![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I was looking at the year in film articles (like 2010 in film) and noticed all of the Notable Deaths sections were really screwy. Looking at the table code, it appears that the first cell had a row count for the number of deaths that month and editors kept adding in names but not increasing the numbers (sometimes there was a big difference).
I don't mind doing the work to correct the tables but it begs the question, what sort of notoriety is required to make it on to the Notable Deaths. Because names continue to be added, not just actors and directors but camera men and stunt men, most of these new names are red-linked because there are no articles about them.
There is a policy in Deaths in 2013 to allow red-linked deceased for one month and allow them on the list and give any Editor time to author an article about them. But after 30 days, red-linked deceased are removed from the list of people who died that year. Should this policy be adopted for the year in film articles? If not, should there be any criteria set for what is notable? Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across the first on the BLP board. I'm sorely tempted to send to AfD, but perhaps some of you can examine these two anime voice actors and determine if there is any notability first? Both of these bios follow a similar CV like pattern. Much appreciated. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This just happened. I feel like linking this here to hear other people's thoughts or maybe some editors can improve it as well. I think we may need restrictions on when these kind of articles should be created in the near future. Jhenderson 777 20:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Hobbit (film series)#Cast lists in individual articles.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Following a recent move of Carry On (film series) to Carry On (franchise) caused me to have a look at all the articles for this series, and I think they could use some restructuring. My edits and move of Carry On series on screen and stage were reverted. Please see the discussion regarding this at Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage#Requested move - would appreciate input. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, whe the filmography was split from Carry On (franchise) a few months ago, the section on unmade films was removed without explanation or discussion. My attempts to reinstate the sourced material are being reverted. Please join the discussion at Talk:Carry On (franchise)#Removal of "Unmade films" section. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK hipsters, time to earn some real credentials. For all of you who have seen it, Dredd is a brilliant action film (that was written and filmed before the Raid thank you) and I'm putting it up for Featured Article status. I hope you can stop buy to lend your opinion! Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, film buffs! This article appears to have no references at all. Is it about a notable film? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Pather Panchali is one of the core articles of wikiproject film. It is in peer review now. If anyone is interested, comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this unnecessary and completely redundant to X-Men (film series) and Wolverine in other media. I am starting to call content fork. Jhenderson 777 14:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at the articles Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse as to whether these two films are Surrealist. I have taken the stance that they have no connection to the Surrealist movement and that the sources being used to support the Surrealist claims are not adequate. Fyunck(click) has started a discussion at RSN about this, which I have not yet responded to. I would like to hear some thoughts from member of the Filmproject about all this. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Heads up everyone: I am going to help get Thor: The Dark World up to GA status, as with Iron Man 3 and the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. The discussion is at Talk:Thor: The Dark World#GA? if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I too am in favor of including decades in director/producer templates. Adding my name to those in that thread makes this 2 to 2. Can we get an WP:RFC on this issue. I am currently in dispute at {{ Scott Rudin}} on this matter.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In articles like List of films: A and all its siblings, I disagree with multiple parenthetical years, as required in Template talk:Guidelines for adding new entries:
That's not good English punctuation, and it looks quite clumsy. I suggest:
It looks less cluttered. While performing some year corrections, I boldly reformatted S, T, U-W, and X-Z in the minimal parentheses style (this was prior to seeing the guideline, which is only shown on Talk pages). If there's a better place to discuss this, I'll move it there. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 10:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thought this would be worth sharing, considering how we debate a film's "country" often. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the recent revisions of the plot of The English Patient (film)? I have reached 3RR, so I am not going to revert, but the current version is simply dreadful, clearly written by someone with a poor grasp of English grammar. He repeatedly claims that my reversions are the result of vanity. The plot is too long and needs a rewrite, but not his version. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Should this film be categorized as an Upcoming film or an Unfinished film? Following the death of Paul Walker, the studio put the film on-hold indefinitely. However the director stated that film has not been cancelled and vowed to complete it. So should the article reflect its current status or the aspirations of the filmmakers?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The requested move has been active for over a month. Care to comment there? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.
Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, this discussion is related to a proposal to allow redlinks in "filmography" navboxes. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the title of films in director navboxes reflect the Wikipedia article titles, or should they use a title more "relevant" to the director? I reverted a change in {{ Chris Columbus}} from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but it was reverted back, with the editor in question thinking that it should be nationally tied to the director, as it has at Chris Columbus (filmmaker). -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering does anyone else think the Infobox Film that the field "Language" should be changed to "Primary Language" or "Original Language" because many people are entering every Language spoken in a film even if its only one scene. Let me know what you think Kelvin 101 ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that Animal House omits "National Lampoon", we can do the same on some other films, like Van Wilder. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
RM for Van Wilder now underway at Talk:National Lampoon's Van Wilder#Requested move. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about naming these two articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Some sub-categories of Category:Teen films have been nominated for deletion.
