![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I'd like to bring up an issue regarding the live-action film adaptation of Dragon Ball Z. Dragon Ball Z (film) was created after the unconfirmed announcement not too long ago, and it was nominated for AfD. After getting involved with the AfD process, I mainly cleaned up the article so it was a succinct paragraph using reliable sources, including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Montreal Gazette, and IGN. However, in the AfD process, the nominator disputed the article from Variety as being unreliable for the reason that the studio never "confirmed" the information about 20th Century Fox hiring screenwriter Ben Ramsey for $500,000 to adapt a screenplay for Dragon Ball Z. (The article also mentions the smaller item of the project being developed by production executive Peter Kang, all with no hint of rumor or doubt.) I've tried to explain to the editor that this is not how verifiability works -- you don't use primary sources to "confirm" secondary sources. If this was the case, it would be akin to a scandal was reported by a reliable source on the set of a film's production, and the studio officially denied it, then obviously the primary source cannot triumph over the secondary source in this case. The editor thinks that since the studio has not responded to the Variety coverage, the information should be doubted. (Ignoring the likelihood of this reliable source getting the information from the studio itself.) Basically, there is no reference saying that Variety is wrong, so it should not be disputed. The AfD process went through to merge and redirect, and the editor has attempted to modify the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned, and I've reverted him. He and I have reached a stalemate in terms of discussion about verifiability and reliable sources in regard to items like Variety, so I would like other editors to take a look at this situation and judge the merits of the Variety citation. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's clear a few things: I've not "modified the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned", that would be assuming bad faith on me...Considering the heated battle between Erik and me that this topic created previously, I don't think he should jump on conclusions, instead he should actually try to calm down and talk with me.
As I've explained, I'm merely considering the info in a npov way. You've said it yourself, "verifiability, not truth": reports from 3rd party source shouldn't be regarded as set in stone, or absolute truths. Such things are for when we'll see Ramsey's name in the credits of the movie. But right now, Variety's article is still "claims", and not "undisputable truth". I'm not saying Variety isn't a reliable source, I'm saying nothing is set in stone. For example, Erik should realize that Variety's article is 3 years old, we've heard no word about it since then, and as he stated many times about other movies in development hell, things can change pretty quickly in the movie industry, what reliable source says now that, after 3 years of development hell, Ben Ramsey is still writer ?
The fact is, the previous version of the article just said that Variety was an absolute truth, completely ignoring that things are constantly evolving in the movie industry (about that, I'm astonished that Erik, who knows much about movies in development hell, wasn't aware of that when he edited the article) and that nothing is sure. It's not because something is from a reliable source that it cannot be challenged (the Montreal gazette article is a reliable source, yet it was challenged by Fox), and it's certainly not up to individual users like Erik to decide that a source, however reliable it may be, won't be challenged ever. Or else, it's a serious breach in the NEUTRAL point of view policy. It's always the same: statements are identified, proved to be existing, proved to originate from a reliable source, but never presented as undeniable truths ("verifiability, not truth").
Or else, maybe Erik is suggesting that we should also remove Fox comment about the Montreal G. ?
Finally, I've only changed "the writer is" from "Variety claims the writer is" in the article, and honestly, anyone who's actually reading my edit, and not merely listening to Erik's claims, can only agree that I've merely followed the neutrality policy. Folken de Fanel 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If the official website for the series says it is "unconfirmed" [1], we should take it into account and show it in the article. Besides, that there's not been official (ie from Fox) comments about the movie since 2002 is true, and the Montreal Gazette claims have been challenged by Fox, it's true. Folken de Fanel 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Anybody interested in forming a documentary film task-force, as this genre is now in the second plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjerich ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm useless to this project if nobody knows what I do and why I like movies.
My name is The Blaziken Master, I'm a DVD collector, my whole DVD collection can be found here. My favorite movie is Bad Boys II while my favorite actor is Will Smith.
What I will be doing here you might ask, before you ask, I will tell you. I'll be updating pages of course on movies I own and am interested in. When I discover the movies I like don't have a link to the page on Yahoo! Movies I'm also here to add it to the list, after all Yahoo! is a well known service.
Yeah, that's all I have to say. I hope I get very warm welcome to this project, and I really will help out as much as I can. TheBlazikenMaster 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The articles Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut have been nominated for deletion. Can anybody weigh in on the notability of either the film or the director? Thanks! - Pete 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
User:156.34.60.230 is adding pictures (like this edit here [2]) of actors, in tiny versions, to film articles cast lists (muchlike IMDb has been doing for awhile). I am bringing this here so that admins and members who are part of the project can decide whether this is okay or not. If it is okay then no problem, but, if it isn't then I know that it is easier for admins to rollback multiple edits then it is for me. Also, I am not sure what warning or message one would give in this situation. I have also posted this at WP:ANI but there has bee no response there as yet. Thanks ahead of time for your attention to this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone with a moment and an interest in the film want to take a look at The Brave One (2007 film), my attempt to cut the plot down to a synopsis was resisted, so I'd like a few other people to take a stab. -- Fredrick day 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films ( here) and music albums ( here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring this to people's attention: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20. Lugnuts 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
25+ films listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all I'd like participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/September. I've proposed new stub categories for adventure films and mystery films of which there ar emany stubs which haven't got this yet please join in. Secondly I'd like to bring up the subject of splitting the primary genre categories like comedy, drama, SciFi , action, musical and western into decades like Category:Horror films. Whilst there isn't a reason why all films of the genre can't go in one category when people are browising by genre often they associate a certain genre by period. For instance the Good the Bad and the Ugly you think Category:1960s western films , Stars wars 1977 - Category:1970s science fiction films, Goldeneye - 1990s action films or for Hot Fuzz you would think Category:2000s comedy films and so on. I strongly believe these categories are large enough to have clear definition on there own by decade particularly as the stub categories have been split like this. Often many users are also keen on a certain genre of a certain decade -it makes browsing far easier.
Thirdly I'd like to suggest several new parameters to the film info box. Whilst I am against cluttering it too much in general as I have been creating many film I've noticed that many prominent figures who participated in the film production are often left out and are not acknowledged. As part of WP actors also I would like to see some expansion in this area. For me additional options of art director, casting, second unit (director only), costume design (this mostly for Indian films where there are famous designers who are prominent in the industry) and perhaps a genre parameter should be allowed into the equation. For me these people play a key role in the films production -the actual product of the film which for me is important. Now I'm not saying that all of these people may require a notable biography of their own or mentioning and I certainly wouldn't want to see all sorts of special effects aeroplane monitor coordinator etc etc into it and lis everyone as that would be ridiclous. but for many periods in film history there are some really key figures in these areas which played a major part in the film making but are left out and I'd like to see more coverage and the option to include the more notable figures. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is what I meant when I said I did not want to see second unit special effect tea guy in there. I did say it should be kept to the most notable -th line would be drawn above these. and I did say that even then often some of these people may not qualify for an article. What I am suggesting is that the parameters are made available so can be used where applicable for the people who are prominent in these fields. Both production, costumer designer and art director are indeed very important in the making of the film and there are many people often who have worked on several hundred films where an article for them is often more appropriate than for some small time film directors. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
One such example for a prominent art director would be Robert Haas (director). If you check him out you'll see what I mean ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I could see adding the production designer/art designer/costume designer field, but second unit director is a bit too much inside baseball, I think. If the second unit director and the work of the second unit was notable enough on a particular film, details about it could be noted in the production section of the article. — Wise Kwai 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps yes -but I strongly think we need production /art designer and costume designer ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, the infobox is not supposed to be a replacement for article content. I really can't recall seeing many articles that discuss any of the proposed additional positions at any length, which would mean that just tossing them into the infobox would be an extremely bad idea. If you feel (or rather, a reliable source feels) that a person who isn't listed in an infobox had some crucial influence on a certain film, please mention him/her in the article instead. Alternatively, you could just take screenshots of a film's closing credits and pasting them where the article is supposed to be. - Bobet 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well if you put it this I know lets take director, screenwriter, cast, music, cinematographer and editor and even distributor out of the info box as "these are discussed in the article". Your argument Bobet with all due respect indicates you think infoboxes are a waste of time when the people in them are "mentioned in the article" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, there's a request for comment going on at the page for Slither (2006 film). If anyone is able, please weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just started my first film page: Hippie Hippie Shake (currently shooting). It's barebones right now, though I will continue to work on it -- if anyone wants to pitch in, that would be lovely. -- Melty girl 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave this section with only MY comment, you are invited to go here. If you have any questions, ask there, not here. All comments should be there. Please vote oppose or support, or whatever you feel like. But please make sure you read completely my reasonbefore you oppose. TheBlazikenMaster 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed certain film articles listing taglines, and others not, and was curious if there is some sort of standard for listing taglines. Can they have their own section? Are they important at all? What about non-English titles, is there a place for these? Murderbike 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I highly encourage you to post your opinion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The article Superhero! was recently restored. However, the director of the film had prior complaints about the Wikipeidia article. This article needs some TLC and a review to ensure that it contains the latest information regarding the film. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I know that movie isn't that famous, and probably a lot of people don't have it, or have seen it. But I'm bringing this here nevertheless, the plot is like holy madness. It's so damn huge. So someone needs to help with trimming it into five paragraphs at max, of course less would be great idea.
