![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
The peer review for Juno (film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I need serious help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side of AIDS. Schuym1 ( talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i'm new to WikiProject Films but i noticed that there is no Scandinavian task force. I would like to gauge if there is an interest in creating a Scandinavian task force, focusing on the cinema of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.-- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Created. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice job! The Bald One White cat 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone please take a look at this. IMO (13) fair use images in this article is way, way way too many. Cirt ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just remove the ones which aren't used for critical commentary The Bald One White cat 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this. Cirt ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to tell all that Category:Danish film stubs up and running. I;ve also proposed Iceland, Norwegian and Czech film stubs if you would kindly chip in at the stub sorting proposals as well as a proposed split of documentary film stubs as it concerns WP:Films. Any suggestions, particularly with how we should split documentary film stub would be appreciated. I figured that Iceland and Norwegian stub categorie swould be useful to the new Nordic task force. Hope you are all well. The Bald One White cat 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the site Moviehole.net should be used as an official source of information. I think so, because it explains who the editor is and the fact that he's involved in the media industry. [1] I'm not saying that makes it reliable, but just interested to know people's opinions. -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
After seeing this film on DVD I checked out the Wikipedia article about it, and in my opinion it's a mess. There's a lengthy background section filled with "facts" but no references to support them. An entire section is devoted to one deleted scene. Since there are ten deleted scenes on the DVD, why is this one discussed in such detail and no mention is made of the others? It seems rather subjective to select one and ignore the rest. This article is in need of serious attention and hopefully someone will be able to clean it up. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed Erik's suggestion and removed the section about the deleted scene. I streamlined the synopsis a little. Since the cast of characters just repeated character descriptions or information about their roles in the film that was already included in the plot synopsis, I changed it to a cast list. I expanded the awards section and added critical reception. I did not touch the background section other than to add the last paragraph with a reference for the source of box office data. although I agree with SWik78 that most of it should be removed. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
How about something to accomodate Latin American film? Notable industries like Mexican and Brazilian cinema at present has very little focus. I'd be happy to merge the Argentine task force. Another suggestion might be a Portuguese language task force which accomdates for Portugal and Brazilian cinema. Latin American film in particular on wikipedia is neglected somewhat and what we are missing notably at present in our groups. I have a few potential members in mind although I;m sure if it is enough to sustain a group. Anybody thoughts anybody? The Bald One White cat 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While I am certainly supportive, we may need to hammer a few points out before starting a signup. (For instance, which task force is your signup for?) First of all, though, let's decide which scopes are worth pursuing.
What I'd propose is that we concentrate first on a Latin American task force, which would cover all countries in Central and South America (but not the Caribbean). This would include Brazil, as well. My reasoning is that there is a great deal of co-production, cross-training, etc because of the common languages. (Spanish and Portuguese are close enough that speakers of one usually can understand the other, or so I'm told.) From what I've been able to discern, there actually isn't much interaction between Portuguese and Brazilian cinemas, aside from a few like Manoel de Oliveira, while Brazil is very connected with some of its South American neighbors - and Portugal likewise with Spain. Therefore Portugal could either be its own task force, or perhaps merge with Spain for an Iberian one.
As for the Argentine task force, I don't really think that there's need to merge it - as a substantial task force, it can simply be integrated into the Latin American one as a sub-task force, and thus be kept in toto. (This is also something I'd like to do with the Indian task force in regards to a potential South Asian one.) Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea, and what I also had in mind. Indeed Argentine and Mexican cinema are well connected and there is some considerable overlap between Argentine anf Brazilian cinema too. Latin American task force is a must though to cover those industries I noted. Nasically it would be Mexican cinema and South American cinema including some of the other notable industries like Colombian, Venezuelan and Chilean. Central American cinema, well it is very low key but would be including in the "Latin"title to include Mexico. The Bald One White cat 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Great to know others share my enthuiasm!! The Bald One White cat 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the creation of a task force for animated films. Animated films are one of the most popular types of films, yet are largely ignored by this WikiProject. Additionally, not a single animated film has been listed as a core article. Such ignorance towards something so huge needs to stop. 98.21.142.209 ( talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
IP editor User talk:98.195.154.176 has been editing since June, and as far as I can tell their only contribution has been to add "ASC" and "BSC" to the names of cinematographers. They've done this in the lede: James Wong Howe, A.S.C. ...", in the infobox listings of film articles, and even in the titles of infoboxes on cinemtographers's articles. I don't mind seeing "ASC" or "BSC" occasionally, but we don't do this for other guilds, so it might be best if they weren't quite so rampant as this editor seems intent on making them.
I'm going to leave a note for this editor and see what happens. Others might want to follow up, if you think it's worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why Use ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) and BSC (British Society of Cinematographers) Acronyms in Wikipedia Film Articles
Hi Ed. My purpose in adding the ASC (or BSC) acronyms after the names of cinematographers and special effects experts in Wikipedia articles is to provide a more complete profile of these film professional's careers, as well as to highlight the unique cinematic achievements attained by these individuals in having being designated ASC (or BSC) members--the top of their profession.
The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) is not a labor union or a guild, but an educational, cultural, and professional organization. Not all cinematographers can place the initials ASC after their names in motion picture credits, and this has become one of the highest honors bestowed on a professional director of photography or special effects expert.
My criteria for inclusion is that if a cinematographer has received this honor anytime during his career, I will add the ASC (or BSC) designation in that person’s Wikipedia biography twice--after their name first appears, and inside his infobox. I will also add the acronym to the person’s name in the Wikipedia cinematography infobox summary of the film, if the person was a actually a member of the ASC (or BSC) at the time of the film’s release. This is done only after verifying that the cinematographer was listed as a member of the ASC or BSC in the actual motion picture credits. By listing this information, Wikipedia's infobox about the film is more complete and professional, and it is almost a mirror image of the screen credit.
I did not start the trend of including the ASC acronym in the cinematographers’ biographical infoboxes. Several infoboxes already displayed the ASC acronym, but I have continued the practice believing it is an excellent idea--and it really looks good. I did start the concept of adding the designation ASC (or BSC) after the cinematographers’ names are first listed in their biographies.
