft of film articles. As I understood it we only added "director" templates to films articles, so I was wondering how commonplace it is to add screenwriter templates? Personally I think it's an open door for template spam, since it is not unusual for a script to pass through several writers, some of which may have made relatively small contibutions. Do we have any guidelines on which templates should be added to articles? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that these template can be fun to make but these really are a template too far. They will be prone to bloating since there will be many examples of X was brought in to rework the script and received an onscreen credit even though the bulk of the work was done by Y. I would recommend listing them as a group at WP:TFD and see whther a consensus can be arrived at there. MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated the film article to be part of the "Did you know..." project. I want your help on researching the novel or film and expanding or copyediting either article. There are sources to look at:
[1] and
[2]. To Google it, type "The Joy Luck Club" (film OR movie)
in
Google Books. --
George Ho (
talk)
08:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I just put up Cult film for peer review. I've almost completely rewritten the article, expanding it greatly, but I've received little feedback. I've raised a few issues in the peer review, but any feedback at all would be welcome. This is my first major undertaking, in six years of sporadic editing. I think the article looks pretty decent, but I'm obviously a bit biased. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Some editors maybe interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As part of a group nomination. The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, film editors. On behalf of the Vital Articles project, I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the Vital Articles/Expanded main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the existing VA/E sublist of films, as well as 21 active discussions regarding actors and actresses, and seven discussions regarding film directors and producers. As regular editors in WikiProject Film, we would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Template up for deletion, please discuss. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There's a discussion regarding the reception section of the Les Miserables film article. The discussion is at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Reception section. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Would be grateful for some help with the correct title of Blue Is the Warmest Colour. Please see the edit history and talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone point me in the right direction of the MOS that deals with French naming conventions. For example, should the French title in the intro of Blue Is the Warmest Colour be La vie d'Adèle or La Vie d'Adèle? Apparently this is something everyone knows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks. drewmunn talk 10:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Just curious if A-Class reviews still exist here? I followed a instruction here and created this. But it doesn't seem to clearly be used as a assessment now. Should the instruction page still be here then? Jhenderson 777 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus (or ideally a policy) regarding posting links to full copies of movies on YouTube? I'm in a dispute with an editor regarding the appropriateness of doing so. I'm presuming the link itself is legal and not a copyvio. Cheers! Doniago ( talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am surprised that this is even up for discussion. It seems to me that nothing could be more relevant to an article about a film than a full YouTube video of that film, which is an authorized upload (not copyvio), and is viewable for free just for watching a couple of ads. Hgrosser ( talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not a commercial link just because there are ads to support it. A commercial link is a site or page whose main purpose is to sell things. Articles on companies have links to their official sites (usually as the first one in the list), many of whose main purpose is to promote the sale of those companies’ products. Just about every worthwhile video on YouTube is preceded by an ad that you have to sit through. Just about every site on the Web, that you don’t have to sign up and pay for, has ads to support it. If somehow we could embed links to over-the-air broadcast channels in articles, would that be unacceptable just because these channels are filled with annoying commercials? In this specific case of Starship Troopers there’s only a single additional ad in the middle of the film, which is shown by a yellow dot in the video timeline, and which you can force to play at the beginning if you wish by clicking to the right of it, after which you can view the film undisturbed. Hgrosser ( talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
All external links go to 'commercial sites' (and also the references); for every external link that we add, someone is making money with that site. Every site is commercial, even cnn.com and wikipedia.org. Thát is not the point of not linking to commercial sites, and that is not a reason to exclude the link - it is a reason when an external site just has a 'buy me' button, no added info, no nothing else. Does it primarily exist to sell, or does it give significant extra info?