Tell you what, you don't have to own that video. Next time you rent a DVD you should rent that movie, and watch it more than once (before you give it back) to know for sure what's important and what isn't.
That of course is only a suggestion.
This page needs some serious cleanup, that tag isn't doing anything. But you on the other hand can. If you help me, I'd be very happy. Thanks for your time. TheBlazikenMaster 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also of note, there has been talk about possibly allowing self-nominations to continue throughout the voting period. If you believe that we should continue to leave the nomination window open, please discuss either here or on the election talk page. (At the moment, we have three nominees standing for three positions.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This minor character from the film Superman Returns has its own article. I don't think it's necessary - the vast majority of the article is a reiteration of the plot of the film. The character plays a very small role in the film and clearly doesn't deserve a separate article. I redirected the article after suggesting a redirection on the talk page and a week of no objections being voiced. However, SonPraises undid the redirect claiming no consensus was formed. Please weigh in your opinions at Talk:Jason White (character) so we can settle this. Thanks. -- Jtalledo (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Per an earlier discussion, I have listed the proposed Film festival task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Film festival (WikiProject Films). If anyone is interested, please show your support and sign up. I had also earlier proposed a Thai film task force, but will hold off on that for now. — Wise Kwai 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in seeing the creation of two task forces:
I think it is a good idea. I don't think of the national pages as wikirpojects anyway -they were intially pages to organize articles on individual cinemas more effectively ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in making a Image:Noposter-upload.png image for films missing a poster, similar to the one on the right? -- Steinn inn 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Can ya'll please tag, cleanup, and do your film thing at The Tic Code? There are some things there that are Greek to me. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. -- Fredrick day 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Crisis ahhhh!! Somebody has ruined Category:Australian films by splitting into the worst possible by genre ahhhh .What should we do. This definately MUST NOT be done. Category:Austrlaian films should be an A-Z ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On Firefox 2.0.0.7, on Windows XP, your sidebar doesn't show up quite right. The statistics just show up as a bunch of table code. I couldn't find out what was wrong with it, but someone with more experience with the sidebar might look into fixing it. Thanks, Psych less 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I linked the problem. TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've recently posted an AfD discussion for the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A similar preceding AfD discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if the WikiProject Films community, under whom these "difference" topics would fall, could find some kind of consensus. I think it can be agreed that if it can be explained why a filmmaker pursued a specific change from the source material, it would generally be encyclopedic to warrant inclusion. (A personal example would be Road to Perdition#Writing.) However, there are a few "Differences" articles and sections that boil down to, "Just read the book and see the film, and you can see the difference yourself!" You can find my argument at the Chocolate Factory AfD, but I was wondering what other community members thought. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
He is a character from Mission: Impossible III please cast your vote here. TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Fight Club (film) has a little stars and stripes to denote that the film was made in the United States. Further to some discussion over quite a long period at WP:FLAG, I believe the flag icons on this and similar articles are redundant and can be removed on sight. I'd be interested if anyone can point me to a consensus at this project that using flags this way adds information to the article. Failing that, this would be a good place to bring up any advantages to the general reader of having the flag as well as the country name. -- John 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the flag icons are a good idea and make the page look better. - Sox 207 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are all A-class film articles in Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles? – Ilse @ 12:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the above project would benefit from a merger with this project, if that is agreeable to the memberships of both projects. One particular advantage would be the greater access to information on the non-"Academy awards", like the various other national film awards. This project, with its greater size and multiple groups, would probably be best able to work on developing such content. Any responses below, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again Academy Awards should clearly become part of WP films. Organized as a task force. When do you think we should merge Indian cinema Giro? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Academy Awards WP should be merged into WP:FILMS. Its not really a large enough scope to warrant a whole Wikiproject - • The Giant Puffin • 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Another editor recently edited the page But I'm a Cheerleader to change the format so that a) the first paragraph after the lead looks better and you can see the edit button properly, but b) there is now a huge gap between the table of contents and the 1st paragraph, which is still there when you "hide" the TOC. The problem originates, I think, from the length of the infobox. Anyway, I haven't seen this anywhere else, I personally think it looks worse now and am having a minor disagreement with the other editor. I would really like other opinions on which is best, or if there are any other solutions? this is how it looked before. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In the past I have used Box Office Mojo for financial data for films. I have recently come across "The Numbers" [3] and have found discrepancies in the figures for gross box office revenue for several films so far. Looking at google, I see that there are other similar sites. Is there any evidence for which is the most accurate or should we cite all of the figures that we can find in the film articles? -- Beloved Freak 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
← UK Box office statistics archive is a resource for non-US figures, though I don't think it's very wieldy. Also, I meant non-web resources as in a book about a famous silent film that approximates its box office gross revenue, which would be more reliable than BOM or TN, which would most likely be tertiary sources in regard to older figures. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Film Group
Though it should be mentioned here. Horrorshowj 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
They can be found Here for those of you who might want to comment. Lugnuts 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this today, but the admin Alkivar has deleted non-free images that had fair use rationales attached without discussion from film articles like Children of Men and Fight Club (film). This unilateral behavior is completely unwarranted considering that there were explanations for the usage of the non-free images in these articles. I am considering filing an incident report, but I left a message on his talk page to see what he has to say for himself. If he feels that he is warranted in making unilateral decisions, I would suggest going ahead with a report of his abuse of admin privileges.
Unilateral deletions:
— Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the issue is some administrator felt need to crap over someone else's work, who had clearly given it a source and rationale, in violation of WP:OWN. This is not new: someone who thinks it is plain wrong to put copyrighted work on this site. So do call for his head on a platter. Alientraveller 18:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that several months ago the notable roles section of actor infoboxes was removed by sensible consensus. In editing today I noted that it still exists in the infobox for voice actors like Maurice LaMarche. Now it is is labeled as credits when you edit the infobox but it shows up as notable roles when viewing the page. Is this something that we should remove as we did with the actor infoboxes or will this be considered a new alteration that will have to go through the discussion process? If the latter please let me know where I have to go to get this process started and I will be happy to do so and thanks in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost as soon as we've formally integrated the Indian cinema task force with much consensus from their editors, the sole dissenter (from WP India) has lodged a complaint in WikiProject Council. I find this quite distressing, since it seems to be an attempt to subvert both consensus and existing task force location conventions. In any case, if anyone would like to comment there, it would be much appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please visit Template talk:Imdb name to discuss new capabiliy provided by {{ Imdb name/sandbox}} with a demonstration at {{ Imdb name/testcases}}. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This topic is about the history making film Love & Suicide, the movie. In the last three years this site has been tagged for deletion, has been deleted, has had numerous attempts to remove it.
We believe we are being targeted as filmmakers from either haters or political retaliation in regards to the topic of the embargo in which filmmaker Luis Moro is outspoken.
The page has followed all guidelines considering how many times we have been flagged. The format that was followed was from Andy Garcia's page. So there would be no mistakes. Here are the list of movies Garcia has posted and has been left alone, with no threats, no deletions, no issues.
I removed the list - yes andy garica has a load of films on wikipedia - -- Fredrick day 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
His films have not been labled 'advertisement', or requested 'speedy deletion', his writing style on the page is similar to ours. I am a request for Love & Suicide's page to be locked, like the Cuba page. So no more 'editors' from any level, and country, any opinion, or any position can tag or try to remove.
We have proved (with many supporters) why our film should be listed here in Wikipedia, we have shown press, and proof over the last three years. We did remove Luis Moro as a filmmaker because to keep up with the deletions was too time consuming. Never mind he is an award winning filmmaker, that did not seem to be applicable enough for the 'haters'. Not only am I requesting a lock on the page, but also if this page continues to be harrased, we will go more public (wide). We have every right to be here.
Yes it did read like an advert - I've made a start at cleaning it up, other please jump in, the press section needs work. --
Fredrick day
21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Very, very good. This is the first time I have ever had this type of reponse. It takes the mystery out of the whole thing. So, I will have a professional editor correct everything you mentioned. Thank you, and I assume it will stay up until I can get this done. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.1.247.151 (
talk)
21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
More info here. Please comment there if you would like. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a message directing people to another discussion, no further edits should be made to this section.