I agree with the opinion of some editors that once the ASC or BSC designations are mentioned at the top of the biography (and in the infobox), they should not be mentioned again in the body of the article. However, I would argue against deleting the ASC and BSC designations at the top and in the infobox, just because there is a mention buried somewhere in the article indicating that the profiled cinematographer belongs to the American Society of Cinematographers or the British Society of Cinematographers. That buried reference is not enough, and can be easily missed by the reader. The ASC (or BSC) acronym after the cinematographer's name cannot be missed.
While I concur with Cactus Writer that under the Manual of Style, acronyms of academic degrees should not be listed after names, the ASC is not an academic degree. It is a unique professional cinema designation. By the way, any ASC members authoring articles or mentioned in the American Cinematographer Magazine (the ASC’s official magazine) are always followed by their ASC designations. I do not propose including the ASC letters each time a name appears but just once at the top of the biography, and in the infoboxes.
If the movie industry considers the ASC and BSC designations significant enough to be prominently displayed in thousands of motion picture credits since 1920 (and in countless television credits since 1947), they should also be considered significant enough to have a prominent place in Wikipedia articles, as a recognition of the unique achievement that these letters represent to these prestigious cinematographers, and to the films they were involved in. Wikipedia prides itself in being thorough, and this is a good example.
Therefore, I urge you not to eliminate the ASC and BSC designations from the cinematographers’ biographies, nor from the corresponding infoboxes. Thank you for your time and consideration.
JAG 98.195.154.176 ( talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
How about some section on National Cinemas, e.g. Cinema of France, etc. or some kind of template at least, like the 'how to improve this article' thing for films. Cause I've tried editing these pages before but came to a stump cause I wasn't really sure where to go. Gracias. - Dalta ( talk) 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The third election to fill the roles of coordinators concluded yesterday! Eight candidates vied for seven slots, and based on the results, the seven coordinators will be Bzuk, Ecoleetage, Erik, Girolamo Savonarola, Nehrams2020, Sephiroth BCR, and Steve. Girolamo Savonarola will continue his role as lead coordinator The results will be published in the upcoming newsletter. We seven coordinators hope to pursue the continuous improvement of WikiProject Films, and remember, non-coordinators are always welcome to help shape discussion! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather their arguments sound like they dislike the actual appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Each and every Wikipedia article serves as an advertisement for the project and an inducement for people to return. A well-written well-structured, visually attractive article, with good, reliable information will encourage people to come back again and again, while the page above, where the tags take up almost the entire content seen by the reader, is a positive discouragement to people. I'm sure that the intent is to say: look how honest we are, all our faults are in sight for everyone to see, but what it actually says to people is "Look how shitty we are, this article isn't worth your time, go somewhere else."
Please note, that I am not in any way dispargaing the motivation for placing these tags, I'm certain the only purpose was to help provoke a better article -- which, in this case, seems to have happened to some extent -- but we are well past the point where Wikipedia is in its infacy, and we need to be much more cognizant of how we present ourselves to the public. There must be a way that we can keep the goals and purposes of legitimate tagging without defacing articles and driving away our customers! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, my argument above is that putting that amount of tagging on an article, although certainly allowed by convention and consensus, is also not a good thing, for the reasons I've enumerated. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As for readers vs. editors, if Wikipedia is to be successful (and it is on the way to being that, but not totally there yet), the class of readers will be vastly larger than the class of editors (i.e. readers who become editors), and it is that first class of people, plain-vanilla readers, that we must focus on, after years of being focused primarily on editors. Those who want to edit will find tags that are elsewhere other than the top of the page (a new tab seems like the most likely choice to facilitate that), just as they find now all the other aspects of Wikipedia, through exploration and experimentation. But in the meantime, turning off all those potential customers so that a few potential editors can be lured in seems highly counter-productive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop a bit, so I must have missed something. When did the RottenTomatoes "fresh rating" become a reliable indicator of a film's reception and something worth including reception sections?? To me, that's as useless as putting in Amazon's sales rank or IMDB's user ratings. Why are RTs somehow okay? And ditto the MetaCritic one? Shouldn't we be emphasizing real reception info, like sales and reviews, not something that seems pretty arbitrary? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have written a draft that would clarify the style guidelines' stance on non-free images in film articles. Please see the draft here and leave any comments or suggestions! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I know this isn't the most natural Project to approach on this, but you all are my best option for experienced editors, considering the situation. Aaron Sorkin was brought to WP:FAR by a newly-registered WP:SPA who has done nothing but work on Sorkin, and went straight to the Sorkin article after registering. I'm worried about what I'm seeing at FAR. No other editor is involved, and from what I can tell, it looks like a featured article is being slowly dismantled. The new editor is removing citations all over the place, and I'm just not sure about the quality of the editing that is going on there. I could be wrong, but a close look is needed; it almost seems like agenda driven editing, and what was a cited article has had a lot of citations removed and is now littered with cite tags. The original editors are apparently MIA. If anyone can help, please do, because a close look is needed to see if the article is actually being damaged or helped. The tone at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin just feels off, for example, the response when I asked that notifications be done, so my antennae went up. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
How should I reference the source of a cast list obtained from the film's website if it's not yet released and IMDb isn't accurate? Can you footnote the section header? (such as ==Cast<ref>==) Mjpresson ( talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't when you have a "list", and not a paragraph. When you have a paragraph, it's easy (and best) to list the reference once, to indicate you're sourcing the whole paragraph. Unless the cast list is in a table, you cannot look at the article (from the non-editing screen) and know that that single source covers all the names listed. Since, professionally, we don't put "This source covers all the names" out there for the reader to see, it's best to just go ahead and source each individual name. Eventually, time will either give us more information about the characters (with more sources, thus negating the need for the repetitive first one), or the film will come out and we won't need any source for them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I will try Girolamo's suggestion as a slightly bold experiment as it sounds reasonable too. You have all been very helpful and I thank you for the help. Mjpresson ( talk) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A temporary department has been created to run our Wikipedia 0.7 contest. We'd like to improve all of our articles selected for the Wikipedia 0.7 Release Version before it is published in December of this year, and have therefore put together a contest to help accomplish this with a healthy dose of fun added in. Many awards are available for editors who are able to bring any of the 201 articles up in assessment classification, including several service awards for basic participation, barnstars for exceptional levels of participation, and a competition for the prestigious Bronze, Silver, and Gold wiki awards for the top three contributors. We hope to see you all there, and look forward to distributing a healthy amount of "lucre" amongst our active editors! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In the production notes for the film Changeling, it says that Clint Eastwood was "shocked" at the physical similarity between an actor and the real life character he plays. With that in mind, do we think that this is enough of a rationale to include this image (or more likely, a variation on it using a better photo of the actor; this was thrown together using the first I could find)? I'm reasonably sure "not", but thought I'd invite a second opinion. Thanks, Steve T • C 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Images are not text, and text are not images. Images are not secondary and inferior to text, they are fundamentally different, and tgo require that every image be accompanied by painstakingly sourced information to support what the reader can see for himself is as ridiculous as requiring that every piece of text be accompanied by a verifying image -- after all, how do I know it's true unless I see it?