Looking at this site, however, I find "In April 2009, Crackle blocked access to anyone not in the United States of America. On June 8, 2010, Crackle announced it had opened up access to selected content on the site to viewers in the UK, Canada and Australia" worrying .. it is simply not available in the majority of the world, where many English speaking people live (including countries which have English as their main language like India, or me as a non-native English, born in a country that does not have access, living in a country that also does not have access, still, most of the movies I watch have, at best, English subtitles, sometimes subtitles in a language I do not speak/read, or most of the time, simply have no subtitles ...). That, simply, fails an important part of our WP:EL guideline - the material is inaccessible to a large part of the readers. Moreover, there are still people who can not access YouTube, even in the supported countries, due to the devices they are using (viewing YouTube movies needs the correct software), or speed-restrictions. For me, YouTube links (in general) simply fail WP:EL in such ways, that they should not be linked unless they really add something that is otherwise detrimental to the understanding of the page - which is not the case with the full movie.
Is this content available through the official site of the movie - http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/starshiptroopers/ ? If Sony, through Crackle, provides this movie online, this link should be there from the sonypictures page, which would make YouTube and/or Crackle not necessary (if a mainpage of a subject prominently links to their facebook and twitter, we do not also include the facebook and twitter in our list of external links, the official site if enough).
By the way, I think that there is already a linkfarm on the page, do all these external links provide unique information that is a) not already in the Wikipedia article itself, and b) is not already provided by all the others, and is that unique information that site number 5 is giving really extending the information that is not already there through the others (and similar, as I mention above, does the YouTube full video add anything significant that is not provided already?). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I planned to create Deep Blue (2003 film) to provide a blue link at Walking with Dinosaurs (film), and in my looking around, I noticed Deep Blue (2001 film). It is supposedly directed by Dwight H. Little, who is known for a few other films. However, I could not find coverage about the 2001 film. I only saw mentions of verifiability, but I suspect that such mentions were only cribbed from IMDb. AMG (at The New York Times) does not mention Deep Blue, and BFI's Film Index International (very comprehensive) mentions all the other films under Dwight Little except this one. Is Deep Blue a hoax or some obscure personal project? I wanted to bring it up in particular since this is a director known for other works and since IMDb's listings were likely referenced by sources that do mention it. Anyone else able to shed further light on the matter? Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Gertie the Dinosaur for Featured Article status. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review. All feedback is much appreciated. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 13:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The navigation templates {{ Common}}, {{ Pink}}, {{ RZA}}, {{ Erykah Badu}} (and probably more) are being inserted in film articles because of each person's appearance. Per MOS:FILM#Navigation, these should not be placed in such articles. I'm removing what I can but could use a hand. Anyone have a way to automate removal? Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) had 2012 in it's title because another film supposedly had that title. But now one editor moved the other film's name saying that the film wasn't referred to as that. Does this mean that the 2012 film should probably be renamed to as just (film) in it's title? Jhenderson 777 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
So I have just come across Darkwarriorblake and User:Asd17 edit warring over on Fast and Furious 6 over the rounding of the Box office totals. I point out that GA articles that are specific according to the Box Office Mojo and other reliable sources and then he comes out out a load of other GA articles (all of which he edits) all with rounded. Info box parameters aren't very specific and nor is MOS. Any insight you could all provide would be great.
I am for being specific because the info box is ideal for posting precise figures like that and it is a lot easier to read rounded numbers within the context of the article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not a question of if you stealth edited or not. Point is that there are two competently opposing views. Neither is correct or incorrect, but the point you seem to be making is that you dont like it. Despite other editors disagreeing with you. 95% of the articles I come across editors are using the full number in the info box and rounding in the article. Mainly because the rounding is, unless they are providing a direct reference to the amount the film made, is a lot easier to read. Besides, where do we round from? The nearest Million? Hundred Thousand? Thousand? Hundred? Who gets to decide it? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact you prefer another format over another implies you don't like the other one. You don't like it because you don't think it is a reliable precise figure. Don't forget we are an encyclopedia guys, it is our job to provide precise figures where appropriate and where they are found. Especially when those figures are so regularly available. Darkwarriorblake is the only editor I have come accross who is actively reverting other editors and edit warring over another equally correct format. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Is the rounding of some numbers really worth all of this? If this keeps up much longer, this may qualify for WP:LAME. If you make the change to one number (rounded or not) and someone reverts you, here's some advice: let it go. Like I said already, it's not worth it. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the film director, Steve Anderson (director).
Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be welcomed, at Talk:Steve Anderson (director). — Cirt ( talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Eyes needed to determine whether the prominent addition of the opinion of an unknown reviewer writing for a non-notable website should be removed per WP:WEIGHT or not. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Are we satisfied that the closing admin made the right decision on this move review? I don't think I am... Have left something on the closing admin's talk page... -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but someone's created Mission: Impossible 5 (movie) and it needs serious work (possible deletion). Anyone have any views on what the best course of action. I'd move it to the correct location, but don't want to if we're just going to delete it. drewmunn talk 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There's a genre discussion regarding the use of The Iron Giant's lead section over at Talk:The Iron Giant#Genres in the lead. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Captain_Assassin! has been busy creating redirects to films that have yet to enter production, in some cases redirecting to actors who may or may not be in the film, with the targets not including any information about said film. How do we feel about this? See Cleo (film), The Golden Tux, etc. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
He's still at it! I know User:JohnCD has put something on his talk page too. User:Captain Assassin! agrees to stop, but then continues. Should we take the issue to WP:AN?
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 10 where many screenshots are up for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any input regarding the inclusion of Spider-Man (1977 film) in Template:Marvel Comics films at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#1977 Spider-man film? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for the notability of film series articles? In the past, I've heard there should be at least three films, but I cannot find anything to back that up. In particular I am referring to the notability of DC Cinematic Universe. To complicate things, I have only found a handful of sources that actually uses the term, and nothing official.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize this isn't in regards to a film article, but I believe some of the same principles that were used as a basis for WP:FILMRATING may apply at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. I've asked for feedback at WT:TV and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television without results thus far. Thank you for your time. Doniago ( talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lead sentence for lost films (ones that we're sure are definitely lost because a reliable source says so), should the film be referred to in the present or past tense? WP:FILMLEAD only deals with a work that still (presumably) exists. Pinkadelica ♣ 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but recent edits indicate that this needs to be discussed again. Over at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Corvoe altered the infobox cast list, with the edit summary "Changing infobox cast list per the infobox film template". He made similar changes in various other articles. SchroCat reverted, and Corvoe reverted back. Today, I reverted to the earlier version, my basic argument being that the actor's names are visible on the poster, even without enlarging it, and common sense seems to dictate that this is the main cast. The names Corvoe added are not even visible on the poster, even if enlarged, so their addition seems dubious to me. I fully believe that Corvoe is acting in good faith, I simply feel that these edits defy common sense, and can lead to confusion. If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list? I know, speaking only for myself, that this has been a source of confusion in the past. Do we need to consider altering the infobox film template? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I was just following the template. Truth be told, I agree that the idea of basing it on the billing block seems sort of off when it comes to cast members being listed above (or below) the title, but I've been reverted and told that I was wrong for the same things I'm now reverting. The names I added are visible on a higher resolution version of the same poster used in the article. I'm not trying to be a pig headed policy thumper, I'm just operating under the assumption that most people aren't aware that the billing block is where the cast list is technically supposed to originate from. I'll stop making these edits until this is resolved. I'm actually on your side in the matter, Jacobite. I think you said it best: "If a listing of actor's names is visible on the poster, wouldn't the assumption be that these are the names that should be listed in the infobox, with a more complete listing reserved for the main cast list?" I would definitely agree that that makes sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that a lot of film awards have navigational succession templates (for want of a better word) that link to other templates. [9] I've nominated a few for deletion. Hopefully you'll see what I mean. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
All, I have been concerned about the conduct of Wikipedia editors of film articles, either toward each other or toward novices. I ask you to remember that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is grounded in policy as seen at Wikipedia:Civility, and I reiterate the "nutshell" version here:
Many of us here are well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially as they pertain to film. It can be a chore to reiterate our knowledge to new editors all the time, but in such exchanges we have the opportunity to educate or even recruit, however informally. Nor does our knowledge excuse hostile conduct toward others. I believe a lot of such interactions stem from edit warring, and edit warring is not restricted to one person. I encourage you to move slowly in such conflicts. Consider holding off on reverting even if the article is now on a "bad version" in your eyes. Try to prompt a discussion with the other editor. If that is a struggle, this talk page is always available as a place to post notifications about conflicts at individual articles. There are enough of us following this page that we can help weigh in, and I think our perspectives vary enough to avoid groupthink.