There are a few future film articles that are undergoing requests to merge to their source materials' articles:
Input from the community is welcome. If there are any other future films that may not meet the notability guidelines for films, feel free to mention them here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please watch this movie and start the article stub? I noticed it while looking at a movie list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Stub is created. There was enough information in a Google search to start it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be listed in all movie articles, after all Yahoo! is a very well known internet service. Tomorrow I'll be going through my DVDs and add external links to Y!M, any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No other site has Greg's Preview, and I must say it is pretty useful. TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is that the case? Why didn't you say so in the first place?
And I can't just do it, making a section about how the movie was made is not easy. First off, you have to let it appear in correct order from the beginning of production, and it isn't easy. TheBlazikenMaster 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of the community the effectiveness of Template:Infobox movie certificates, which is used in around 300 film articles. It has been up for deletion back in August 2006, though the consensus was to keep. There has been some discussion going on between me, Pixelface, and Bignole, as well as a broader discussion at the style guidelines talk page. In brief, the template provides a collective list of movie certificates (ratings) for a film. WP:IINFO states, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." To fill the template, editors usually draw upon the "Certifications" attribute under "Additional details" at a film's web page at the Internet Movie Database. IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for editorial oversight (information being user-submitted) or fact-checking (as it has been incorrect numerous times). My approach about movie certificates for films has been to include information about a certificate beyond just its classification, such as the specific reason for it or disputes surrounding it. Some instances are Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 instead of R like its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film)#Release, or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not).
The issue is, what does a list of movie certificates contribute to a film article in the encyclopedic sense? For a family film, certificates would permit younger audiences. If there was an outlier certificate that restricted audiences more than others, then the list provides zero understanding of why this may be the case. I do not at all oppose verifiable coverage of movie certificates if it can be reflected beyond mere classification how the certificate affected the film or the film's impact upon release. There has been a suggestion to reduce the template's attributes to solely English-speaking territories, but this setup still does not try to provide encyclopedic context behind each certificate. I would like to present this template for deletion, but I would like to hear any opposing arguments from the community. A few reminders:
I welcome any arguments about how a list of movie certificates contributes to the encyclopedic nature of a film article on Wikipedia despite no detail or real-world context beyond their classifications. Other comments are also welcome. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, this conversation is already ongoing in the talk page mentioned above. Let's keep it centralized there. Girolamo Savonarola 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Post comments for keeping/deleting/merging at the CFD here Lugnuts 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Another film category is up for debate at CFD here. Lugnuts 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Branded to Kill is currently listed at FAC. It's experiencing a bit of a dry spell and hasn't received any comments for more than two weeks. I'm fairly certain a couple more reviews would push it over the finish line. If anyone's interested in critiquing the article, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Awhile back I proposed creating a Thai film task force, which didn't really get very far because the scope is too limited. Recently, the suggestion was made to broaden things a bit and propose that Southeast Asian cinema task force be created. The proposed task force is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema. If you contribute to articles about films from Southeast Asian countries, then please list your name among the Interested Wikipedians.
A proposed task force page has also been started here.
In terms of its name and regional focus, the task force would also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, though I would expect that for article assessment purposes and talk-page banner coding it would fall strictly under WP:FILM, because some countries already have their own projects, are handling their own assessments and don't desire to fall under the broader banner of WP:Southeast Asia. — Wise Kwai 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you all keep an eye on this? Someone made a wreck of the talk page articlehistory and WikiProject links. I reverted it all, but I think there's a WikiProject peer review in there that's not correctly added in somewhere. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A cat which could become huge has been created: Category:Films with Original Screenplays. You might like to consider it before it's added to too many articles. The JPS talk to me 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But first someone needs to get the article out of the unsourced category. Once that's finished I will go right ahead and make it a featured candidate. It looks nice, and doesn't have any tags, (except a hidden one, that's why I need help, since I can't find that small unsourced rumor.) TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just thought i'd ask what people think should be done with people articles that were part of the Academy Award project (eg
Gloria Swanson). We recently changed to not having people articlces invloved with the project, but there is mention in our project scope as follows:
"(Future tagging of bio articles relevant to specific task forces may be a future extension, however.)"
Is this an instance where we should tag them? If not what should be done now that the Academy Awards project has been included in the awards task force. Cheers.
RWardy
17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Forrest Gump article, and I'm trying to figure out why four characters from the movie have separate articles ( Forrest Gump (character) Jenny Curran Lieutenant Dan Taylor Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue). Is there something super important that I'm missing that gets them a separate article? None of the four articles seem to impart any different info from the main article other than to just retell the plot, again, and repeat stuff from the novel differences section, with a lack of citations on anything. Are those four pages really necessary, notable, etc? Should they be AfDed?
I'm also wondering if the Film and Novel should separate articles (also posed on Talk:Forrest_Gump page. There seems to be a lot of differences between the two, the book has a sequel, and with the film dominating the article, it seems like the book has no real chance at fair treatment or getting well documented info. AnmaFinotera 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Academy Awards banner is no longer on any pages there are several categories and pages that are no longer used. Not sure the best way to go about removing them. The actual banner itself is not used as well as the quality and importance categories. Banner is here: {{ AcademyAwardsproj}} and top level categories are Category:Academy Awards articles by quality and Category:Academy Awards articles by importance. Let me know what I need to do and i'll sort it. Cheers. RWardy 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:AcademyAwardsproj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — RWardy 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm watching this page, and was wondering if I could get help in keeping an eye on it? Since the sequel and director's cut is recent, I'm not surprised to see vandals, and the situation could get worse. I have feeling that it can even be one of the most vandalized movie articles until the actual Halloween day, TheBlazikenMaster 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I created Durian Durian today. Please improve it? Totnesmartin 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We need some sort of case on this. For questions: Wildroot November 1 23: 22 (UTC)
Thanks for the response guys. I recently created the Batman vs Superman article. Don't worry I supplied it with various links to back up my report. But since I can't submit it for GA status (only accepts released films), should I nominate it for "feature" film status? I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Wildroot 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this article just a poor-man's version of thie one? I fail to see what the first article achieves, as it's all covered in the main one. Merge and redirect them all as there's only a few (judging by the nav box at the foot of the page)? Lugnuts 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you said on the film's talk page, as long as the film is available, it is the source material. But what about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
While looking up the name of an actor from Anaconda: Blood Orchid, I noticed that a section talking about a sequel Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Looking at the article, though, all three sources fail the reliability standards and I can't find a single reliable source that mentions these two movies in the work, not even IMDB or David Hasslehoff's own site (and considering his site, I would think it would be all over it). I'm not sure what, if anything, though should be done about the article. If all of the sources are suspect, should it even have an article or are we only offering unintentional validation to what seems to be a vague rumor? Thoughts? AnmaFinotera 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to start by saying that I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to all the legal ins and outs about pictures here at wikipedia so that is why I am posting this here. Today my watchlist revealed this edit [8]. I have been under the impression that film posters weren't being deleted at the same rate as pictures, though I could be wrong. Since the editor that downloaded this may be long gone, or unaware of the need to update the page for this picture and since I have no clue what needs to be posted on the page to keep it from being deleted I am wondering if there is anyway to save the picture of this poster? One picture has already been deleted from this page and losing the poster from the infobox will leave the page looking rather forlorn. I realize that there may not be a way to keep this but if there is any help that can be given will be much appreciated so thanks, in advance, for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith nom. in my book, but for those interested, take a look here and here! Lugnuts 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The article Bills is fascinating though brief. It details how real-life gangs in Kinshasa based much of their image and outlook on the cowboys of American Western movies, esp. one that is a redlink, Pony Express (1953) starring Charlton Heston. This is interesting stuff that could use reapiars from a dedicated editor... -- Ling.Nut 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this question keeps coming up, I have added a section to the style guidelines, so that people can quote it more easily. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. Please discuss on the relevant talk page if my wording is disagreed with. Cop 663 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled on this page when assessing articles. Should this page exist as surely the content should be on the page for the film ( Sivaji (film)). The cast and crew pages lists more people, but i'm sure it could be incorporated with the film article. Let me know what you think and i'll tag the pages with {{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}}. Cheers. RWardy 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently these links are used as refs in Independence Day, but I'm unsure they could be considered "fit" to use as references. What do you think? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've used Google Alerts to collect headlines on films, and I've just unloaded a batch on a few film articles' talk pages so they can be implemented in the article now or sometime in the future. This is the list of film articles which will have a batch of headlines in their talk pages from yours truly:
Some of these films may be Oscar contenders or have players who will be Oscar contenders, so I figure it may be a good impression on the readership to have decent articles about the films come Oscar season. No Country For Old Men (film) should be on the list, but I've only added it to my Google Alerts, as I did not expect it to be as big of a deal as it apparently is on Rotten Tomatoes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Post you arguements for/against deletion here. Lugnuts 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Friday the 13th (franchise) is up for GA review, and it's been sitting there for awhile now. Just thought I'd spread the word, in case there's some bored GA reviewers out there who have a spare minute...or 10. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to notify the users of this project of the featured list candidacy of List of films that received the Golden Film. The list article was nominated two weeks ago, but received only two comments and one support vote since. You can help by replying to the candidacy. Thank you, Ilse @ 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
About a week ago I put a request for renaming on all of the talk pages below for the film series listed below. I have gotten very little in the way of a response for any of them. Some have had no activity at all since the request was added. Before moving them I would like to get some more input from this project.