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Teen_films, where your it would be great to have input from members of this project. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Convenience? I've never understood the rationale for categorizing all films by nationality together. Categories such as Category:American films claim this is for convenience. Of what exactly? How is a category of 20,000 (which is virtually impossible to navigate) convenient? And to what end? Categorization schemes work by diffusion and I don't know of any other scheme of any size which encourages double and triple categorization like this. Even subcategories of this scheme aren't double categorized (e.g. films aren't in Category:American romance films, Category:American comedy films, and Category:American romantic comedy films—they are just in the latter). What is it I'm missing here? Why are films somehow exempt from standard categorization procedure? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Smetanahue has been adding a lot of films to Category:Christmas films and its relevant subcats. I don't doubt that his intentions are good and that, in most cases, the categorization is accurate. But, in some cases, as with the film Eyes Wide Shut, the categorization does not seem accurate or useful. Eyes Wide Shut does take place during the Christmas season, but it is not an important part of the story. The same goes for some other films he has added to the category, including Lethal Weapon. The category should be reserved for films which feature Christmas as a central theme, not films which merely take place at that time of year. I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 03:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought: if we create separate categories for "films set during Christmas", "films about Christmas", "films celebrating Christmas" etc, wouldn't they all still be subcategories of "Christmas films"? Smetanahue ( talk) 21:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the table at 2007 in film#Notable deaths completely screwed up? I'm not good enough with tables to fix that. -- Geniac ( talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As some may know, IMDB is not generally accepted as RS. I created a list in my userspace of featured articles that use it. You can see it here: User:Beerest 2/FAIMDB. Feel free to edit it and add more, I didnt have time to sample many articles. Anyway, the purpose of this can be used to make sure that top quality sources are used in FAs, and this way we know which articles are in need of better sourcing. Beerest 2 talk 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, UKER asked about the appropriateness of the notability guidelines for future films for the case of Terminator: Genesis (which was just blanked at first, then roughly merged). That led to a discussion as seen at WT:FUTFILM#No article until principal photography?, and I wanted to have a wider discussion here since more editors watch this page. I have noticed that there are an increasing number of "exceptions" to the notability guidelines for future films. The goal of the guidelines was to make sure that we will definitely have a film before we set up a stand-alone article for it. On the other hand, per WP:CRYSTAL, it is acceptable to consolidate discussion about plans for a film. I have not commented too much on these exceptions I've seen, mainly because they are films in active development (which draws frequent news coverage) and because the articles are kept shipshape. In a nutshell, it seems like the category of franchise films generates a lot of pre-filming coverage, for which the argument is made necessitates stand-alone articles. I was fine with that as long as we could present the news coverage as plans for a film (leaving out the film infobox, categories, etc) but that seems impossible to accomplish. Readers see these exception articles and revise them as if they were guaranteed films. I'm not sure what to propose in terms of better handling. Do we go along with the news coverage and propose merging when active development halts? Maybe something like going along with it if a director, writer, or star is attached until something affects production? Here's a list of exceptions I've seen:
These do not include films that have started filming fairly recently (like Guardians of the Galaxy) or have been merged (like Terminator: Genesis). If you have seen others worth mentioning, feel free to highlight them here. Any ideas on how to best handle these and similar topics would be welcome. Pinging relevant editors: MichaelQSchmidt, Robsinden, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Bovineboy2008, Rusted AutoParts, Flax5, Lady Lotus. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose a merger to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Discussion is at Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). -- George Ho ( talk) 07:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! See the request here. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator to close down the Article Incubator. Please join the discussion there. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a speedy deletion discussion for the page Canadian Society of Cinematographers. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this Cahill U.S. Marshal really a sensible way to handle distribution in the infobox?? It seems to me that it should be limited to the initial theatrical release so as to avoid cluttering the info box. Also, is there a point in having a "box office" gross number that only pertains to tape/DVD rentals? Seems like this stuff should be in a separate section at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 13:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Several months ago, I proposed the project m:Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia) on Meta. Discussion stagnated a long time ago and I thought here would be a good place to revive it. Since film-related have been known to get in-universe cruft added to them, it seems like WF could be a good place to direct people who add cruft, and people interested in working on plot summaries/in-universe details. Hopefully, you're interested,
-- Jakob ( talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy holidays. | |
Best wishes for joy and happiness. I'm wishing this WikiProject a very happy one. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
At In a World..., I am getting a lot of static, such as this most recent reversion, about including a comprehensive listing of awards and nominations. I have seen film, actor and director articles with film award lists as well as separate articles for film awards for films and tv shows. From what I understand, they include almost every half notable film society that has awards. From what I can tell Phoenix Film Critics Society is a somewhat notable film society. They have awards and they are being repeatedly deleted by another editor. Additionally, I have monitored the Metacritic film top ten list database and found top 10 lists that the film was recognized in. These were removed from the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey regarding whether we should go with a budget range or a single figure. Since User:KahnJohn27 keeps reverting without joining the discussion on the talk page I have had no choice but to start an RFC. The discussion is at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RfC: Should the budget section of the infobox stipulate a budget range of $200–315 million? so all comments either way are welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a dispute regarding the Jedi title in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#"Jedi" title in the lead section. All comments from project members are welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the guidelines for the "Starring" field in the film infobox on the template's talk page. See the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, another quick question. According to the MOS, the "plot" section does not need a source. What about a "cast" list? Here Kolberg_(film) someone just threw out my ref to Filmportal. Is that in accordance with accepted practice? Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move ongoing; comment whilst it lasts. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! May someone pay a visit here? Thank you. :) -- Pequod76 ( talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone up for a challenge for the new year? Please have a look at the entries on the requested film article page. It would be great if people could help establish notabilty for these films by either a) creating a few new articles, or b) removing any redlinks that you think are simply not-notable. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I have some input for Winx Club 3D: Magical Adventure? Anonymous users have included a dubbed, edited version of the runtime in the infobox along with the original runtime with no logical explanation. BOVINEBOY 2008 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There's discussion about the genre for the new Scorsese film on the article's talk page. Can anyone help chime in? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know if this is the right place to post this so feel free to transer it if necessary. I have already posted this on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Requests but I do not know how many people view these pages so I thought I would repost here my belief that the following films should have Wikipedia articles:
Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 16:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Two articles have already been approved and are now standard entries! I made a typo when naming Wings ("1966 films" rather than "1966 film"). Does anyone know how to fix it? Also, how do I add links to Wikipedia entries in other language on the side? 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw you just added a link for the Russian Wikipedia's entry for Wings (as well as fixing my typo). Thank you very much! Can you do the same with the Swedish entry for Das zweite Erwachen der Christa Klages? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 11:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Will it be possible for any senior editor or administrator reading this to approve my five remaining articles? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 18:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Would some please explain to Manxwoman why she can't insert her own interpretation/analysis of a part of this film into the article without a citation from a reliable source? So far, she's reverted me twice and accused me of ownership, so I'm finished with her. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Supercut redirected to Mashup (video), which mentions "supercut" but doesn't define it. I've just created a proper (I think) article for Supercut, and linked to it from Mashup (video). But I'm not a film or video fan, just a language and reference geek, so will somebody from this project please check out Supercut and do whatever else needs doing? TIA. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion in regards to what actors should be included in the infobox "starring" parameter. All are welcome to join the conversation here at the documentation talk page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! While I was looking at the main page of the project, I saw there was a Spotlight department and it caught my attention so I clicked on it, read every information and noticed the DYK section needed to be updated. I started updating it earlier, but my changes don't appear on the spotlight's page even though they have been saved, if you look at the history. You can see them on the page separately but not when all the different sections are gathered on one page. Does anyobdy know why and how to fix this? Thanks, -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The article List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is up for deletion as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since Rotten Tomatoes comes up often here, I thought I would bring this up. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, all. There are two categories that seem to overlap a little bit when it comes to list articles: Category:Lists of films by common content and Category:Lists of films by topic. Some list articles are categorized under both, while others belong to one or the other. I'm trying to figure out if the categories can be merged, and if not, what criteria each category should follow. It seems that "topic" is more primary than "common content", but I'm not sure how to make a verifiable distinction between the two scopes. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
At Outrage (2009 film), there is a WP:BLP disagreement about naming subjects featured in a documentary. Editors can see the discussion here: Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#WP:BLP. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Any preliminary thoughts on whether Michael Prywes meets WP:DIRECTOR #3? I'm trying to determine whether to take it to AfD but I want to make sure my read of the policy is correct. czar ♔ 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So I am curious why we allow these articles to be named by retroactive titles instead of their original names, and the lead's mentioning the newer names. I find it weird that the article for Star Wars (1977 film) opens with "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, originally released as Star Wars" instead of the other way around to reflect the actual history. I can't see how if they made a third Ghostbusters film and retroactively renamed the other films to form a trilogy like "Ghostbusters: Chapter 1 - The Zuulening", that the article would be renamed even if the additional title would be added to the lead. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ideally Star Wars would be just Star Wars (film), but I will acknowledge that can create issues with the series being named Star Wars. On the other hand, that is true for most series that are born out of the massive success of the original: The Matrix franchise, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, Terminator, Batman has no choice but to disambiguate by (year + film) same with Spider-Man. Probably the closest analog is Star Trek, for which the series, franchise, 2009 film and several games are named. To allow for some consistency A New Hope might be acceptable, when did it take that name? I seem to think it was before the original trilogy had finished but I may be wrong. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkwarriorblake: Do you plan to set up a multi-move discussion? I think it is worth doing. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Star Wars Wars: Epsiode XI: The Revenge of the Edi...tor Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We had our last coordinator reelection three years ago. Is it possible if we can get a new coordinator re-election? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to join this discussion? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as how a FAR requires interested parties to be notified, the film project seems a natural place for me to post this. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diane Keaton/archive1 is underway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Any editors here willing to weigh in on the Critical reception section for the Shutter Island (film) article? I went there and saw that the lead-in sentence describes the film as having received mixed reviews. This struck me as odd because it currently has a 68% Rotten Tomatoes score, which cannot too accurately be described as "mixed," and a 63% score from Metacritic...which outright classifies that score as generally positive. I figured that either an IP changed the lead-in summary to "mixed," or that a registered editor was keeping it that way. And sure enough, I looked into the edit history and saw that TheOldJacobite has been reverting anyone who changes the lead-in summary to "generally positive" (or something very similar). This stopped me from changing the summary.
So this is a case where the lead-in summary should be completely removed, right? Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support "mixed" in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking. I will now bring up this matter at Talk:Shutter Island (film). Flyer22 ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29 WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is undergoing changes. Please go to talk page to discuss a BLP enforcement on a such dispute. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I got a message: "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." This is very problematic because multiple Wikiprojects are relevant to a typical article. So there is consensus to add portals to United States-related articles but not to film-related articles? (Gone with the Wind is relevant to both WikiProjects). Then what do you do?
My view on this is that an individual Wikiproject cannot unilaterally opt its own articles out of a systemwide thing such as portals unless the articles in question only pertain to that project. This is impossible in that case of most films because they will be relevant to country-related projects.
I just went ahead and started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles. There have been inter-WikiProject conflicts (I remember one about Japanese names between Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Video_games_developed_in_Japan) which have taken up valuable user time. My recommendation is for WikiProject Film to say "There is no consensus to not have portals" to avoid inter-WikiProject conflicts. Then on an article-by-article basis decide what portals are okay for which articles. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment To provide some context, this was instigated by WhisperToMe adding Portal:Film in the United States to Gone with the wind (film), and my revert. There are two reasons for me doing this:
It's also worth pointing out that we have an analogous template {{ Cinema of the United States}} that is prohibited from transcluding to film articles. I think a project should have jurisdiction over its own portals, and as yet I don't see any broad support for adding film portals to film articles. I suppose the Film Project cannot prevent another project from installing their own portal if they have a project consensus to do so, but in the case of the US Film portal it belongs to both our project and Wikipedia: WikiProject United States, so I believe regardless of how WP:US stand on this issue, WP:FILM also have a say in how the template is used. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's just too tangential to the film itself. Shall I add a British portal to the film, as Leslie Howard has a major role? We can add hundreds of minutely connected portals if we want to, but does it actually help and serve the reader? Not in this case, no. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me take the chance to offer a third opinion: I hereby formally oppose the addition of any portal such as "Film in the United States", broadly construed, to any article about a specific film unless at least three editors come forward expressing support for adding the portal to the article. Editors are of course welcome to suggest films here for which they think adding such a portal is an appropriate choice. DonIago ( talk) 21:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 12:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC).