We need to lighten up a bit here -- we are able to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia because of American fair-use regulations, so let's take advantage of it and not deliberately hobble ourselves out of some need to be pure. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 24.69.160.243 ( talk · contribs) has been adding http://www.tomcruise.com/ to the Tom Cruise's film articles. I think the website appears valid, which is why I left it at Tom Cruise, but are its web pages sufficient for inclusion in all the "External links" sections? I hate to see editors indiscriminately peddle one website across multiple articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SWik78 ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
FamousLocations.com is unique and presents movie and TV filming locations across the world. Would the site FamousLocations.com be able to be added to Wikipedia as a valuable external link resource? Some links by other users have already been added in other Wikipedia languages. We have appeared in several newspapers recently, for example: The Guardian (UK), The Argus (UK), North Florida News Daily (USA), Huntington News (USA) If you search on Google for FamousLocations.com you will see some of these entries. We have 233,000 movies and 10,000’s of filming locations and the movie pages could be added using a template on all movie/tv shows pages on Wikipedia as a resource or in the External Links section. We have also been featured on Radio stations including last weeks interview on The Team Sports Radio ( http://www.theteam1260.com/). Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.58.77 ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion for a requested move of Body of Lies (film) to Body of Lies, currently a disambiguation page. Body of Lies (novel), the source for the film, also exists. Editors are welcome to discuss the move at Talk:Body of Lies (film)#Requested move. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are this necessary? I see it as trivial at best, and it's simply not key information about understanding the film. See the recent edits of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for just some examples. The same thing applies to easter eggs (which also seem to popup in articles): how to find them, what they detail and so on. They are also trivia, and shouldn't be in the article. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Mister Alcohol has started WikiProject Indiana Jones. Thought'd you'd all like to know. Alientraveller ( talk) 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't really be a task force, rather a work page. Is it really worth a task force on such a small number of films? Isn't it a bit narrow in scope? WOuld anybody approve of a Free Willy task force? A Rambo task force perhaps? How about we create a Die Hard task force too seems as there have been 4 films. The Bald One White cat 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are video games and the rest as I am well aware, then it is a media franchise and would be better under WikiProject Media franchises if it is really worth it. I fully agree with Erik that I don;t see the use in it for a film task force given its extremely narrow scope. I would completely object to any task force set up by WP:Films for it. There are far more film series which would seem to have a greater scope than Indiana Jones. The Bald One White cat 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How about an African cinema task force? While not as developed as the rest of the world, it's still an important topic. ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I had intended to re-write this list so that it conforms to criteria set out in WP:MOSDAB since list articles like this one really are disambiguation pages of sort. What I'm mainly refering to in WP:MOSDAB is the removal of pipe-linking in the links (except to italicize part of the link, ie, name of film as per the subsection on WP:PIPING) as well as removal of all other wikilinks except links to the film articles being listed/disambiguated (see WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries). I wanted to see if anyone thinks this is not a good idea or if there is a precedent to this sort of thing.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So I want to find an article of a movie that I think I can work on, but I cannot remember the name. In the plot, a gang travels from the outskirts of a city to inside of the city for a large gang meeting, but someone dies, chaos ensues, and the gang has to reach their home. This sound familiar to anyone? - Pat Peter 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have community discussion about whether or not external links should be used in film infoboxes. Discussion has taken place at the infobox's talk page about the merits of the external links. The infobox currently has three fields for external links: IMDb, Allmovie, and official website. These links are nearly always replicated in the "External links" section of film articles. The redundancy has been brought up by outside editors every once in a while, and with the latest discussion, I think that we should seek a lasting answer. My position is that the "External links" section is more than adequate for having these links as well as other links, but my issue with removing these fields is that it would leave some film articles without such links if they were not duplicated. What do others think about this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
field filled out, but no {{
imdb title}} in the "External links" section, if there is even one. I think that the links should shift to the sections, but I also think we need to see what kind of strategy we can pursue to adequately clean up the redundancy (depending on the consensus of this discussion). —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
field, it plugs the number into the template as well as copying the title? I also ask about copying the title because when a film article has a disambiguated title, a template with only the IMDb ID will process something like Doomsday (film) at the Internet Movie Database. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
After that, if we were going to have another link, it should be TCM and not AMG, but I don't see a compelling reason to have either, so I'd be happy enough if IMDB was the only link.