These articles should be renamed to bring them inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. There are no other articles so named for series of films with other lengths (duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies, hexologies, etc.). Also, a lot of them could possibly grow. From what I understand LOTR is going to have The Hobbit made, so the LOTR article name would be inaccurate once The Hobbit is out. Also, with nothing ever being sacred for film makers, it is possible for the series that appear finished to be revived or added to later. Clint Eastwood could get really nostalgic and do another Dollar film for all we know. Lucas could be dead and buried and his estate nearly bankrupt years from now, and the Star Wars property could be sold to the highest bidder who then continues the original and prequel series independently. We may not ever know. So, those are the possible reasons why the word trilogy should not be used in these article titles. Please discuss each separately on their talk pages.
Thank you. - LA @ 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is interested in pigeonholing, Lady Aleena. I'm saying that if a collection of films has been popularly recognized as a duology and a trilogy, and if such a collection warrants an article, it should be identified as such. Wikipedia is dynamic; if there is a change from this duology or trilogy, of which the likelihood is reduced as time goes on, we can easily update it accordingly. At the present, though, topics like Star Wars is explicitly recognized as having the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ spoiler}} template was recently deleted and the spoiler guideline was rewritten. I have a question regarding spoiler warnings in relation to MOS:FILM and I have a started a new section on the talk page for MOS:FILM discussing it. I would appreciate some input from editors involved with WikiProject Films about this. Thank you. -- Pixelface ( talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI... I've been working on consolidating the film templates' categories down to one - Category:WikiProject Films templates, which is now linked on the project page. I know there's lots of other templates out there, if anyone finds them, please add them to this category. The now redundant Category:Film templates will be nominated for deletion as redundant as soon as it's 100% de-populated. SkierRMH ( talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A discussion of fair use images in film actor articles is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and editors have begun removing images from actor articles. In my opinion, the fair use hawks demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the difference between a photo of an actor as her/himself versus an image of a fictional role in a way which may seriously impact articles related to our project. I think the input of editors who are educated about film would be very valuable. Thanks, Melty girl ( talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
How do we resolve the question here, when reliable sources differ? What role does "I watched it and the New York Times was wrong" play? (as an example. I haven't re-watched it, so I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to re-watch it if ya'll have a better answer for how to resolve this). The question is at ATC's talk page instead of the article talk page because she is still learning her way around. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I watched the film and it did not mention his age in it, I did not re-watch the whole thing, I skipped through chapters and fast-fowarding it a little bit and could not find anything about his age. Once or twice they were talking about his birthday in the film so I also tried fast-fowarding to it and couldn't find anything. But for all the info I know about this I think 10 would work since some reliabile recources say it and Original Reasearch does to, even though we do not use original research, it connects to the reliable recources and seem to agree with SandyGeorgia's reasearch on Tourettes. -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why there are no movie ratings on Wikipedia. I think it would be very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.56 ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There was just a fairly long discussion regarding this here; it would be more productive to continue the conversation there. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged that article a lot, I invite you to join the article talk page and tell me what you think. Believe me, this is something you can discuss here as well, as this isn't only about the article, also the future of movies. Just read the talk page of that article, and tell me what you think. And tell if you can help, again it doesn't matter which talk page you choose, as both this one and the article's talk page I'm pointing at is relevant. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Blade Runner has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan ( talk • contribs) 05:49, November 23, 2007
FightTheDarkness ( talk · contribs) is apparently blind in why this category should be deleted, and is unable to follow the rules of contesting the speedy deletion of this redundant category. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Thanks! — Mears man ( talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please see Talk:Jar Jar Binks#WikiProject_Films. Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Talk:Manon of the Spring (film). As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), the most common title should be used. In this case Manon des Sources is around three times more common than Manon of the Spring. IMDb uses Manon des Sources. It also makes sense to use the original French title as the first film, Jean de Florette, has a French title and no English equivalent. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the project's policy on using Ain't it Cool News as a source? Is it classed as reliable for works that have already been produced (i.e. AICN reports a rumour which turns out to be true)? Brad ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I know that for albums, as per this, they are all categorized by artist, even if they've only released one album. What are the rules for the films by director category? Obviously the cat should only exist if the director has an article to begin with, but how many films does a director need before the category is created? Should all directors who have at least 1 film on WP have a category in Category:Films by director? Looking forward to hearing your views. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am slowly making my way through the articles on the various films Alfred Hitchcock directed and am finding them either completely unreferenced or incredibly under-referenced. These films are quite famous and most, if not all, are considered classics. It cannot possibly be difficult to find references. I am adding them as I work my way through two biographies in addition to using my good friend Google :) If anyone else would like to pitch in it would be much appreciated. IrishGuy talk 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s ( talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of film posters/DVD covers for standard identification of a film in an infobox, as well as our filmrationale template. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
On "Genres (top-level genres only; no subgenres)", what if the movie is a mix of two genres, and the funny/scary scenes are equal (Horror comedy in this case)?
Oh and before you ask, yes I am inactive. I just come here once a day, and make VERY minor edits. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley, which relates to all articles about Elvis. Would the members of this project have any reservations about creating a separate category for Elvis films for the various films in which Elvis appeared and/or which have been made about him? I would think that in the cases of most of the films he was himself in, the primary reason for their being notable is Elvis, and the same might be said about many of the "tribute" films later. Any response, positive or negative, would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you verra much. John Carter ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like to bring up a concern. I recently noticed Template:Arnold Schwarzenegger implemented at every film article in which Arnold has made an appearance. For example, this one. An actor template does not seem appropriate considering the degree of an actor's role in a film, not to mention that films have multiple actors. I just took out another example with Leonardo DiCaprio here. (Same for Shutter Island (film), which needs to be addressed per WP:NF. I swear, Scorsese keeps announcing a dozen projects.) I'd discourage actor templates... for film articles, I think that only director templates should be used since it's a consistently important role and usually in the hands of one (sometimes two). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To reduce systemic bias, I've taken to adding "American" in the first sentence of the lead section for American films. For example, "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film based on the fictional DC Comics character Batman." I've used [[United States|American]], while I noticed Alientraveller use [[Cinema of the United States|American]] at Cloverfield. In addition, there's been some edits at The Lovely Bones (film) ( page history) about how to identify the nationality of this film, which is produced in the United States and New Zealand. The issue was temporarily disambiguated to say "of the 2002 American novel". I've looked at WP:MOSFILM#Lead section, which unfortunately seems American-biased on the matter: "The very first paragraph should cover the ... country (if not the US)..." I am wondering what is the best way to determine the nationality of the film. It seems that The Lovely Bones is an American production -- while it is produced in New Zealand, it is not a "New Zealand film". Another example is Valkyrie (film), which is an American film produced in Germany. Thoughts on the matter, especially how to wiki-link "American" in the lead section? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We're actually flogging a dead horse: [9] Alientraveller ( talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Are Web series, Webisodes, and the like considered to be a part of this project? --Is this fact... ? 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to share your views at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Fiction_in_Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A note to the members of the project. Today The Tramp moved Fantasia (film) to Fantasia (film) without giving any reason or with any discussion on the films talk page or here at the project page. While I don't know this for sure I think that this editor does not realize the full implications of this move and they, more than likely, did not fix any double redirects - or single ones for that matter. I am alerting the project in case those of you who know how want to move it back. However, if you are okay with this move than so am I but you may want to keep an eye on this editor in case they start moving things in a wholesale fashion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has requested that this receive attention from the community with an eye towards fixing rather than deleting. At the moment, it's a collection of unsourced trivia that could easily be construed as original research. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to improve Behold a Pale Horse (film), but have kinda hit a wall on sources. Does anyone know a way to find stuff from the mid-60s (critique, analysis, etc.) that would be helpful? I'd love to get this article up above Start status, but can't really do much more without finding some more sources. Murderbike 23:52, 3 December 2007 (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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I'd like to bring up an issue regarding the live-action film adaptation of Dragon Ball Z. Dragon Ball Z (film) was created after the unconfirmed announcement not too long ago, and it was nominated for AfD. After getting involved with the AfD process, I mainly cleaned up the article so it was a succinct paragraph using reliable sources, including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Montreal Gazette, and IGN. However, in the AfD process, the nominator disputed the article from Variety as being unreliable for the reason that the studio never "confirmed" the information about 20th Century Fox hiring screenwriter Ben Ramsey for $500,000 to adapt a screenplay for Dragon Ball Z. (The article also mentions the smaller item of the project being developed by production executive Peter Kang, all with no hint of rumor or doubt.) I've tried to explain to the editor that this is not how verifiability works -- you don't use primary sources to "confirm" secondary sources. If this was the case, it would be akin to a scandal was reported by a reliable source on the set of a film's production, and the studio officially denied it, then obviously the primary source cannot triumph over the secondary source in this case. The editor thinks that since the studio has not responded to the Variety coverage, the information should be doubted. (Ignoring the likelihood of this reliable source getting the information from the studio itself.) Basically, there is no reference saying that Variety is wrong, so it should not be disputed. The AfD process went through to merge and redirect, and the editor has attempted to modify the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned, and I've reverted him. He and I have reached a stalemate in terms of discussion about verifiability and reliable sources in regard to items like Variety, so I would like other editors to take a look at this situation and judge the merits of the Variety citation. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's clear a few things: I've not "modified the wording at the source material's article so that Variety could be questioned", that would be assuming bad faith on me...Considering the heated battle between Erik and me that this topic created previously, I don't think he should jump on conclusions, instead he should actually try to calm down and talk with me.