If anyone is interested in helping on coverage of early films, a novice editor is working on a draft about this early musical cartoon. They're having some issue with POV and sourcing, so if someone wants to lend a hand that'd be great: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Rhapsody in Black and Blue. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I made a typo while naming a proposed article. The title needs to be changed from " Torben Skjødt Jensen" to just "Torben Skjødt Jensen." Can anyone please do so? Thanks! Here is a link to the article: [10]. 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 13:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
JuneGloom07 brought up and interesting point on my talk page. I've made a handful of accolades article lately, for films such as Her, Gravity, and American Hustle, but in the case of all of these films, I've added any parentheses that the film may include. As you can see by the links, I titled Her's article "List of accolades received by Her (film)", etc. I recently moved the Nebraska accolades page to reflect this idea, before JuneGloom noted that I didn't really have any reason for doing it. So, if an accolades page is made and there is no other accolades page with that title (like in the case of Her, Gravity, and American Hustle), would dropping the "(film)" additives be acceptable? Corvoe (speak to me) 06:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with disambiguating "(film)" when it's not needed. My view is that unless another page exists devoted to accolades of another topic named American Hustle, there should be no disambiguation, as readers will unmistakably know what the page is about as they're reading it. I can say that on the television front, editors haven't found that disambiguation is needed (see Arrested Development, Lost, etc. which don't use "(TV series)"). Thus, I am in favor of removing "(film)" when we can. In actuality no one is confused what the accolades page List of accolades received by Avatar is referring to. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The Plot section of the The Fly (1986 film) article has a lot of text, and the film isn't even long; I'm mentioning this here in case anyone from this WikiProject wants to tackle reducing that text. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I am running a course on approaches to research for second year undergraduate students in Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Over the course of 6 weeks, students in small groups will adopt, evaluate and edit an existing Wikipedia page on a single film topic. I thought it might be likely that there are some Wikipedia Education Projects online ambassadors, who are also members of the WikiProject Film community. If any existing online ambassadors might be interested in attaching themselves to the course, I'd be delighted to hear from you! You can find out more on the Course page here. In terms of time commitment, I hope it wouldn't take up too much. About 20 students are working on their small group Wikipedia project for around six weeks, and the course began at a gentle pace on 10 January 2014. If you'd like to know more, feel free to send me a message - or if you would like to sign up, that would be wonderful! Thanks very much for your time, best wishes, -- DrJennyCee ( talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is a new discussion about wording the critical response. (Yes, yet another one.) The discussion can be seen here. I've responded and have edited the guidelines to try to address future concerns based on the consensus I've seen here. Please weigh in if you have thoughts. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This RFC will be of interest to some. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A request for comment that is relevant to this project has been filed here Talk:Martin Landau#RfC: Is a career image better for the lead.3F. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move the 1974 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There is a history of contradiction in the use of a space (see note in article's opening sentence), so please review this and what reliable sources say per WP:COMMONNAME. The requested move can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move Academy Award to Academy Awards that may interest editors here. The guideline WP:SINGULAR may or may not apply here, considering that the article is multi-faceted; it covers the ceremony and the statuette and the various categories. (Note that WP:SINGULAR has been applied to the individual award articles, e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture.) The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear film buffs: Here is an extensive article that has never been submitted for review, and now is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Are these notable awards, and should the article be saved from deletion? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is currently a Featured Article; it needs fixing. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have put in a requested move at The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), and would like any and all opinions on the matter. Comment on the request here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Here are some notices regarding some "in film" pages, that I have proposed be merged back to their respective "in other media" pages. I believe these pages may have entered this talk page before (most likely by TriiipleThreat) for other opinions (not definite), but in short, they were all created by one user (except the Thor page) who felt that these had to be a thing, probably because other stuff exists, and a brief discussion was held on the Thor in film talk page that they really can convey the same info from a section on their "in other media" pages.
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This posting concerns the template below.
I think that the idea of this template is great. However, I think that it needs some improvement in organization, wording, etc. Generally speaking, the wording seems to be too compact and too abbreviated, and it doesn't really offer a good indication as to what the (linked) list is really all about (in several instances). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is there any way to revise the template so that the full name of the article appears; or would that be too unwieldy? Perhaps there is some middle ground? Thoughts? Also, some items are listed in alphabetical order, some are not. Also, the organization/break-down of categories on the left-hand side might be tweaked. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This is (somewhat) related to my post above (about the template for Academy Award lists). I am considering creating two new articles: List of Academy Award-related lists ... and List of Academy Award-related articles. Something along the lines of these, for example: List of film lists, List of Sri Lanka cricket lists, and List of United States congressional lists. Any thoughts, ideas, feedback, input? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I and Beyond My Ken disagree as to the appropriateness of some "cast notes" at No Other Woman (1933 film). Could somebody take a look at the discussion in the talk page and give an opinion? Thanks in advance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
This discussion may be of interest to some people. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, an administrator can intervene here please? thank you -- Pava ( talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of use to any fellow transhumanists or anyone who is a transhumanistologist. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've added this nomination at TfD. Please add your thoughts there. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Kind of a problem over on The English Patient (film). I offered a plot recap for the lede as follows:
"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been."
Along comes LimeyReader to insist that the last three words are superfluous and he has taken them out a few times. Of course, those three words are unnecessary if you don't need to tell the reader that the burn victim and the Count are the same person. Limey doesn't seem to get it. Anyone else like to contribute? Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've officially opened a vote involving changes about the infobox film template. To put your opinion forward and see the proposed changes, click here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ha, that one might be rather controversial!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be intrested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What are our thoughts on forcing film director navboxes into a collapsed state? I don't see this as common practice (unless massively unwieldy), but have noticed this happen a few times recently. [11] [12] [13], and my reverts have been challenged. Is this something we should be encouraging? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In any case, my argument have been made, and stand unrefuted. You can find them at User talk:Beyond My Ken. BMK ( talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
|state = autocollapse
which will autocollapse it if there are additional nav boxes on the page. But like Lugnuts said, if it is not massive and the only one, I see no reason they have to be collapsed. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)And he's still at it [14]. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur that consensus is the applicable policy here. The other policies and guidelines are not going to get this granular (or pedantic). This is a matter of stylization, which can have positive or negative effects. I don't mind experimental approaches (have tried some myself), but if such an application is across multiple articles with criteria that seems applicable to all director navboxes save those with one line's worth of films, that necessitates a wider discussion. In this particular case, I think collapsibility somewhat negatively affects bidirectional navigating for navboxes that are small/medium-sized as far as navboxes go. (It's certainly not ruinous, but I don't find the need to apply the feature in these cases.) The initial consensus (four editors in this discussion concur about collapsing when the navboxes are very large) should be considered in the spirit of WP:BRD. If there really is a demand for RfC over this matter, I have better things to do with my time. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that the energy expended on this matter is better used elsewhere. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a place that I'm not looking that states it's ok to add additional columns to a filmography such as the director, budget and box office? I think it looks awful and clutters the table up tremendously. Filmographies should be limited to Year, Title, Role, Notes, and Source if necessary, just because it's all a user needs to know about the actor, is what they were in, their character, what year it was and any notes that might go with it. Director, Budget, Box office is starting to get off tangent about the film instead of about the actor. Like at Justin Timberlake's filmography, I tried bold deleting it without consensus and summed it per WP:FILMOGRAPHY but was reverted by another editor just because they disagreed and said that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is a guideline not a rule. Thoughts? Am I totally alone on this? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments transferred to centralized discussion
|
---|
|
There's a discussion at Star Wars (film) regarding whether "of all time" should be included in the sentence regarding it as one of the most successful and influential films. The discussion is Talk:Star Wars (film)#"of all time". Your thoughts about this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The info box for the various Academy Award categories includes the wording "currently held by". This wording is really not accurate or appropriate. For example, it is not correct to say that Argo currently holds the title of Best Picture. All of the previous 84 films hold that title. The title isn't "currently" held by one individual (or one film) alone. Perhaps better wording might be something along the lines of "Most recent award winner" or "Most recent recipient" or some such. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 22:20, 18 January 2014 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I was looking at the year in film articles (like 2010 in film) and noticed all of the Notable Deaths sections were really screwy. Looking at the table code, it appears that the first cell had a row count for the number of deaths that month and editors kept adding in names but not increasing the numbers (sometimes there was a big difference).