Here's another, and I think better suggestion -- how about replacing the IMDB infobox link with an internal wikilink that goes directly to the "External links" section, where the reader can choose which site to go to? This would serve the same function as the IMDB link, but without us "endorsing" one site over another. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm not understanding your concern here. Are we looking at change for the sake of change? What's the philosophical purpose of changing things? How are we providing more functionality or better information resources by making a change? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If excluding them from the infobox means the links will all be included in one place, then I do support this idea. Alientraveller ( talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
and the ID from the infobox, too? It does not seem like a grave concern to me, based on my personal experience. I've seen many, many additions of IMDb, but I cannot really recall an incident in which IMDb was being removed outright. Repeating the link does not seem to defend against removal if an editor were so inclined, and no external links in the infobox is only a slight hindrance to navigation. The large majority of Wikipedia articles have "External links" sections, so if readers don't see links in the infoboxes, they can check these sections. Such a systemwide change will obviously throw people off a little, but they will realize the most consistent location of links to supplementary content. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Maybe I should be a little bit more clear about my point. My point is it's easy to go to a movie page on this site and then click the infobox to get straight to the movie site. But it won't be as easy if I have to get to the bottom of the page. I hope I cleared some confusion I could have been making. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 23:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Feature creep and length of the infobox are more of a concern. Here's what I think, if no one's going to be reasonable and pick up on my idea of an external link shortcut instead of a link to a specific site, I'd vote for IMDB only in the infobox; if that can be done only if IMDB is not allowed in the EL section, then I'd vote for no external link in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald ( talk • contribs) 19:42, September 29, 2008
I must say in retrospect, that this does seem like a good idea - trimming a lot of fat just where it isn't needed, frankly. (I say this having been instrumental in including AMG back in the day...well, we all learn as we go along!) I really don't think that we need too much hand-wringing about "losing" any links - first of all, the amount of template-based EL-linkage across all of the articles is of widely-varying quantity per-article, and secondly, I while marginally useful, none of those links are truly essential for any wiki-based evaluation - even FAC, I dare say. Therefore, my simple, quick, and dirty recommendation, is simply to remove infobox support for those parameters. This will turn them off without requiring anyone to re-edit the infobox; they'll just gradually be removed by random editors over time concurrently with other infobox-based edits. Concerned editors for particular articles who notice a lack of linkage for one site or another presumably will rectify the error in the EL section of the article. If someone really is up for extra credit bot-design, then this also is an optimum solution, since the parameter calls will still exist within the articles - they just will be non-functional vestiges. And those would be my thoughts for the moment, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has become customary to link them at both. I can see why some might think it redundant but I;ve always found it useful, particularly if the article is a long one and it can be quickly accesse din the infobox. If any should be deleted I;d rather see the external link removed rather than the one in the infobox The Bald One White cat 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
when articles lack {{
imdb title}} in "External links" sections, perhaps we can pursue a drive to clean that up before making such a change. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Just to tally up the preferences as of October 1 14, 2008:
Since the discussion is long, just wanted to consolidate figures and see where we stood so far. If there is anyone who stands differently than I perceived above, let me know. I've also added mention of this discussion in the coming newsletter to facilitate more community involvement since this has systemwide implications. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [Updated with one editor. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be opposed to this change and would prefer keeping the links to IMDB and Allmovie in the film infobox. It is quite convenient and has been helpful to me in the past with ease of research - and I also agree with the rationale provided by others, above. Cirt ( talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I will admit my inexperience in implementing project-wide consensus, but so far we have nine editors arguing for compressing the external links to the "External links" section and three editors who want to keep them. This isn't a typical XFD discussion, and I think it's rare to get 100% agreement on project-wide or system-wide changes. There is not much room in the discussion for compromise, it seems... the links go in the infobox or they don't. A thought is to have an outside, independent editor (of good standing) evaluate our discussion and share his or her perspective of the consensus so far. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the consensus currently is for removing them. As I think I stated before, the easiest way to do this would be to "turn off" the parameters in the infobox template - this would not require any changes to the individual articles. Presumably, a bot could then find all of the articles with the parameter and move the site down to the External links section, but I'm not well-versed in that, so I'll consult about the best way to achieve the desired effect. If anyone has any objections or suggestions - to the method and my conclusions, not the issue which has already been discussed - please let me know. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
PPS. in the context according to
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact and that's the only functionality IMDB has and should have on WP.--
Termer (
talk)
17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is up for deletion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Does a section on bloopers have a place in film articles? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone in the know weigh in with an opinion on this CfD? I've tried to have this category deleted on the grounds that neither us nor WP:KOREA uses it, but speedy deletion has been declined twice. PC78 ( talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#External links revisited. This is a proposed cosmetic change to the infobox which will leave these links intact, but cut down on space and clutter which was one of the concerns raised in the previous discussion. PC78 ( talk) 15:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This recently created article appears to duplicate List of Cambodian films, so I have tagged it for a merge accordingly. I'm mentioning it here should someone feel the inclination to tackle it (which I don't at the moment). PC78 ( talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Members of the film community will, I think, be interested in this notice just received on my talk page. (A reminder that "Filmyear" - shortname "fy" - is a template that expands "{{fy|XXXX}}" to "[[XXXX in film|XXXX]]". It's a shortcut for linking to "year in film" articles for release dates and so on. It's currently used on about 1000 film-related pages.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Filmyear 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. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
New Hollywood has been tagged "This article does not cite any references or sources" since August 2007. As it stands, the article is basically somebody's essay, original research, or opinion. Anyone would be entirely justified in in starting an AFD of this article at any time. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what other people think about this article. So far as I can tell, and in spite of the 17 references used, this "film" appears to be nothing more than a tabloid rumour with little basis in reality, and indeed Tom Cruise seems to have denied the whole thing. Frankly I'm staggered that the article has survived two AfD's, but I would like to get a few more opinions before I think about nominating it again. PC78 ( talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The film A Bullet in the Arse has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. — CactusWriter | needles 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me where all the italics went on WP? All the titles are not showing italics now. -- Melty girl 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Due to continuing issues with User:ItsLassieTime I have removed all of the Lassie articles from my watch list, including the many film articles I had on my to do list to fix up and take to GA and/or FA. "Mediation" with an admin basically resulting in being told to let her do whatever she wants despite her refusing to follow any basic guidelines and her assertions that both the Film and General MoS are meaningless things that she can ignore at her own whims because she prefers to do things her way. She also fluffs up articles with fairly useless trivia and seems to be replicating most of the Ace Collin's book across all of the Lassie articles rather than using a variety of sources. In any case, she refuses to allow me to edit any of the articles, and even went back and removed valid and useful content from some articles, such as The Painted Hills just because I'm the one who added it.
I would still like to see these articles get up to the level they could be. If I can get various Sci Fi B movies and made-for-television articles up to GA, surely such classics can be taken there as well. :-P Particularly Lassie Come Home, as it launched the franchise and won several awards. As such, I'm asking if anyone(s) in the film project would be willing to tackle some of those film articles. I'd be happy to help provide anyone with sources and research, I just won't edit the articles myself directly. As a fan of the films and characters, I own them all and can provide plot write ups, sources from books and articles I own, and I'm happy to do library research as well. A list of the films can be found at this template she made Template:MGMLass (and someone may want to fix that up as she tried to decorate it with a non-free image). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck with that, I loved the films as a kid Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The above article refers to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) as even the article's IMDB link suggests. The article was probably created by mistake and that's the reason why it's never been edited all that much. I don't think that there's any reason whatsoever to keep it around but I'm afraid that it currently doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria and I find PRODing or listing for AfD not necessary in this case. If I were to make the article a redirect to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film), then I believe it would quite easily qualify under speedy criterion WP:CSD#R3 as an implausible misnomer. I'd like to have an available administrator to take a look at this and hopefully speedy delete this article if you agree with my point about the lack of need for The Island of Dr. Moreau (1994 film) as an article or even as a redirect.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion would benefit from more eyes. – xeno ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of editors, including User:John, are editing articles to remove all linked years. As shown by recent threads at WP:ANI concerning Lightbot and User:Lightmouse's actions in delinking years, there is no consensus for the wholesale de-linking of years, but, more to the point, there is a long-standing consensus among those who write and edit film-related articles that linking film release dates to "Year in film" articles is legitimate. This remains true even under the new WP:MOSNUM regime, which calls for links to be appropriate and to add context and information to articles. This is certainly the case with links to "year in film" for release dates, birth and date dates of actors etc, and other significant dates in film history.