As I've explained, I'm merely considering the info in a npov way. You've said it yourself, "verifiability, not truth": reports from 3rd party source shouldn't be regarded as set in stone, or absolute truths. Such things are for when we'll see Ramsey's name in the credits of the movie. But right now, Variety's article is still "claims", and not "undisputable truth". I'm not saying Variety isn't a reliable source, I'm saying nothing is set in stone. For example, Erik should realize that Variety's article is 3 years old, we've heard no word about it since then, and as he stated many times about other movies in development hell, things can change pretty quickly in the movie industry, what reliable source says now that, after 3 years of development hell, Ben Ramsey is still writer ?
The fact is, the previous version of the article just said that Variety was an absolute truth, completely ignoring that things are constantly evolving in the movie industry (about that, I'm astonished that Erik, who knows much about movies in development hell, wasn't aware of that when he edited the article) and that nothing is sure. It's not because something is from a reliable source that it cannot be challenged (the Montreal gazette article is a reliable source, yet it was challenged by Fox), and it's certainly not up to individual users like Erik to decide that a source, however reliable it may be, won't be challenged ever. Or else, it's a serious breach in the NEUTRAL point of view policy. It's always the same: statements are identified, proved to be existing, proved to originate from a reliable source, but never presented as undeniable truths ("verifiability, not truth").
Or else, maybe Erik is suggesting that we should also remove Fox comment about the Montreal G. ?
Finally, I've only changed "the writer is" from "Variety claims the writer is" in the article, and honestly, anyone who's actually reading my edit, and not merely listening to Erik's claims, can only agree that I've merely followed the neutrality policy. Folken de Fanel 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If the official website for the series says it is "unconfirmed" [1], we should take it into account and show it in the article. Besides, that there's not been official (ie from Fox) comments about the movie since 2002 is true, and the Montreal Gazette claims have been challenged by Fox, it's true. Folken de Fanel 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Anybody interested in forming a documentary film task-force, as this genre is now in the second plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjerich ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm useless to this project if nobody knows what I do and why I like movies.
My name is The Blaziken Master, I'm a DVD collector, my whole DVD collection can be found here. My favorite movie is Bad Boys II while my favorite actor is Will Smith.
What I will be doing here you might ask, before you ask, I will tell you. I'll be updating pages of course on movies I own and am interested in. When I discover the movies I like don't have a link to the page on Yahoo! Movies I'm also here to add it to the list, after all Yahoo! is a well known service.
Yeah, that's all I have to say. I hope I get very warm welcome to this project, and I really will help out as much as I can. TheBlazikenMaster 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The articles Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut have been nominated for deletion. Can anybody weigh in on the notability of either the film or the director? Thanks! - Pete 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
User:156.34.60.230 is adding pictures (like this edit here [2]) of actors, in tiny versions, to film articles cast lists (muchlike IMDb has been doing for awhile). I am bringing this here so that admins and members who are part of the project can decide whether this is okay or not. If it is okay then no problem, but, if it isn't then I know that it is easier for admins to rollback multiple edits then it is for me. Also, I am not sure what warning or message one would give in this situation. I have also posted this at WP:ANI but there has bee no response there as yet. Thanks ahead of time for your attention to this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone with a moment and an interest in the film want to take a look at The Brave One (2007 film), my attempt to cut the plot down to a synopsis was resisted, so I'd like a few other people to take a stab. -- Fredrick day 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films ( here) and music albums ( here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring this to people's attention: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20. Lugnuts 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
25+ films listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all I'd like participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/September. I've proposed new stub categories for adventure films and mystery films of which there ar emany stubs which haven't got this yet please join in. Secondly I'd like to bring up the subject of splitting the primary genre categories like comedy, drama, SciFi , action, musical and western into decades like Category:Horror films. Whilst there isn't a reason why all films of the genre can't go in one category when people are browising by genre often they associate a certain genre by period. For instance the Good the Bad and the Ugly you think Category:1960s western films , Stars wars 1977 - Category:1970s science fiction films, Goldeneye - 1990s action films or for Hot Fuzz you would think Category:2000s comedy films and so on. I strongly believe these categories are large enough to have clear definition on there own by decade particularly as the stub categories have been split like this. Often many users are also keen on a certain genre of a certain decade -it makes browsing far easier.
Thirdly I'd like to suggest several new parameters to the film info box. Whilst I am against cluttering it too much in general as I have been creating many film I've noticed that many prominent figures who participated in the film production are often left out and are not acknowledged. As part of WP actors also I would like to see some expansion in this area. For me additional options of art director, casting, second unit (director only), costume design (this mostly for Indian films where there are famous designers who are prominent in the industry) and perhaps a genre parameter should be allowed into the equation. For me these people play a key role in the films production -the actual product of the film which for me is important. Now I'm not saying that all of these people may require a notable biography of their own or mentioning and I certainly wouldn't want to see all sorts of special effects aeroplane monitor coordinator etc etc into it and lis everyone as that would be ridiclous. but for many periods in film history there are some really key figures in these areas which played a major part in the film making but are left out and I'd like to see more coverage and the option to include the more notable figures. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is what I meant when I said I did not want to see second unit special effect tea guy in there. I did say it should be kept to the most notable -th line would be drawn above these. and I did say that even then often some of these people may not qualify for an article. What I am suggesting is that the parameters are made available so can be used where applicable for the people who are prominent in these fields. Both production, costumer designer and art director are indeed very important in the making of the film and there are many people often who have worked on several hundred films where an article for them is often more appropriate than for some small time film directors. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
One such example for a prominent art director would be Robert Haas (director). If you check him out you'll see what I mean ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I could see adding the production designer/art designer/costume designer field, but second unit director is a bit too much inside baseball, I think. If the second unit director and the work of the second unit was notable enough on a particular film, details about it could be noted in the production section of the article. — Wise Kwai 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps yes -but I strongly think we need production /art designer and costume designer ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, the infobox is not supposed to be a replacement for article content. I really can't recall seeing many articles that discuss any of the proposed additional positions at any length, which would mean that just tossing them into the infobox would be an extremely bad idea. If you feel (or rather, a reliable source feels) that a person who isn't listed in an infobox had some crucial influence on a certain film, please mention him/her in the article instead. Alternatively, you could just take screenshots of a film's closing credits and pasting them where the article is supposed to be. - Bobet 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well if you put it this I know lets take director, screenwriter, cast, music, cinematographer and editor and even distributor out of the info box as "these are discussed in the article". Your argument Bobet with all due respect indicates you think infoboxes are a waste of time when the people in them are "mentioned in the article" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, there's a request for comment going on at the page for Slither (2006 film). If anyone is able, please weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just started my first film page: Hippie Hippie Shake (currently shooting). It's barebones right now, though I will continue to work on it -- if anyone wants to pitch in, that would be lovely. -- Melty girl 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave this section with only MY comment, you are invited to go here. If you have any questions, ask there, not here. All comments should be there. Please vote oppose or support, or whatever you feel like. But please make sure you read completely my reasonbefore you oppose. TheBlazikenMaster 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed certain film articles listing taglines, and others not, and was curious if there is some sort of standard for listing taglines. Can they have their own section? Are they important at all? What about non-English titles, is there a place for these? Murderbike 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I highly encourage you to post your opinion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The article Superhero! was recently restored. However, the director of the film had prior complaints about the Wikipeidia article. This article needs some TLC and a review to ensure that it contains the latest information regarding the film. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I know that movie isn't that famous, and probably a lot of people don't have it, or have seen it. But I'm bringing this here nevertheless, the plot is like holy madness. It's so damn huge. So someone needs to help with trimming it into five paragraphs at max, of course less would be great idea.