I don't mind doing the work to correct the tables but it begs the question, what sort of notoriety is required to make it on to the Notable Deaths. Because names continue to be added, not just actors and directors but camera men and stunt men, most of these new names are red-linked because there are no articles about them.
There is a policy in Deaths in 2013 to allow red-linked deceased for one month and allow them on the list and give any Editor time to author an article about them. But after 30 days, red-linked deceased are removed from the list of people who died that year. Should this policy be adopted for the year in film articles? If not, should there be any criteria set for what is notable? Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across the first on the BLP board. I'm sorely tempted to send to AfD, but perhaps some of you can examine these two anime voice actors and determine if there is any notability first? Both of these bios follow a similar CV like pattern. Much appreciated. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This just happened. I feel like linking this here to hear other people's thoughts or maybe some editors can improve it as well. I think we may need restrictions on when these kind of articles should be created in the near future. Jhenderson 777 20:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Hobbit (film series)#Cast lists in individual articles.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Following a recent move of Carry On (film series) to Carry On (franchise) caused me to have a look at all the articles for this series, and I think they could use some restructuring. My edits and move of Carry On series on screen and stage were reverted. Please see the discussion regarding this at Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage#Requested move - would appreciate input. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, whe the filmography was split from Carry On (franchise) a few months ago, the section on unmade films was removed without explanation or discussion. My attempts to reinstate the sourced material are being reverted. Please join the discussion at Talk:Carry On (franchise)#Removal of "Unmade films" section. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK hipsters, time to earn some real credentials. For all of you who have seen it, Dredd is a brilliant action film (that was written and filmed before the Raid thank you) and I'm putting it up for Featured Article status. I hope you can stop buy to lend your opinion! Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, film buffs! This article appears to have no references at all. Is it about a notable film? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Pather Panchali is one of the core articles of wikiproject film. It is in peer review now. If anyone is interested, comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this unnecessary and completely redundant to X-Men (film series) and Wolverine in other media. I am starting to call content fork. Jhenderson 777 14:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at the articles Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse as to whether these two films are Surrealist. I have taken the stance that they have no connection to the Surrealist movement and that the sources being used to support the Surrealist claims are not adequate. Fyunck(click) has started a discussion at RSN about this, which I have not yet responded to. I would like to hear some thoughts from member of the Filmproject about all this. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Heads up everyone: I am going to help get Thor: The Dark World up to GA status, as with Iron Man 3 and the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. The discussion is at Talk:Thor: The Dark World#GA? if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I too am in favor of including decades in director/producer templates. Adding my name to those in that thread makes this 2 to 2. Can we get an WP:RFC on this issue. I am currently in dispute at {{ Scott Rudin}} on this matter.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In articles like List of films: A and all its siblings, I disagree with multiple parenthetical years, as required in Template talk:Guidelines for adding new entries:
That's not good English punctuation, and it looks quite clumsy. I suggest:
It looks less cluttered. While performing some year corrections, I boldly reformatted S, T, U-W, and X-Z in the minimal parentheses style (this was prior to seeing the guideline, which is only shown on Talk pages). If there's a better place to discuss this, I'll move it there. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 10:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thought this would be worth sharing, considering how we debate a film's "country" often. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the recent revisions of the plot of The English Patient (film)? I have reached 3RR, so I am not going to revert, but the current version is simply dreadful, clearly written by someone with a poor grasp of English grammar. He repeatedly claims that my reversions are the result of vanity. The plot is too long and needs a rewrite, but not his version. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Should this film be categorized as an Upcoming film or an Unfinished film? Following the death of Paul Walker, the studio put the film on-hold indefinitely. However the director stated that film has not been cancelled and vowed to complete it. So should the article reflect its current status or the aspirations of the filmmakers?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The requested move has been active for over a month. Care to comment there? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.
Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, this discussion is related to a proposal to allow redlinks in "filmography" navboxes. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the title of films in director navboxes reflect the Wikipedia article titles, or should they use a title more "relevant" to the director? I reverted a change in {{ Chris Columbus}} from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but it was reverted back, with the editor in question thinking that it should be nationally tied to the director, as it has at Chris Columbus (filmmaker). -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering does anyone else think the Infobox Film that the field "Language" should be changed to "Primary Language" or "Original Language" because many people are entering every Language spoken in a film even if its only one scene. Let me know what you think Kelvin 101 ( talk) 17:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that Animal House omits "National Lampoon", we can do the same on some other films, like Van Wilder. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
RM for Van Wilder now underway at Talk:National Lampoon's Van Wilder#Requested move. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see this discussion about naming these two articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Some sub-categories of Category:Teen films have been nominated for deletion.