Those who wish to weigh in on this might wish to add their comments
here on the talk page of the
Marlene Dietrich article, where
User:John and I are in edit conflict concerning this issue.
Ed Fitzgerald
t /
c
18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In the present circumstances, it is, as I mentioned, a long-standing convention in film articles that release dates of films are linked to the relevant year in film article, since those articles provide additional context for the reader as to what else occured in the film world at the time of the film's release. In filmographies, where many films are listed one after the other, only the first instance of the release date is linked, in order to avoid unnecessary overlinking. Other dates which are significant to the history of film, such as the birth and death dates of actors, directors, etc. are linked as well, but dates of ordinary events are not linked, either to "year in film" or to the general "year" articles. This seems to me to be a reasonable scheme, and well within the requirements of the new date-linking guidlelines.
While it's reasonable and helpful to go through articles and strip out the occasional unnecessary link, the wholesale removal of them is neither useful or beneficial, nor is it in line with general consensus, as the WP:ANI threads above show. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to evaluate the appropriate context in which years can be wiki-linked. For example, the first mention of the year in an individual film article (i.e., "Wikimaniacs is a 2008 film...") should wiki-link to "2008 in film". On the other hand, though, I am not so sure if it is appropriate to wiki-link "year in film" for a release date in the film's infobox. The date is unique for that particular film and not part of a chronological category like my "2008 in film" example. Beyond these two instances, there would be different context for how "year in film" was used. For example, if we said that Wikimaniacs was the first 2008 film to cross the $100 million milestone, it seems appropriate to wiki-link "2008 in film". Looking at
Marlene Dietrich, I do not think that it is relevant to wiki-link the birth year and the death year of the actress. It's not pertinent to what was going on in film that year. On the other hand, the "Years active" attribute's years are appropriate. Hopefully you see the difference there. John, I would caution against mass edits like this. It is not like overlinking is a grave threat to Wikipedia, so I think it is best to build consensus before embarking on a series of edits like these. We can fine-tune the task that needs to be done, and once we find common ground, we can make the edits and refer any inquisitive outsiders to the discussion. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) - 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [Struck out incorrect statement. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In a representative edit of mine to film-related articles involving linked years, I would change a number of straight linked years (i.e. to "the year XXXX") to "year in film" links, while at the same time removing links to day/months, so let's please not frame this discussion as unwillingness to adhere to the new MOSNUM guideline. We're talking about differeing interpretations here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) / Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok, back on topic. I am still not seeing the claimed pre-existing consensus (ie not a woolly statement like "we've always done it this way", but a link or a diff to where it was agreed), and I am still not seeing a coherent encyclopedic reason why linking this way brings benefit to our readers (not our editors). Can anybody help me with either? -- John ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is no consensus whatsoever for the wholesale removal of linked dates, as indicated by the WP:ANI threads I linked to above. That's the state of things.
There are plenty of linked dates that are clearly ripe for being delinked: month/days, non-release dates, non-significant events, and so on, and it might be more constructive to concerntrate on those, about which few people (if any) are going to argue. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In any case, please clarify what links I've been adding that I admit are valueless. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, absolutely no one, except you, has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified - so it's abundantly clear that there's no consensus for that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the links I added are to "year in film" articles, and they add context and value to the film articles they appear in. I have never, to my knowledge, added a link of any sort whatsoever, to a date or anything else, that I didn't think was appropriate and added value to the article. I hope that's clear enough for you -- if you need further explication, please let me know. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Passing by more personal interactions, I do believe that this (by me, from above) is a relatively accurate summary of the state of the discussion so far:
I see a clear consensus for linking release dates, no clear consensus for linking birth and death dates, and a consensus that linking other dates in the text is not worthwhile. It seems, at least by the evidence of this discussion, that film-article editors are of the opinion that linking years to "year in film" articles does provide additional value, depending on the circumstances, and this is clearly in line with the new MOSNUM guidelines.
On the other hand, [only one editor] has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified
Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary Ed to keep using bold in your comments?. It looks as if you are shouting at other editors Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if FUBAR: The Movie is the actual name of this film or if The Movie is some kind of an unofficial designation by the distributors to differentiate it from things like "FUBAR: The Album"? I believe that FUBAR is the official name of the film and that the article's name should, therefore, be FUBAR (film). The IMBD entry lists it as only FUBAR, confirming to me that I may be right. But I'm not 100% sure that The Movie is safe to be removed from the title so I wanted second opinions. Please and thank you. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a current debate over whether this meets our film content requirements. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it claims more notability than this for instance. No notability or information either other than being directed by George Lucas Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion for this problematic category can be found here. PC78 ( talk) 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How is the cast in films suppost to be set out? Is there a set thing because at the moment to connect actors to there roles there are different connectors such as: "as"; "-"; "..."; "plays"; "stars"; in table form and others. Which is the correct one to use?
If there is not already an agreement on this, please could we put one into play right away as it becomes quite annoying when looking at two different films. Thanks Ste900R ( talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The only other format I dislike is the "....." one, which makes the list look like a direct cut-and-paste from IMDB, and is not very attractive the way our pages are rendered. Any other variations are acceptable to me, although I myself prefer
because I believe the italics on the character name helps to set it apart from both the actor's name and the "as". (I know some other folks vehemently disagree with my preference about that, but that's what I think.)Actor's name as Character name
As for length of cast list, I do agree in principle that the list should be shorter rather than longer, but I'm also guilty of putting more names in on occasion, when, again, it seems to me that circumstances warrant it. Certainly, I try to cut off the list well before the end of IMDB's principle cast list (i.e. above their divider that says "Rest of cast listed alphabetically), and then put any other interesting cast information – especially uncredited roles, bit parts, cameos, and starting roles for actors who later become notable – into a "Cast notes" section under the cast list. With some frequency, when I'm unsure about which parts are the nost notable, I'll compare TCM's short cast list (in their overview front page) to the cast list on Allmovie, where stars and featured actors are bolded, and just make sure I have all those parts listed, then add anyone else I think is notable.