Tell you what, you don't have to own that video. Next time you rent a DVD you should rent that movie, and watch it more than once (before you give it back) to know for sure what's important and what isn't.
That of course is only a suggestion.
This page needs some serious cleanup, that tag isn't doing anything. But you on the other hand can. If you help me, I'd be very happy. Thanks for your time. TheBlazikenMaster 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also of note, there has been talk about possibly allowing self-nominations to continue throughout the voting period. If you believe that we should continue to leave the nomination window open, please discuss either here or on the election talk page. (At the moment, we have three nominees standing for three positions.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This minor character from the film Superman Returns has its own article. I don't think it's necessary - the vast majority of the article is a reiteration of the plot of the film. The character plays a very small role in the film and clearly doesn't deserve a separate article. I redirected the article after suggesting a redirection on the talk page and a week of no objections being voiced. However, SonPraises undid the redirect claiming no consensus was formed. Please weigh in your opinions at Talk:Jason White (character) so we can settle this. Thanks. -- Jtalledo (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Per an earlier discussion, I have listed the proposed Film festival task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Film festival (WikiProject Films). If anyone is interested, please show your support and sign up. I had also earlier proposed a Thai film task force, but will hold off on that for now. — Wise Kwai 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in seeing the creation of two task forces:
I think it is a good idea. I don't think of the national pages as wikirpojects anyway -they were intially pages to organize articles on individual cinemas more effectively ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in making a Image:Noposter-upload.png image for films missing a poster, similar to the one on the right? -- Steinn inn 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Can ya'll please tag, cleanup, and do your film thing at The Tic Code? There are some things there that are Greek to me. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. -- Fredrick day 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Crisis ahhhh!! Somebody has ruined Category:Australian films by splitting into the worst possible by genre ahhhh .What should we do. This definately MUST NOT be done. Category:Austrlaian films should be an A-Z ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On Firefox 2.0.0.7, on Windows XP, your sidebar doesn't show up quite right. The statistics just show up as a bunch of table code. I couldn't find out what was wrong with it, but someone with more experience with the sidebar might look into fixing it. Thanks, Psych less 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I linked the problem. TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've recently posted an AfD discussion for the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A similar preceding AfD discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if the WikiProject Films community, under whom these "difference" topics would fall, could find some kind of consensus. I think it can be agreed that if it can be explained why a filmmaker pursued a specific change from the source material, it would generally be encyclopedic to warrant inclusion. (A personal example would be Road to Perdition#Writing.) However, there are a few "Differences" articles and sections that boil down to, "Just read the book and see the film, and you can see the difference yourself!" You can find my argument at the Chocolate Factory AfD, but I was wondering what other community members thought. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
He is a character from Mission: Impossible III please cast your vote here. TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Fight Club (film) has a little stars and stripes to denote that the film was made in the United States. Further to some discussion over quite a long period at WP:FLAG, I believe the flag icons on this and similar articles are redundant and can be removed on sight. I'd be interested if anyone can point me to a consensus at this project that using flags this way adds information to the article. Failing that, this would be a good place to bring up any advantages to the general reader of having the flag as well as the country name. -- John 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the flag icons are a good idea and make the page look better. - Sox 207 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are all A-class film articles in Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles? – Ilse @ 12:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the above project would benefit from a merger with this project, if that is agreeable to the memberships of both projects. One particular advantage would be the greater access to information on the non-"Academy awards", like the various other national film awards. This project, with its greater size and multiple groups, would probably be best able to work on developing such content. Any responses below, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again Academy Awards should clearly become part of WP films. Organized as a task force. When do you think we should merge Indian cinema Giro? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Academy Awards WP should be merged into WP:FILMS. Its not really a large enough scope to warrant a whole Wikiproject - • The Giant Puffin • 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Another editor recently edited the page But I'm a Cheerleader to change the format so that a) the first paragraph after the lead looks better and you can see the edit button properly, but b) there is now a huge gap between the table of contents and the 1st paragraph, which is still there when you "hide" the TOC. The problem originates, I think, from the length of the infobox. Anyway, I haven't seen this anywhere else, I personally think it looks worse now and am having a minor disagreement with the other editor. I would really like other opinions on which is best, or if there are any other solutions? this is how it looked before. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In the past I have used Box Office Mojo for financial data for films. I have recently come across "The Numbers" [3] and have found discrepancies in the figures for gross box office revenue for several films so far. Looking at google, I see that there are other similar sites. Is there any evidence for which is the most accurate or should we cite all of the figures that we can find in the film articles? -- Beloved Freak 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
← UK Box office statistics archive is a resource for non-US figures, though I don't think it's very wieldy. Also, I meant non-web resources as in a book about a famous silent film that approximates its box office gross revenue, which would be more reliable than BOM or TN, which would most likely be tertiary sources in regard to older figures. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Film Group
Though it should be mentioned here. Horrorshowj 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
They can be found Here for those of you who might want to comment. Lugnuts 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this today, but the admin Alkivar has deleted non-free images that had fair use rationales attached without discussion from film articles like Children of Men and Fight Club (film). This unilateral behavior is completely unwarranted considering that there were explanations for the usage of the non-free images in these articles. I am considering filing an incident report, but I left a message on his talk page to see what he has to say for himself. If he feels that he is warranted in making unilateral decisions, I would suggest going ahead with a report of his abuse of admin privileges.
Unilateral deletions:
— Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the issue is some administrator felt need to crap over someone else's work, who had clearly given it a source and rationale, in violation of WP:OWN. This is not new: someone who thinks it is plain wrong to put copyrighted work on this site. So do call for his head on a platter. Alientraveller 18:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that several months ago the notable roles section of actor infoboxes was removed by sensible consensus. In editing today I noted that it still exists in the infobox for voice actors like Maurice LaMarche. Now it is is labeled as credits when you edit the infobox but it shows up as notable roles when viewing the page. Is this something that we should remove as we did with the actor infoboxes or will this be considered a new alteration that will have to go through the discussion process? If the latter please let me know where I have to go to get this process started and I will be happy to do so and thanks in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost as soon as we've formally integrated the Indian cinema task force with much consensus from their editors, the sole dissenter (from WP India) has lodged a complaint in WikiProject Council. I find this quite distressing, since it seems to be an attempt to subvert both consensus and existing task force location conventions. In any case, if anyone would like to comment there, it would be much appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please visit Template talk:Imdb name to discuss new capabiliy provided by {{ Imdb name/sandbox}} with a demonstration at {{ Imdb name/testcases}}. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This topic is about the history making film Love & Suicide, the movie. In the last three years this site has been tagged for deletion, has been deleted, has had numerous attempts to remove it.
We believe we are being targeted as filmmakers from either haters or political retaliation in regards to the topic of the embargo in which filmmaker Luis Moro is outspoken.
The page has followed all guidelines considering how many times we have been flagged. The format that was followed was from Andy Garcia's page. So there would be no mistakes. Here are the list of movies Garcia has posted and has been left alone, with no threats, no deletions, no issues.
I removed the list - yes andy garica has a load of films on wikipedia - -- Fredrick day 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
His films have not been labled 'advertisement', or requested 'speedy deletion', his writing style on the page is similar to ours. I am a request for Love & Suicide's page to be locked, like the Cuba page. So no more 'editors' from any level, and country, any opinion, or any position can tag or try to remove.
We have proved (with many supporters) why our film should be listed here in Wikipedia, we have shown press, and proof over the last three years. We did remove Luis Moro as a filmmaker because to keep up with the deletions was too time consuming. Never mind he is an award winning filmmaker, that did not seem to be applicable enough for the 'haters'. Not only am I requesting a lock on the page, but also if this page continues to be harrased, we will go more public (wide). We have every right to be here.
Yes it did read like an advert - I've made a start at cleaning it up, other please jump in, the press section needs work. --
Fredrick day
21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Very, very good. This is the first time I have ever had this type of reponse. It takes the mystery out of the whole thing. So, I will have a professional editor correct everything you mentioned. Thank you, and I assume it will stay up until I can get this done. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.1.247.151 (
talk)
21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
More info here. Please comment there if you would like. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a message directing people to another discussion, no further edits should be made to this section.