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Teen_films, where your it would be great to have input from members of this project. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Convenience? I've never understood the rationale for categorizing all films by nationality together. Categories such as Category:American films claim this is for convenience. Of what exactly? How is a category of 20,000 (which is virtually impossible to navigate) convenient? And to what end? Categorization schemes work by diffusion and I don't know of any other scheme of any size which encourages double and triple categorization like this. Even subcategories of this scheme aren't double categorized (e.g. films aren't in Category:American romance films, Category:American comedy films, and Category:American romantic comedy films—they are just in the latter). What is it I'm missing here? Why are films somehow exempt from standard categorization procedure? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Smetanahue has been adding a lot of films to Category:Christmas films and its relevant subcats. I don't doubt that his intentions are good and that, in most cases, the categorization is accurate. But, in some cases, as with the film Eyes Wide Shut, the categorization does not seem accurate or useful. Eyes Wide Shut does take place during the Christmas season, but it is not an important part of the story. The same goes for some other films he has added to the category, including Lethal Weapon. The category should be reserved for films which feature Christmas as a central theme, not films which merely take place at that time of year. I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 03:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought: if we create separate categories for "films set during Christmas", "films about Christmas", "films celebrating Christmas" etc, wouldn't they all still be subcategories of "Christmas films"? Smetanahue ( talk) 21:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the table at 2007 in film#Notable deaths completely screwed up? I'm not good enough with tables to fix that. -- Geniac ( talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As some may know, IMDB is not generally accepted as RS. I created a list in my userspace of featured articles that use it. You can see it here: User:Beerest 2/FAIMDB. Feel free to edit it and add more, I didnt have time to sample many articles. Anyway, the purpose of this can be used to make sure that top quality sources are used in FAs, and this way we know which articles are in need of better sourcing. Beerest 2 talk 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, UKER asked about the appropriateness of the notability guidelines for future films for the case of Terminator: Genesis (which was just blanked at first, then roughly merged). That led to a discussion as seen at WT:FUTFILM#No article until principal photography?, and I wanted to have a wider discussion here since more editors watch this page. I have noticed that there are an increasing number of "exceptions" to the notability guidelines for future films. The goal of the guidelines was to make sure that we will definitely have a film before we set up a stand-alone article for it. On the other hand, per WP:CRYSTAL, it is acceptable to consolidate discussion about plans for a film. I have not commented too much on these exceptions I've seen, mainly because they are films in active development (which draws frequent news coverage) and because the articles are kept shipshape. In a nutshell, it seems like the category of franchise films generates a lot of pre-filming coverage, for which the argument is made necessitates stand-alone articles. I was fine with that as long as we could present the news coverage as plans for a film (leaving out the film infobox, categories, etc) but that seems impossible to accomplish. Readers see these exception articles and revise them as if they were guaranteed films. I'm not sure what to propose in terms of better handling. Do we go along with the news coverage and propose merging when active development halts? Maybe something like going along with it if a director, writer, or star is attached until something affects production? Here's a list of exceptions I've seen:
These do not include films that have started filming fairly recently (like Guardians of the Galaxy) or have been merged (like Terminator: Genesis). If you have seen others worth mentioning, feel free to highlight them here. Any ideas on how to best handle these and similar topics would be welcome. Pinging relevant editors: MichaelQSchmidt, Robsinden, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Bovineboy2008, Rusted AutoParts, Flax5, Lady Lotus. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose a merger to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Discussion is at Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). -- George Ho ( talk) 07:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! See the request here. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator to close down the Article Incubator. Please join the discussion there. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a speedy deletion discussion for the page Canadian Society of Cinematographers. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this Cahill U.S. Marshal really a sensible way to handle distribution in the infobox?? It seems to me that it should be limited to the initial theatrical release so as to avoid cluttering the info box. Also, is there a point in having a "box office" gross number that only pertains to tape/DVD rentals? Seems like this stuff should be in a separate section at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 13:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Several months ago, I proposed the project m:Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia) on Meta. Discussion stagnated a long time ago and I thought here would be a good place to revive it. Since film-related have been known to get in-universe cruft added to them, it seems like WF could be a good place to direct people who add cruft, and people interested in working on plot summaries/in-universe details. Hopefully, you're interested,
-- Jakob ( talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy holidays. | |
Best wishes for joy and happiness. I'm wishing this WikiProject a very happy one. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
At In a World..., I am getting a lot of static, such as this most recent reversion, about including a comprehensive listing of awards and nominations. I have seen film, actor and director articles with film award lists as well as separate articles for film awards for films and tv shows. From what I understand, they include almost every half notable film society that has awards. From what I can tell Phoenix Film Critics Society is a somewhat notable film society. They have awards and they are being repeatedly deleted by another editor. Additionally, I have monitored the Metacritic film top ten list database and found top 10 lists that the film was recognized in. These were removed from the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey regarding whether we should go with a budget range or a single figure. Since User:KahnJohn27 keeps reverting without joining the discussion on the talk page I have had no choice but to start an RFC. The discussion is at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RfC: Should the budget section of the infobox stipulate a budget range of $200–315 million? so all comments either way are welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a dispute regarding the Jedi title in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#"Jedi" title in the lead section. All comments from project members are welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the guidelines for the "Starring" field in the film infobox on the template's talk page. See the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, another quick question. According to the MOS, the "plot" section does not need a source. What about a "cast" list? Here Kolberg_(film) someone just threw out my ref to Filmportal. Is that in accordance with accepted practice? Thanks! Drow69 ( talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move ongoing; comment whilst it lasts. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! May someone pay a visit here? Thank you. :) -- Pequod76 ( talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone up for a challenge for the new year? Please have a look at the entries on the requested film article page. It would be great if people could help establish notabilty for these films by either a) creating a few new articles, or b) removing any redlinks that you think are simply not-notable. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I have some input for Winx Club 3D: Magical Adventure? Anonymous users have included a dubbed, edited version of the runtime in the infobox along with the original runtime with no logical explanation. BOVINEBOY 2008 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There's discussion about the genre for the new Scorsese film on the article's talk page. Can anyone help chime in? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know if this is the right place to post this so feel free to transer it if necessary. I have already posted this on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Requests but I do not know how many people view these pages so I thought I would repost here my belief that the following films should have Wikipedia articles:
Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 16:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Two articles have already been approved and are now standard entries! I made a typo when naming Wings ("1966 films" rather than "1966 film"). Does anyone know how to fix it? Also, how do I add links to Wikipedia entries in other language on the side? 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw you just added a link for the Russian Wikipedia's entry for Wings (as well as fixing my typo). Thank you very much! Can you do the same with the Swedish entry for Das zweite Erwachen der Christa Klages? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 11:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Will it be possible for any senior editor or administrator reading this to approve my five remaining articles? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 18:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Would some please explain to Manxwoman why she can't insert her own interpretation/analysis of a part of this film into the article without a citation from a reliable source? So far, she's reverted me twice and accused me of ownership, so I'm finished with her. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Supercut redirected to Mashup (video), which mentions "supercut" but doesn't define it. I've just created a proper (I think) article for Supercut, and linked to it from Mashup (video). But I'm not a film or video fan, just a language and reference geek, so will somebody from this project please check out Supercut and do whatever else needs doing? TIA. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion in regards to what actors should be included in the infobox "starring" parameter. All are welcome to join the conversation here at the documentation talk page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! While I was looking at the main page of the project, I saw there was a Spotlight department and it caught my attention so I clicked on it, read every information and noticed the DYK section needed to be updated. I started updating it earlier, but my changes don't appear on the spotlight's page even though they have been saved, if you look at the history. You can see them on the page separately but not when all the different sections are gathered on one page. Does anyobdy know why and how to fix this? Thanks, -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The article List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is up for deletion as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since Rotten Tomatoes comes up often here, I thought I would bring this up. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, all. There are two categories that seem to overlap a little bit when it comes to list articles: Category:Lists of films by common content and Category:Lists of films by topic. Some list articles are categorized under both, while others belong to one or the other. I'm trying to figure out if the categories can be merged, and if not, what criteria each category should follow. It seems that "topic" is more primary than "common content", but I'm not sure how to make a verifiable distinction between the two scopes. What do others think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
At Outrage (2009 film), there is a WP:BLP disagreement about naming subjects featured in a documentary. Editors can see the discussion here: Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#WP:BLP. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Any preliminary thoughts on whether Michael Prywes meets WP:DIRECTOR #3? I'm trying to determine whether to take it to AfD but I want to make sure my read of the policy is correct. czar ♔ 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So I am curious why we allow these articles to be named by retroactive titles instead of their original names, and the lead's mentioning the newer names. I find it weird that the article for Star Wars (1977 film) opens with "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, originally released as Star Wars" instead of the other way around to reflect the actual history. I can't see how if they made a third Ghostbusters film and retroactively renamed the other films to form a trilogy like "Ghostbusters: Chapter 1 - The Zuulening", that the article would be renamed even if the additional title would be added to the lead. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ideally Star Wars would be just Star Wars (film), but I will acknowledge that can create issues with the series being named Star Wars. On the other hand, that is true for most series that are born out of the massive success of the original: The Matrix franchise, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, Terminator, Batman has no choice but to disambiguate by (year + film) same with Spider-Man. Probably the closest analog is Star Trek, for which the series, franchise, 2009 film and several games are named. To allow for some consistency A New Hope might be acceptable, when did it take that name? I seem to think it was before the original trilogy had finished but I may be wrong. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkwarriorblake: Do you plan to set up a multi-move discussion? I think it is worth doing. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Star Wars Wars: Epsiode XI: The Revenge of the Edi...tor Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We had our last coordinator reelection three years ago. Is it possible if we can get a new coordinator re-election? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to join this discussion? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as how a FAR requires interested parties to be notified, the film project seems a natural place for me to post this. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diane Keaton/archive1 is underway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Any editors here willing to weigh in on the Critical reception section for the Shutter Island (film) article? I went there and saw that the lead-in sentence describes the film as having received mixed reviews. This struck me as odd because it currently has a 68% Rotten Tomatoes score, which cannot too accurately be described as "mixed," and a 63% score from Metacritic...which outright classifies that score as generally positive. I figured that either an IP changed the lead-in summary to "mixed," or that a registered editor was keeping it that way. And sure enough, I looked into the edit history and saw that TheOldJacobite has been reverting anyone who changes the lead-in summary to "generally positive" (or something very similar). This stopped me from changing the summary.
So this is a case where the lead-in summary should be completely removed, right? Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support "mixed" in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking. I will now bring up this matter at Talk:Shutter Island (film). Flyer22 ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29 WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is undergoing changes. Please go to talk page to discuss a BLP enforcement on a such dispute. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I got a message: "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." This is very problematic because multiple Wikiprojects are relevant to a typical article. So there is consensus to add portals to United States-related articles but not to film-related articles? (Gone with the Wind is relevant to both WikiProjects). Then what do you do?
My view on this is that an individual Wikiproject cannot unilaterally opt its own articles out of a systemwide thing such as portals unless the articles in question only pertain to that project. This is impossible in that case of most films because they will be relevant to country-related projects.
I just went ahead and started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles. There have been inter-WikiProject conflicts (I remember one about Japanese names between Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Video_games_developed_in_Japan) which have taken up valuable user time. My recommendation is for WikiProject Film to say "There is no consensus to not have portals" to avoid inter-WikiProject conflicts. Then on an article-by-article basis decide what portals are okay for which articles. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment To provide some context, this was instigated by WhisperToMe adding Portal:Film in the United States to Gone with the wind (film), and my revert. There are two reasons for me doing this:
It's also worth pointing out that we have an analogous template {{ Cinema of the United States}} that is prohibited from transcluding to film articles. I think a project should have jurisdiction over its own portals, and as yet I don't see any broad support for adding film portals to film articles. I suppose the Film Project cannot prevent another project from installing their own portal if they have a project consensus to do so, but in the case of the US Film portal it belongs to both our project and Wikipedia: WikiProject United States, so I believe regardless of how WP:US stand on this issue, WP:FILM also have a say in how the template is used. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's just too tangential to the film itself. Shall I add a British portal to the film, as Leslie Howard has a major role? We can add hundreds of minutely connected portals if we want to, but does it actually help and serve the reader? Not in this case, no. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me take the chance to offer a third opinion: I hereby formally oppose the addition of any portal such as "Film in the United States", broadly construed, to any article about a specific film unless at least three editors come forward expressing support for adding the portal to the article. Editors are of course welcome to suggest films here for which they think adding such a portal is an appropriate choice. DonIago ( talk) 21:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 12:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC).