If the situation seems to call for a long cast list, and it's in list form and not in a table, I also prefer to columnize the list, to reduce the amount of whitespace in the article. In the articles with shorter lists, the whitespace to the right is ideal for an image, especially a screenshot that shows multiple cast members. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ste900R, I think it may be safe to say that "Actor as Role" would be as close of a standard as we'll get. Ed is alright with it, and I think Blofeld endorses it indirectly by mentioning Casino Royale. To my recollection, a number of editors with whom I work use "Actor as Role" as well. If you need an express answer, I think that's the best you can get. Your inquiry makes me think that we should review the "Cast" section at MOS:FILM. Seems like we could iron out a few details regarding the current topic, wikitable deprecation, bolding issues (this may be a little tricky), and guidelines on prose. I may start the relevant discussion since my long-term goal has been continuous improvement of MOS:FILM (was actually working on a "Marketing" component draft the other day). Anyone feel like they want to pitch in that kind of discussion? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't feel this is a major issue, my preference is Julia Roberts ..... Erin Brockovich. I'm in agreement with those who dislike tables. In my opinion, the plot synopsis should include enough of a character description so that adding them to cast lists is unnecessary. Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would take the time to change the format of existing cast lists instead of making more creative edits to articles that desperately need them. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on this article? To me it looks very much like a catalogue of DVDs by a single distributor, and would seem to be a typical example of what Wikipedia is not, but apparently there is a category for this and similar lists. Is this sort of thing OK or not? PC78 ( talk) 11:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up my watchlist and I need someone (or a few people) to watch all the film articles that I've just removed from it. Mostly due to blindness, I'm not at all interested in films - I've only been watching actor articles because of an anonymous user who would frequently make edits like these, adding hoax films and birthdates. I haven't encountered that editor for a while now but these articles are susceptible to unhelpful edits. Some of the actors are very famous, while I don't know if some of them should have articles on Wikipedia. The list is at User:Graham87/Films; if you want to convert it into a format suitable for the raw watchlist function, use find and replace to remove all instances of "*{{la|" and "}}". Thanks, Graham 87 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
user page transclusion removed
Hi I was wondering what people thought about adding a bit of color to accentuate the title in the infobox in coordination with most other infoboxes on wikipedia like actors etc kind of like the dead actor silver strip. I would suggest a silver strip at the top to highlight the title only or one at the top and bottom (imdb column) to accentuate it. For example (forgive the strange concoction of Humphrey Bogarts infobox and a film poster from the 1950s) see the sort of thing I mean on the right. Just a small graphical suggestion that could improve its appearance. Any thoughts anybody? Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Note. What you see there is an actor box!! I mean adding this style to the film infobox (which I can only view not edit), so the bottom section in silver would be the imdb.amg link. I think it adds a nice and a classic rendering which compliments the film posters. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep perhaps. I was thinking more in terms of the title strip as is shown here. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm not too concerned about the bottom strip rather that the title strip is rendered as in the example. Visually I think it gives more weight to the infobox and has the effect of highlighting what is inside the infbox without being overpowering Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about these coloured stripes, personally. Is it just me or do they look kind of tacky? Flowerparty☀ 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Tacky?? Most of the articles across wikipedia have a similar infobox. All of our actors Lauren Bacall etc Salvador Dalí the painter. To you mean to say that all of these articles look tacky? If it was a hot pink colour I might agree but part of WP:Films templates and article templates are designed with similar colours Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that looks absolutely fine in silver and would look good in the article. The only thing is that poster isn't a very good model because it has text at the top which changes how it compares to the title banner. Looks perfect I think. One could argue though against many suggestions people make at WP:Films in whether they are really necessary, Indiana Jones wiki projects for one! Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree completely on that one. Its awful when there is the option to have any colour and people start introducing really horrid colours. I'm not a fan of the block blue on the painter box either but others seemed to like it. One standard colour for all I think, obviously whats really important is the quality of text and the article itself, but I think it helps the presentation. We don't want anything too overbearing, silver would seemingly be more subtle. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe tacky isn't the right word. But what reason is there to add a coloured stripe, really? To emphasise the title? The title is already prominently displayed in the pagename and in the first word of the article, and it's invariably written on the film poster as well. The stripe just adds visual noise, to my eye. Flowerparty☀ 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you could try asking most of the wikiprojects on wikipedia why they use any color in their infoboxes at all and keep everything plain white. Why do we use gold for living actors and for musical artists and albums etc? Its just for presentation, I agree it should be the least of our concerns but... Many infoboxes that exist are rather more bolder than this. The mosque infobox for instance is just a dark green blob where the text is barely readible, and don't get me started on the beauty pageants one!. Hey with a user name like yourself I'd have expected you to love color!! Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think the infobox needs a color bar at the top or bottom, I won't cry myself to sleep if people wanted one at the top -- the bottom really doesn't work for me visually. However, there's a really simple practical reason why we don't need the top color bar: a significant percentage of film articles have a colorful and/or eye-attracting poster right at the top, which generally displays the film's name, sometimes in quite large print. With that big magnet sitting there, the color bar isn't needed. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Big magnet? LOL. Just imagine the damage it will do on the Spy Who lOved Me poster by connecting with the teeth of the giant Jaws! Chuckle. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we make the change then as a trial? If people don't like it then it can always be reversed later Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 27 October 2008 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