There are a few future film articles that are undergoing requests to merge to their source materials' articles:
Input from the community is welcome. If there are any other future films that may not meet the notability guidelines for films, feel free to mention them here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please watch this movie and start the article stub? I noticed it while looking at a movie list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Stub is created. There was enough information in a Google search to start it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be listed in all movie articles, after all Yahoo! is a very well known internet service. Tomorrow I'll be going through my DVDs and add external links to Y!M, any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No other site has Greg's Preview, and I must say it is pretty useful. TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is that the case? Why didn't you say so in the first place?
And I can't just do it, making a section about how the movie was made is not easy. First off, you have to let it appear in correct order from the beginning of production, and it isn't easy. TheBlazikenMaster 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of the community the effectiveness of Template:Infobox movie certificates, which is used in around 300 film articles. It has been up for deletion back in August 2006, though the consensus was to keep. There has been some discussion going on between me, Pixelface, and Bignole, as well as a broader discussion at the style guidelines talk page. In brief, the template provides a collective list of movie certificates (ratings) for a film. WP:IINFO states, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." To fill the template, editors usually draw upon the "Certifications" attribute under "Additional details" at a film's web page at the Internet Movie Database. IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for editorial oversight (information being user-submitted) or fact-checking (as it has been incorrect numerous times). My approach about movie certificates for films has been to include information about a certificate beyond just its classification, such as the specific reason for it or disputes surrounding it. Some instances are Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 instead of R like its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film)#Release, or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not).
The issue is, what does a list of movie certificates contribute to a film article in the encyclopedic sense? For a family film, certificates would permit younger audiences. If there was an outlier certificate that restricted audiences more than others, then the list provides zero understanding of why this may be the case. I do not at all oppose verifiable coverage of movie certificates if it can be reflected beyond mere classification how the certificate affected the film or the film's impact upon release. There has been a suggestion to reduce the template's attributes to solely English-speaking territories, but this setup still does not try to provide encyclopedic context behind each certificate. I would like to present this template for deletion, but I would like to hear any opposing arguments from the community. A few reminders:
I welcome any arguments about how a list of movie certificates contributes to the encyclopedic nature of a film article on Wikipedia despite no detail or real-world context beyond their classifications. Other comments are also welcome. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, this conversation is already ongoing in the talk page mentioned above. Let's keep it centralized there. Girolamo Savonarola 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Post comments for keeping/deleting/merging at the CFD here Lugnuts 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Another film category is up for debate at CFD here. Lugnuts 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Branded to Kill is currently listed at FAC. It's experiencing a bit of a dry spell and hasn't received any comments for more than two weeks. I'm fairly certain a couple more reviews would push it over the finish line. If anyone's interested in critiquing the article, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Awhile back I proposed creating a Thai film task force, which didn't really get very far because the scope is too limited. Recently, the suggestion was made to broaden things a bit and propose that Southeast Asian cinema task force be created. The proposed task force is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema. If you contribute to articles about films from Southeast Asian countries, then please list your name among the Interested Wikipedians.
A proposed task force page has also been started here.
In terms of its name and regional focus, the task force would also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, though I would expect that for article assessment purposes and talk-page banner coding it would fall strictly under WP:FILM, because some countries already have their own projects, are handling their own assessments and don't desire to fall under the broader banner of WP:Southeast Asia. — Wise Kwai 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you all keep an eye on this? Someone made a wreck of the talk page articlehistory and WikiProject links. I reverted it all, but I think there's a WikiProject peer review in there that's not correctly added in somewhere. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A cat which could become huge has been created: Category:Films with Original Screenplays. You might like to consider it before it's added to too many articles. The JPS talk to me 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But first someone needs to get the article out of the unsourced category. Once that's finished I will go right ahead and make it a featured candidate. It looks nice, and doesn't have any tags, (except a hidden one, that's why I need help, since I can't find that small unsourced rumor.) TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just thought i'd ask what people think should be done with people articles that were part of the Academy Award project (eg
Gloria Swanson). We recently changed to not having people articlces invloved with the project, but there is mention in our project scope as follows:
"(Future tagging of bio articles relevant to specific task forces may be a future extension, however.)"
Is this an instance where we should tag them? If not what should be done now that the Academy Awards project has been included in the awards task force. Cheers.
RWardy
17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Forrest Gump article, and I'm trying to figure out why four characters from the movie have separate articles ( Forrest Gump (character) Jenny Curran Lieutenant Dan Taylor Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue). Is there something super important that I'm missing that gets them a separate article? None of the four articles seem to impart any different info from the main article other than to just retell the plot, again, and repeat stuff from the novel differences section, with a lack of citations on anything. Are those four pages really necessary, notable, etc? Should they be AfDed?
I'm also wondering if the Film and Novel should separate articles (also posed on Talk:Forrest_Gump page. There seems to be a lot of differences between the two, the book has a sequel, and with the film dominating the article, it seems like the book has no real chance at fair treatment or getting well documented info. AnmaFinotera 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Academy Awards banner is no longer on any pages there are several categories and pages that are no longer used. Not sure the best way to go about removing them. The actual banner itself is not used as well as the quality and importance categories. Banner is here: {{ AcademyAwardsproj}} and top level categories are Category:Academy Awards articles by quality and Category:Academy Awards articles by importance. Let me know what I need to do and i'll sort it. Cheers. RWardy 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:AcademyAwardsproj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — RWardy 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm watching this page, and was wondering if I could get help in keeping an eye on it? Since the sequel and director's cut is recent, I'm not surprised to see vandals, and the situation could get worse. I have feeling that it can even be one of the most vandalized movie articles until the actual Halloween day, TheBlazikenMaster 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I created Durian Durian today. Please improve it? Totnesmartin 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We need some sort of case on this. For questions: Wildroot November 1 23: 22 (UTC)
Thanks for the response guys. I recently created the Batman vs Superman article. Don't worry I supplied it with various links to back up my report. But since I can't submit it for GA status (only accepts released films), should I nominate it for "feature" film status? I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Wildroot 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this article just a poor-man's version of thie one? I fail to see what the first article achieves, as it's all covered in the main one. Merge and redirect them all as there's only a few (judging by the nav box at the foot of the page)? Lugnuts 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you said on the film's talk page, as long as the film is available, it is the source material. But what about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
While looking up the name of an actor from Anaconda: Blood Orchid, I noticed that a section talking about a sequel Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Looking at the article, though, all three sources fail the reliability standards and I can't find a single reliable source that mentions these two movies in the work, not even IMDB or David Hasslehoff's own site (and considering his site, I would think it would be all over it). I'm not sure what, if anything, though should be done about the article. If all of the sources are suspect, should it even have an article or are we only offering unintentional validation to what seems to be a vague rumor? Thoughts? AnmaFinotera 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to start by saying that I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to all the legal ins and outs about pictures here at wikipedia so that is why I am posting this here. Today my watchlist revealed this edit [8]. I have been under the impression that film posters weren't being deleted at the same rate as pictures, though I could be wrong. Since the editor that downloaded this may be long gone, or unaware of the need to update the page for this picture and since I have no clue what needs to be posted on the page to keep it from being deleted I am wondering if there is anyway to save the picture of this poster? One picture has already been deleted from this page and losing the poster from the infobox will leave the page looking rather forlorn. I realize that there may not be a way to keep this but if there is any help that can be given will be much appreciated so thanks, in advance, for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith nom. in my book, but for those interested, take a look here and here! Lugnuts 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The article Bills is fascinating though brief. It details how real-life gangs in Kinshasa based much of their image and outlook on the cowboys of American Western movies, esp. one that is a redlink, Pony Express (1953) starring Charlton Heston. This is interesting stuff that could use reapiars from a dedicated editor... -- Ling.Nut 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this question keeps coming up, I have added a section to the style guidelines, so that people can quote it more easily. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. Please discuss on the relevant talk page if my wording is disagreed with. Cop 663 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled on this page when assessing articles. Should this page exist as surely the content should be on the page for the film ( Sivaji (film)). The cast and crew pages lists more people, but i'm sure it could be incorporated with the film article. Let me know what you think and i'll tag the pages with {{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}}. Cheers. RWardy 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently these links are used as refs in Independence Day, but I'm unsure they could be considered "fit" to use as references. What do you think? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've used Google Alerts to collect headlines on films, and I've just unloaded a batch on a few film articles' talk pages so they can be implemented in the article now or sometime in the future. This is the list of film articles which will have a batch of headlines in their talk pages from yours truly:
Some of these films may be Oscar contenders or have players who will be Oscar contenders, so I figure it may be a good impression on the readership to have decent articles about the films come Oscar season. No Country For Old Men (film) should be on the list, but I've only added it to my Google Alerts, as I did not expect it to be as big of a deal as it apparently is on Rotten Tomatoes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Post you arguements for/against deletion here. Lugnuts 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Friday the 13th (franchise) is up for GA review, and it's been sitting there for awhile now. Just thought I'd spread the word, in case there's some bored GA reviewers out there who have a spare minute...or 10. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to notify the users of this project of the featured list candidacy of List of films that received the Golden Film. The list article was nominated two weeks ago, but received only two comments and one support vote since. You can help by replying to the candidacy. Thank you, Ilse @ 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
About a week ago I put a request for renaming on all of the talk pages below for the film series listed below. I have gotten very little in the way of a response for any of them. Some have had no activity at all since the request was added. Before moving them I would like to get some more input from this project.