When talking to another editor, consider the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The main point for me is to " focus on content". Many of you know your policies and guidelines; reference them! Use examples. In discussions, consider a passive tone. Instead of saying "You're wrong because", say "I disagree because". Wikipedia is not a battleground; policy says, "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue." All this advice goes to editors old and new. I have seen behavior that is, quite frankly, dickish. I do not want to see new editors follow older ones in edit warring and hostile conduct. If you want to express, express positively. Tell others that you agree, or even commend them. If it is going to be negative, take a breath and re-frame your response. I hope you'll consider this. Make it part of your personal editing philosophy. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have nominated Greed for Featured Article consideration and it has been suggested to me that I notify this board about the nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past year or so and I think that it is up to standards and would be great addition to the growing list of featured films (only one other silent film has been featured so far). Anyway, I am just following through on the suggestion to post a notice here. It was previously nominated a few months back but was denied based purely on no one commenting on it one way or another, which is what appears to be happening now. Deoliveirafan ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Opinions are needed for the second James Berardinelli article deletion debate. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes this has been an issue for page moves (Avatar, Titantic, etc), but WP:PDAB has recently become policy via this. Maybe our trusty WP:NCF should be updated to include this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The article for Atlas Shrugged: Part II includes the statement: "Despite not being screened to critics in advance, the film was noted for positive audience interest." The source given for the claim is an article on the Fox News website. That article reports, "despite its review moratorium, Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." So since RT is the source of the claim that Fox reports, I removed it from the article noting in my edit summary that the RT "audience interest" information is not considered usable according to the Film MOS. Another editor reverted my edit saying that since Fox News is being used as the source, and not RT directly that it can be included. This makes no sense to me, so I posted on the talk page and mentioned I would ask here for input. Comments on the subject can be made here: Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Thanks 99.192.73.242 ( talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article Chris Field (Los Angeles musician), DIFF.
Further suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Chris Field (Los Angeles musician).
— Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a mess at The Weavers (1905) (the page has been moved five times already) about whether or not the Manaki brothers (Balkan filmmakers) produced two separate films, one called Baba Despina/Grandmother Despina, and one called The Weavers, or if they are the same films. I don't have time yet to research the matter, but I hope others can weigh in to clear up the mess of content and page titles. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: I think I figured it out. See Talk:The Weavers (1905) for research on the matter. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about the RT site to be honest - what do others know about "adjusted scores"? I'm referencing this edit on the article Mud. Does anyone else think a score of 105.184% doesn't feel right, despite the source from their website? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a French ( RAP Connection) and a German ( Ride or Die – Fahr zur Hölle, Baby!) article about Ride or Die. Whenever I try somehow to link them all together, I get the error message this was impossible because the French and the German article were already connected. Je ne comprends pas. NordhornerII ( talk _The man from Nordhorn 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has any thoughts to offer on Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction#One source is sufficient.3F I'd appreciate hearing them. I'm concerned that for this kind of list it may be appropriate to have more than one citation per entry. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hate to keep coming here requesting input, but we've got another situation here regarding including actors' salaries for films. DonIago ( talk) 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion relating to this project at Template talk:Infobox film#Point me to the guideline about linking twice in the infobox.3F. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article today. It was created by this SPA Charleshh25 ( talk · contribs) over three years ago and the person hasn't edited since. One of the two refs provided no longer has any info about the project on it and I can find no info about wjether the project is still in the works or not. Some of you are more proficient at internet searches than I am so could you please check for any new info. If there is none my next question is how should we proceed in dealing with the article? Should we make some brief mention of it as a shelved project on Burr Steers article and add a redirect to the film article or should we just run an AFD and let things take their course. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that this bot is incorrectly tagging masses of images as being orphaned when they are not. Examples include File:ATownCalledPanic.jpg, File:Mother film poster.jpg and File:Dogtooth(2009) poster.jpg. If you have any on your watchlist, please double check them. I've reverted and let the bot owner know. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If you would like to use article feedback on an article that you've written, you can enable it by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to the article's categories. While not all feedback will be useful, there may be some helpful suggestions. I was browsing the feedback this morning and saw someone say that Man of Steel (film) reported the CinemaScore results incorrectly as seen here (choose "Resolved" from the drop-down). I corrected the information. When an article has feedback enabled, you can read feedback by going to the talk page and clicking "View reader feedback" on the top. Thought I would share in case anyone wanted to experiment with it. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Product 500 days of summer soundtrack.jpg, used at (500) Days of Summer, is posted at FfD here. Posting notification here due to previous attempts at removal being reverted; seeking wider consensus to resolve this matter. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at The Dark Knight regarding the page title. Any input from the members of this project is appreciated. Randomuser112 ( talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in helping to create and expand documentary film articles? I'm sure that many of you stream them on Netflix as well and I feel like documentaries possess a lot of educational density. I'm a fairly new editor so if you don't mind helping me learn along the way, don't be afraid to let me know! Jamodalamo ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My memory may be faulty but I thought that we had a past discussion where it was decided that we would only place the original theatrical release run time for a film in the infobox. Alternate, directors or restoration cuts, etc were to be discussed in the appropriate section in the article. Cutting down on infobox bloat and the need to give context to the alternate run times were among the reasons behind this. There were to be some exceptions like Once Upon a Time in America where the European and US releases had different run times. Now, as I say I could be wrong about this, but if we did discuss it and come to a conclusion we didn't make any changes to the instructions at the "film infobox" template. So we could either reopen - or start - the conversation now and finish up by acting on whatever consensus we come to. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what I have been striving for. The problem is that currently we do not have any guidelines or instructions at the film template page and, thus, we have the mess at the Alexander infobox. I opened this to get input as to what we want to say in the new guideline. Since the "infobox film template" is full protected I thought I would get opinions on what wording we wanted before filing an edit request for the change. If we don't get any more input in the next couple of days we can have a go at writing the guideline and then file the request. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There's a discussion regarding the countries in The NeverEnding Story (film) article. The discussion is located at Talk:The NeverEnding Story (film)#Countries. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. Bye! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 16:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This AFD has been going on for a month now and has already been relisted twice. I'd like to avoid getting it relisted a third time. Any participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Jauersock dude?/ dude. 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
My first article, a bio of child silent film star Miriam Battista Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Battista, was rejected on the grounds of insufficient notability and unverifiable references. As a newbie, I didn't understand that primary sources are not welcome on Wikipedia (more's the pity...), so I'll put in the effort to find secondary sources to replace the primary ones. But there's a basic problem/challenge here: for a biography subject born in 1912 whose heyday was in the 1920's, there are not a lot of secondary materials with web links! I have access to plenty of newspaper articles, reviews, playbills, etc., but none of them exist online.
Has anyone else dealt with this problem? If so, how??
Any and all assistance will be very welcome! -- Ailemadrah ( talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they believe influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually never do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At Tim Burton, people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox — which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions.
Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to make sure a related project is aware, I've put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I am copying this discussion to Template talk:Infobox person with a request for action. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hello, there is an ongoing discussion taking place at Batman Begins regarding the need to cite a source to back up the claim that it is the first part of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Your input is appreciated. Thanks! drewmunn talk 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{ Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article " Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.
— Wavelength ( talk) 04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to add content to Jacques Rivette. There are two films in Rivette's filmography titled: Duelle and Noroît. In the French language, neither of these titles are real words and therefore cannot be literally translated. They are both portmanteaus. I have direct sources for English translations of both titles. Duelle roughly translates to "Twhy-light" and Noroît roughly translates to "Nor'west". Both of these translations come directly from the source, which I clarified in the body of the article. This appears to be a tricky case since there cannot be literal translations for either "words" used in the film's titles. The phrase "roughly translated as" used in the body of the article refers to the fact that a play on words cannot be accurately translated from one language to another and not to something completely made up by the author of the source (or by myself).