The peer review for Juno (film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I need serious help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side of AIDS. Schuym1 ( talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i'm new to WikiProject Films but i noticed that there is no Scandinavian task force. I would like to gauge if there is an interest in creating a Scandinavian task force, focusing on the cinema of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.-- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Created. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice job! The Bald One White cat 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone please take a look at this. IMO (13) fair use images in this article is way, way way too many. Cirt ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just remove the ones which aren't used for critical commentary The Bald One White cat 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this. Cirt ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to tell all that Category:Danish film stubs up and running. I;ve also proposed Iceland, Norwegian and Czech film stubs if you would kindly chip in at the stub sorting proposals as well as a proposed split of documentary film stubs as it concerns WP:Films. Any suggestions, particularly with how we should split documentary film stub would be appreciated. I figured that Iceland and Norwegian stub categorie swould be useful to the new Nordic task force. Hope you are all well. The Bald One White cat 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the site Moviehole.net should be used as an official source of information. I think so, because it explains who the editor is and the fact that he's involved in the media industry. [1] I'm not saying that makes it reliable, but just interested to know people's opinions. -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
After seeing this film on DVD I checked out the Wikipedia article about it, and in my opinion it's a mess. There's a lengthy background section filled with "facts" but no references to support them. An entire section is devoted to one deleted scene. Since there are ten deleted scenes on the DVD, why is this one discussed in such detail and no mention is made of the others? It seems rather subjective to select one and ignore the rest. This article is in need of serious attention and hopefully someone will be able to clean it up. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed Erik's suggestion and removed the section about the deleted scene. I streamlined the synopsis a little. Since the cast of characters just repeated character descriptions or information about their roles in the film that was already included in the plot synopsis, I changed it to a cast list. I expanded the awards section and added critical reception. I did not touch the background section other than to add the last paragraph with a reference for the source of box office data. although I agree with SWik78 that most of it should be removed. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
How about something to accomodate Latin American film? Notable industries like Mexican and Brazilian cinema at present has very little focus. I'd be happy to merge the Argentine task force. Another suggestion might be a Portuguese language task force which accomdates for Portugal and Brazilian cinema. Latin American film in particular on wikipedia is neglected somewhat and what we are missing notably at present in our groups. I have a few potential members in mind although I;m sure if it is enough to sustain a group. Anybody thoughts anybody? The Bald One White cat 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While I am certainly supportive, we may need to hammer a few points out before starting a signup. (For instance, which task force is your signup for?) First of all, though, let's decide which scopes are worth pursuing.
What I'd propose is that we concentrate first on a Latin American task force, which would cover all countries in Central and South America (but not the Caribbean). This would include Brazil, as well. My reasoning is that there is a great deal of co-production, cross-training, etc because of the common languages. (Spanish and Portuguese are close enough that speakers of one usually can understand the other, or so I'm told.) From what I've been able to discern, there actually isn't much interaction between Portuguese and Brazilian cinemas, aside from a few like Manoel de Oliveira, while Brazil is very connected with some of its South American neighbors - and Portugal likewise with Spain. Therefore Portugal could either be its own task force, or perhaps merge with Spain for an Iberian one.
As for the Argentine task force, I don't really think that there's need to merge it - as a substantial task force, it can simply be integrated into the Latin American one as a sub-task force, and thus be kept in toto. (This is also something I'd like to do with the Indian task force in regards to a potential South Asian one.) Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea, and what I also had in mind. Indeed Argentine and Mexican cinema are well connected and there is some considerable overlap between Argentine anf Brazilian cinema too. Latin American task force is a must though to cover those industries I noted. Nasically it would be Mexican cinema and South American cinema including some of the other notable industries like Colombian, Venezuelan and Chilean. Central American cinema, well it is very low key but would be including in the "Latin"title to include Mexico. The Bald One White cat 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Great to know others share my enthuiasm!! The Bald One White cat 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the creation of a task force for animated films. Animated films are one of the most popular types of films, yet are largely ignored by this WikiProject. Additionally, not a single animated film has been listed as a core article. Such ignorance towards something so huge needs to stop. 98.21.142.209 ( talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
IP editor User talk:98.195.154.176 has been editing since June, and as far as I can tell their only contribution has been to add "ASC" and "BSC" to the names of cinematographers. They've done this in the lede: James Wong Howe, A.S.C. ...", in the infobox listings of film articles, and even in the titles of infoboxes on cinemtographers's articles. I don't mind seeing "ASC" or "BSC" occasionally, but we don't do this for other guilds, so it might be best if they weren't quite so rampant as this editor seems intent on making them.
I'm going to leave a note for this editor and see what happens. Others might want to follow up, if you think it's worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why Use ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) and BSC (British Society of Cinematographers) Acronyms in Wikipedia Film Articles
Hi Ed. My purpose in adding the ASC (or BSC) acronyms after the names of cinematographers and special effects experts in Wikipedia articles is to provide a more complete profile of these film professional's careers, as well as to highlight the unique cinematic achievements attained by these individuals in having being designated ASC (or BSC) members--the top of their profession.
The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) is not a labor union or a guild, but an educational, cultural, and professional organization. Not all cinematographers can place the initials ASC after their names in motion picture credits, and this has become one of the highest honors bestowed on a professional director of photography or special effects expert.
My criteria for inclusion is that if a cinematographer has received this honor anytime during his career, I will add the ASC (or BSC) designation in that person’s Wikipedia biography twice--after their name first appears, and inside his infobox. I will also add the acronym to the person’s name in the Wikipedia cinematography infobox summary of the film, if the person was a actually a member of the ASC (or BSC) at the time of the film’s release. This is done only after verifying that the cinematographer was listed as a member of the ASC or BSC in the actual motion picture credits. By listing this information, Wikipedia's infobox about the film is more complete and professional, and it is almost a mirror image of the screen credit.
I did not start the trend of including the ASC acronym in the cinematographers’ biographical infoboxes. Several infoboxes already displayed the ASC acronym, but I have continued the practice believing it is an excellent idea--and it really looks good. I did start the concept of adding the designation ASC (or BSC) after the cinematographers’ names are first listed in their biographies.
I agree with the opinion of some editors that once the ASC or BSC designations are mentioned at the top of the biography (and in the infobox), they should not be mentioned again in the body of the article. However, I would argue against deleting the ASC and BSC designations at the top and in the infobox, just because there is a mention buried somewhere in the article indicating that the profiled cinematographer belongs to the American Society of Cinematographers or the British Society of Cinematographers. That buried reference is not enough, and can be easily missed by the reader. The ASC (or BSC) acronym after the cinematographer's name cannot be missed.