These articles should be renamed to bring them inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. There are no other articles so named for series of films with other lengths (duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies, hexologies, etc.). Also, a lot of them could possibly grow. From what I understand LOTR is going to have The Hobbit made, so the LOTR article name would be inaccurate once The Hobbit is out. Also, with nothing ever being sacred for film makers, it is possible for the series that appear finished to be revived or added to later. Clint Eastwood could get really nostalgic and do another Dollar film for all we know. Lucas could be dead and buried and his estate nearly bankrupt years from now, and the Star Wars property could be sold to the highest bidder who then continues the original and prequel series independently. We may not ever know. So, those are the possible reasons why the word trilogy should not be used in these article titles. Please discuss each separately on their talk pages.
Thank you. - LA @ 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is interested in pigeonholing, Lady Aleena. I'm saying that if a collection of films has been popularly recognized as a duology and a trilogy, and if such a collection warrants an article, it should be identified as such. Wikipedia is dynamic; if there is a change from this duology or trilogy, of which the likelihood is reduced as time goes on, we can easily update it accordingly. At the present, though, topics like Star Wars is explicitly recognized as having the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ spoiler}} template was recently deleted and the spoiler guideline was rewritten. I have a question regarding spoiler warnings in relation to MOS:FILM and I have a started a new section on the talk page for MOS:FILM discussing it. I would appreciate some input from editors involved with WikiProject Films about this. Thank you. -- Pixelface ( talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI... I've been working on consolidating the film templates' categories down to one - Category:WikiProject Films templates, which is now linked on the project page. I know there's lots of other templates out there, if anyone finds them, please add them to this category. The now redundant Category:Film templates will be nominated for deletion as redundant as soon as it's 100% de-populated. SkierRMH ( talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A discussion of fair use images in film actor articles is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and editors have begun removing images from actor articles. In my opinion, the fair use hawks demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the difference between a photo of an actor as her/himself versus an image of a fictional role in a way which may seriously impact articles related to our project. I think the input of editors who are educated about film would be very valuable. Thanks, Melty girl ( talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
How do we resolve the question here, when reliable sources differ? What role does "I watched it and the New York Times was wrong" play? (as an example. I haven't re-watched it, so I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to re-watch it if ya'll have a better answer for how to resolve this). The question is at ATC's talk page instead of the article talk page because she is still learning her way around. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I watched the film and it did not mention his age in it, I did not re-watch the whole thing, I skipped through chapters and fast-fowarding it a little bit and could not find anything about his age. Once or twice they were talking about his birthday in the film so I also tried fast-fowarding to it and couldn't find anything. But for all the info I know about this I think 10 would work since some reliabile recources say it and Original Reasearch does to, even though we do not use original research, it connects to the reliable recources and seem to agree with SandyGeorgia's reasearch on Tourettes. -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why there are no movie ratings on Wikipedia. I think it would be very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.56 ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There was just a fairly long discussion regarding this here; it would be more productive to continue the conversation there. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged that article a lot, I invite you to join the article talk page and tell me what you think. Believe me, this is something you can discuss here as well, as this isn't only about the article, also the future of movies. Just read the talk page of that article, and tell me what you think. And tell if you can help, again it doesn't matter which talk page you choose, as both this one and the article's talk page I'm pointing at is relevant. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Blade Runner has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan ( talk • contribs) 05:49, November 23, 2007
FightTheDarkness ( talk · contribs) is apparently blind in why this category should be deleted, and is unable to follow the rules of contesting the speedy deletion of this redundant category. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article. Seeing as the film falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome. Thanks! — Mears man ( talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please see Talk:Jar Jar Binks#WikiProject_Films. Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Talk:Manon of the Spring (film). As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), the most common title should be used. In this case Manon des Sources is around three times more common than Manon of the Spring. IMDb uses Manon des Sources. It also makes sense to use the original French title as the first film, Jean de Florette, has a French title and no English equivalent. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the project's policy on using Ain't it Cool News as a source? Is it classed as reliable for works that have already been produced (i.e. AICN reports a rumour which turns out to be true)? Brad ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I know that for albums, as per this, they are all categorized by artist, even if they've only released one album. What are the rules for the films by director category? Obviously the cat should only exist if the director has an article to begin with, but how many films does a director need before the category is created? Should all directors who have at least 1 film on WP have a category in Category:Films by director? Looking forward to hearing your views. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am slowly making my way through the articles on the various films Alfred Hitchcock directed and am finding them either completely unreferenced or incredibly under-referenced. These films are quite famous and most, if not all, are considered classics. It cannot possibly be difficult to find references. I am adding them as I work my way through two biographies in addition to using my good friend Google :) If anyone else would like to pitch in it would be much appreciated. IrishGuy talk 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s ( talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of film posters/DVD covers for standard identification of a film in an infobox, as well as our filmrationale template. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
On "Genres (top-level genres only; no subgenres)", what if the movie is a mix of two genres, and the funny/scary scenes are equal (Horror comedy in this case)?
Oh and before you ask, yes I am inactive. I just come here once a day, and make VERY minor edits. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley, which relates to all articles about Elvis. Would the members of this project have any reservations about creating a separate category for Elvis films for the various films in which Elvis appeared and/or which have been made about him? I would think that in the cases of most of the films he was himself in, the primary reason for their being notable is Elvis, and the same might be said about many of the "tribute" films later. Any response, positive or negative, would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you verra much. John Carter ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like to bring up a concern. I recently noticed Template:Arnold Schwarzenegger implemented at every film article in which Arnold has made an appearance. For example, this one. An actor template does not seem appropriate considering the degree of an actor's role in a film, not to mention that films have multiple actors. I just took out another example with Leonardo DiCaprio here. (Same for Shutter Island (film), which needs to be addressed per WP:NF. I swear, Scorsese keeps announcing a dozen projects.) I'd discourage actor templates... for film articles, I think that only director templates should be used since it's a consistently important role and usually in the hands of one (sometimes two). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To reduce systemic bias, I've taken to adding "American" in the first sentence of the lead section for American films. For example, "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film based on the fictional DC Comics character Batman." I've used [[United States|American]], while I noticed Alientraveller use [[Cinema of the United States|American]] at Cloverfield. In addition, there's been some edits at The Lovely Bones (film) ( page history) about how to identify the nationality of this film, which is produced in the United States and New Zealand. The issue was temporarily disambiguated to say "of the 2002 American novel". I've looked at WP:MOSFILM#Lead section, which unfortunately seems American-biased on the matter: "The very first paragraph should cover the ... country (if not the US)..." I am wondering what is the best way to determine the nationality of the film. It seems that The Lovely Bones is an American production -- while it is produced in New Zealand, it is not a "New Zealand film". Another example is Valkyrie (film), which is an American film produced in Germany. Thoughts on the matter, especially how to wiki-link "American" in the lead section? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We're actually flogging a dead horse: [9] Alientraveller ( talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Are Web series, Webisodes, and the like considered to be a part of this project? --Is this fact... ? 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to share your views at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Fiction_in_Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A note to the members of the project. Today The Tramp moved Fantasia (film) to Fantasia (film) without giving any reason or with any discussion on the films talk page or here at the project page. While I don't know this for sure I think that this editor does not realize the full implications of this move and they, more than likely, did not fix any double redirects - or single ones for that matter. I am alerting the project in case those of you who know how want to move it back. However, if you are okay with this move than so am I but you may want to keep an eye on this editor in case they start moving things in a wholesale fashion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has requested that this receive attention from the community with an eye towards fixing rather than deleting. At the moment, it's a collection of unsourced trivia that could easily be construed as original research. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to improve Behold a Pale Horse (film), but have kinda hit a wall on sources. Does anyone know a way to find stuff from the mid-60s (critique, analysis, etc.) that would be helpful? I'd love to get this article up above Start status, but can't really do much more without finding some more sources. Murderbike 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)