User:Robsinden has been reverting these translations in a section of the article that is clearly intended for the English translation of all titles. Not everything can be clear cut and by the book, and ambiguity does exist. So I figured I'd come here to have the issue resolved. -- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There is not a contradiction in saying that a translation is both a rough translation and a release title. In fact, it is good information to include in the article in cases like this. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please consider joining the discussion at Talk:Jinx (G.I. Joe)#Jinx quote box, regarding whether a quote about the character in G.I. Joe: Retaliation needs to be in a quote box or not. Thank you. Fortdj33 ( talk) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Would welcome any extra eyes to look at the article for Tim Kirk (producer) and the related AfD discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Les Forgerons.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
image:WallaceReid.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 10:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Is a two-part TV miniseries considered a film? An IP removed all the film categories from Wallenberg: A Hero's Story, which set me to wondering. As a more extreme example, The Winds of War (miniseries) is categorized as a 1983 film and is included in the template "Films directed by Dan Curtis". Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
File:LeonGaumont.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, all. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (a.k.a. WP:ACTOR) has been a defunct WikiProject for some time now. I am wondering if other editors were interested in reviving it in a minimalist fashion. Here at WikiProject Film, our key strengths are this forum and the guidelines that establish our best practices. I would like to replicate that at WP:ACTOR. I believe it would be beneficial to create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Actors and filmmakers to provide better guidance. In my experience, there are a lot of frustrating tables in actors and filmmakers' articles. Not to mention that I've noticed a lot of "Filmography" sections are just split into list articles. For example, when I go to Bruce Willis, I have to go down to "Filmography" and click yet again to another article to even see the body of work that defines him just as much as his career. In that case, there could at least be a simple list where the filmography sub-article would be more detailed. Would others be interested in discussing that kind of thing? If so, I hope you can add WT:ACTOR to your watchlist. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
|filmbio-work-group=yes
to the {{
WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. In fact, there are several task forces associated with this project, where the parameters |film=yes
or |cinema=yes
should probably be removed, since the article deals with a person, and doesn't really fall under the scope of WikiProject Film.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)image:Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, the article about Truffaut's milestone Les Mistons is no longer a stub. Somebody please re-evaluate. Thanxalot. NordhornerII ( talk)_The man from Nordhorn 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Over at The Blue Angel, User:Beyond My Ken keeps adding biographical information relating to the death of one of the stars in a concentration camp 14 years after the film's release. [10] [11] Whilst relevant to the biography of the actor in question, I fail to see the specific relevance at the film's article. Thoughts? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a request to move The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler as seen here. You can read the story behind the renaming here. Maybe with this new wave of "brand awareness" (looking at you, Marvel's The Avengers), we won't have to worry about disambiguating future films. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Despite all these films having received titles, the provisional informal numerical placeholder titles (The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2) are all still mentioned in the articles' leads. As we have a redirects from these numerical titles, and the leads mention that they are sequels, it seems redundant and unprofessional to still refer to these "titles". -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as " PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, most of them covered by WP:NCF. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, I was wondering if anyone knows if WP:NCF was created with community consensus? (That version was imported from WP:NC) I know things used to be different ten years ago, for example WP:NC is now at WP:AT, but pages still being named after the first. Also, this is the oldest version of the page, older versions appear to be lost or in Nostalgia. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor told me that IMDB is not an allowed source not just to find references of countries of production but for everything else, is that true because I find IMDB to be a very good. reliable and reputable source? ÓCorcráin ( talk) 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. More eyes might be needed on the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film) article. There's a person, using different IPs, who keeps adding an old version of the article that has, for example, an overly detailed plot section and an overly detailed section about the film's sequel (the sequel now has its own article). Though I have not yet looked in the article's edit history to see if it is an old version of the article, it's easy to see that it's an old version by comparing the overly detailed section about the sequel to the less detailed version of that section...and when comparing the existence of the interwiki links (an outdated method) to the non-interwiki links version. See here. The IP might also have edited the old version before pressing "Save page"; for example, the inappropriate capitalization of "Reception" for "Critical reception," which the IP has also done elsewhere. Looking the edit history of that "elsewhere IP," this person is perhaps reverting to an older version of other articles as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)