If anyone is interested in helping on coverage of early films, a novice editor is working on a draft about this early musical cartoon. They're having some issue with POV and sourcing, so if someone wants to lend a hand that'd be great: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Rhapsody in Black and Blue. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I made a typo while naming a proposed article. The title needs to be changed from " Torben Skjødt Jensen" to just "Torben Skjødt Jensen." Can anyone please do so? Thanks! Here is a link to the article: [10]. 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 13:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! 46.116.250.15 ( talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
JuneGloom07 brought up and interesting point on my talk page. I've made a handful of accolades article lately, for films such as Her, Gravity, and American Hustle, but in the case of all of these films, I've added any parentheses that the film may include. As you can see by the links, I titled Her's article "List of accolades received by Her (film)", etc. I recently moved the Nebraska accolades page to reflect this idea, before JuneGloom noted that I didn't really have any reason for doing it. So, if an accolades page is made and there is no other accolades page with that title (like in the case of Her, Gravity, and American Hustle), would dropping the "(film)" additives be acceptable? Corvoe (speak to me) 06:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with disambiguating "(film)" when it's not needed. My view is that unless another page exists devoted to accolades of another topic named American Hustle, there should be no disambiguation, as readers will unmistakably know what the page is about as they're reading it. I can say that on the television front, editors haven't found that disambiguation is needed (see Arrested Development, Lost, etc. which don't use "(TV series)"). Thus, I am in favor of removing "(film)" when we can. In actuality no one is confused what the accolades page List of accolades received by Avatar is referring to. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The Plot section of the The Fly (1986 film) article has a lot of text, and the film isn't even long; I'm mentioning this here in case anyone from this WikiProject wants to tackle reducing that text. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I am running a course on approaches to research for second year undergraduate students in Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Over the course of 6 weeks, students in small groups will adopt, evaluate and edit an existing Wikipedia page on a single film topic. I thought it might be likely that there are some Wikipedia Education Projects online ambassadors, who are also members of the WikiProject Film community. If any existing online ambassadors might be interested in attaching themselves to the course, I'd be delighted to hear from you! You can find out more on the Course page here. In terms of time commitment, I hope it wouldn't take up too much. About 20 students are working on their small group Wikipedia project for around six weeks, and the course began at a gentle pace on 10 January 2014. If you'd like to know more, feel free to send me a message - or if you would like to sign up, that would be wonderful! Thanks very much for your time, best wishes, -- DrJennyCee ( talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
At WT:MOSFILM, there is a new discussion about wording the critical response. (Yes, yet another one.) The discussion can be seen here. I've responded and have edited the guidelines to try to address future concerns based on the consensus I've seen here. Please weigh in if you have thoughts. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This RFC will be of interest to some. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A request for comment that is relevant to this project has been filed here Talk:Martin Landau#RfC: Is a career image better for the lead.3F. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move the 1974 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There is a history of contradiction in the use of a space (see note in article's opening sentence), so please review this and what reliable sources say per WP:COMMONNAME. The requested move can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request to move Academy Award to Academy Awards that may interest editors here. The guideline WP:SINGULAR may or may not apply here, considering that the article is multi-faceted; it covers the ceremony and the statuette and the various categories. (Note that WP:SINGULAR has been applied to the individual award articles, e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture.) The discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear film buffs: Here is an extensive article that has never been submitted for review, and now is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Are these notable awards, and should the article be saved from deletion? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is currently a Featured Article; it needs fixing. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have put in a requested move at The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), and would like any and all opinions on the matter. Comment on the request here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Here are some notices regarding some "in film" pages, that I have proposed be merged back to their respective "in other media" pages. I believe these pages may have entered this talk page before (most likely by TriiipleThreat) for other opinions (not definite), but in short, they were all created by one user (except the Thor page) who felt that these had to be a thing, probably because other stuff exists, and a brief discussion was held on the Thor in film talk page that they really can convey the same info from a section on their "in other media" pages.
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This posting concerns the template below.
I think that the idea of this template is great. However, I think that it needs some improvement in organization, wording, etc. Generally speaking, the wording seems to be too compact and too abbreviated, and it doesn't really offer a good indication as to what the (linked) list is really all about (in several instances). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is there any way to revise the template so that the full name of the article appears; or would that be too unwieldy? Perhaps there is some middle ground? Thoughts? Also, some items are listed in alphabetical order, some are not. Also, the organization/break-down of categories on the left-hand side might be tweaked. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This is (somewhat) related to my post above (about the template for Academy Award lists). I am considering creating two new articles: List of Academy Award-related lists ... and List of Academy Award-related articles. Something along the lines of these, for example: List of film lists, List of Sri Lanka cricket lists, and List of United States congressional lists. Any thoughts, ideas, feedback, input? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I and Beyond My Ken disagree as to the appropriateness of some "cast notes" at No Other Woman (1933 film). Could somebody take a look at the discussion in the talk page and give an opinion? Thanks in advance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
This discussion may be of interest to some people. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, an administrator can intervene here please? thank you -- Pava ( talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion may be of use to any fellow transhumanists or anyone who is a transhumanistologist. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've added this nomination at TfD. Please add your thoughts there. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Kind of a problem over on The English Patient (film). I offered a plot recap for the lede as follows:
"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been."
Along comes LimeyReader to insist that the last three words are superfluous and he has taken them out a few times. Of course, those three words are unnecessary if you don't need to tell the reader that the burn victim and the Count are the same person. Limey doesn't seem to get it. Anyone else like to contribute? Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've officially opened a vote involving changes about the infobox film template. To put your opinion forward and see the proposed changes, click here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ha, that one might be rather controversial!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be intrested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What are our thoughts on forcing film director navboxes into a collapsed state? I don't see this as common practice (unless massively unwieldy), but have noticed this happen a few times recently. [11] [12] [13], and my reverts have been challenged. Is this something we should be encouraging? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In any case, my argument have been made, and stand unrefuted. You can find them at User talk:Beyond My Ken. BMK ( talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
|state = autocollapse
which will autocollapse it if there are additional nav boxes on the page. But like Lugnuts said, if it is not massive and the only one, I see no reason they have to be collapsed. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)And he's still at it [14]. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur that consensus is the applicable policy here. The other policies and guidelines are not going to get this granular (or pedantic). This is a matter of stylization, which can have positive or negative effects. I don't mind experimental approaches (have tried some myself), but if such an application is across multiple articles with criteria that seems applicable to all director navboxes save those with one line's worth of films, that necessitates a wider discussion. In this particular case, I think collapsibility somewhat negatively affects bidirectional navigating for navboxes that are small/medium-sized as far as navboxes go. (It's certainly not ruinous, but I don't find the need to apply the feature in these cases.) The initial consensus (four editors in this discussion concur about collapsing when the navboxes are very large) should be considered in the spirit of WP:BRD. If there really is a demand for RfC over this matter, I have better things to do with my time. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that the energy expended on this matter is better used elsewhere. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a place that I'm not looking that states it's ok to add additional columns to a filmography such as the director, budget and box office? I think it looks awful and clutters the table up tremendously. Filmographies should be limited to Year, Title, Role, Notes, and Source if necessary, just because it's all a user needs to know about the actor, is what they were in, their character, what year it was and any notes that might go with it. Director, Budget, Box office is starting to get off tangent about the film instead of about the actor. Like at Justin Timberlake's filmography, I tried bold deleting it without consensus and summed it per WP:FILMOGRAPHY but was reverted by another editor just because they disagreed and said that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is a guideline not a rule. Thoughts? Am I totally alone on this? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments transferred to centralized discussion
|
---|
|
There's a discussion at Star Wars (film) regarding whether "of all time" should be included in the sentence regarding it as one of the most successful and influential films. The discussion is Talk:Star Wars (film)#"of all time". Your thoughts about this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The info box for the various Academy Award categories includes the wording "currently held by". This wording is really not accurate or appropriate. For example, it is not correct to say that Argo currently holds the title of Best Picture. All of the previous 84 films hold that title. The title isn't "currently" held by one individual (or one film) alone. Perhaps better wording might be something along the lines of "Most recent award winner" or "Most recent recipient" or some such. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)