While I concur with Cactus Writer that under the Manual of Style, acronyms of academic degrees should not be listed after names, the ASC is not an academic degree. It is a unique professional cinema designation. By the way, any ASC members authoring articles or mentioned in the American Cinematographer Magazine (the ASC’s official magazine) are always followed by their ASC designations. I do not propose including the ASC letters each time a name appears but just once at the top of the biography, and in the infoboxes.
If the movie industry considers the ASC and BSC designations significant enough to be prominently displayed in thousands of motion picture credits since 1920 (and in countless television credits since 1947), they should also be considered significant enough to have a prominent place in Wikipedia articles, as a recognition of the unique achievement that these letters represent to these prestigious cinematographers, and to the films they were involved in. Wikipedia prides itself in being thorough, and this is a good example.
Therefore, I urge you not to eliminate the ASC and BSC designations from the cinematographers’ biographies, nor from the corresponding infoboxes. Thank you for your time and consideration.
JAG 98.195.154.176 ( talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
How about some section on National Cinemas, e.g. Cinema of France, etc. or some kind of template at least, like the 'how to improve this article' thing for films. Cause I've tried editing these pages before but came to a stump cause I wasn't really sure where to go. Gracias. - Dalta ( talk) 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The third election to fill the roles of coordinators concluded yesterday! Eight candidates vied for seven slots, and based on the results, the seven coordinators will be Bzuk, Ecoleetage, Erik, Girolamo Savonarola, Nehrams2020, Sephiroth BCR, and Steve. Girolamo Savonarola will continue his role as lead coordinator The results will be published in the upcoming newsletter. We seven coordinators hope to pursue the continuous improvement of WikiProject Films, and remember, non-coordinators are always welcome to help shape discussion! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather their arguments sound like they dislike the actual appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Each and every Wikipedia article serves as an advertisement for the project and an inducement for people to return. A well-written well-structured, visually attractive article, with good, reliable information will encourage people to come back again and again, while the page above, where the tags take up almost the entire content seen by the reader, is a positive discouragement to people. I'm sure that the intent is to say: look how honest we are, all our faults are in sight for everyone to see, but what it actually says to people is "Look how shitty we are, this article isn't worth your time, go somewhere else."
Please note, that I am not in any way dispargaing the motivation for placing these tags, I'm certain the only purpose was to help provoke a better article -- which, in this case, seems to have happened to some extent -- but we are well past the point where Wikipedia is in its infacy, and we need to be much more cognizant of how we present ourselves to the public. There must be a way that we can keep the goals and purposes of legitimate tagging without defacing articles and driving away our customers! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, my argument above is that putting that amount of tagging on an article, although certainly allowed by convention and consensus, is also not a good thing, for the reasons I've enumerated. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As for readers vs. editors, if Wikipedia is to be successful (and it is on the way to being that, but not totally there yet), the class of readers will be vastly larger than the class of editors (i.e. readers who become editors), and it is that first class of people, plain-vanilla readers, that we must focus on, after years of being focused primarily on editors. Those who want to edit will find tags that are elsewhere other than the top of the page (a new tab seems like the most likely choice to facilitate that), just as they find now all the other aspects of Wikipedia, through exploration and experimentation. But in the meantime, turning off all those potential customers so that a few potential editors can be lured in seems highly counter-productive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop a bit, so I must have missed something. When did the RottenTomatoes "fresh rating" become a reliable indicator of a film's reception and something worth including reception sections?? To me, that's as useless as putting in Amazon's sales rank or IMDB's user ratings. Why are RTs somehow okay? And ditto the MetaCritic one? Shouldn't we be emphasizing real reception info, like sales and reviews, not something that seems pretty arbitrary? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have written a draft that would clarify the style guidelines' stance on non-free images in film articles. Please see the draft here and leave any comments or suggestions! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I know this isn't the most natural Project to approach on this, but you all are my best option for experienced editors, considering the situation. Aaron Sorkin was brought to WP:FAR by a newly-registered WP:SPA who has done nothing but work on Sorkin, and went straight to the Sorkin article after registering. I'm worried about what I'm seeing at FAR. No other editor is involved, and from what I can tell, it looks like a featured article is being slowly dismantled. The new editor is removing citations all over the place, and I'm just not sure about the quality of the editing that is going on there. I could be wrong, but a close look is needed; it almost seems like agenda driven editing, and what was a cited article has had a lot of citations removed and is now littered with cite tags. The original editors are apparently MIA. If anyone can help, please do, because a close look is needed to see if the article is actually being damaged or helped. The tone at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin just feels off, for example, the response when I asked that notifications be done, so my antennae went up. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
How should I reference the source of a cast list obtained from the film's website if it's not yet released and IMDb isn't accurate? Can you footnote the section header? (such as ==Cast<ref>==) Mjpresson ( talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't when you have a "list", and not a paragraph. When you have a paragraph, it's easy (and best) to list the reference once, to indicate you're sourcing the whole paragraph. Unless the cast list is in a table, you cannot look at the article (from the non-editing screen) and know that that single source covers all the names listed. Since, professionally, we don't put "This source covers all the names" out there for the reader to see, it's best to just go ahead and source each individual name. Eventually, time will either give us more information about the characters (with more sources, thus negating the need for the repetitive first one), or the film will come out and we won't need any source for them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I will try Girolamo's suggestion as a slightly bold experiment as it sounds reasonable too. You have all been very helpful and I thank you for the help. Mjpresson ( talk) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A temporary department has been created to run our Wikipedia 0.7 contest. We'd like to improve all of our articles selected for the Wikipedia 0.7 Release Version before it is published in December of this year, and have therefore put together a contest to help accomplish this with a healthy dose of fun added in. Many awards are available for editors who are able to bring any of the 201 articles up in assessment classification, including several service awards for basic participation, barnstars for exceptional levels of participation, and a competition for the prestigious Bronze, Silver, and Gold wiki awards for the top three contributors. We hope to see you all there, and look forward to distributing a healthy amount of "lucre" amongst our active editors! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In the production notes for the film Changeling, it says that Clint Eastwood was "shocked" at the physical similarity between an actor and the real life character he plays. With that in mind, do we think that this is enough of a rationale to include this image (or more likely, a variation on it using a better photo of the actor; this was thrown together using the first I could find)? I'm reasonably sure "not", but thought I'd invite a second opinion. Thanks, Steve T • C 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Images are not text, and text are not images. Images are not secondary and inferior to text, they are fundamentally different, and tgo require that every image be accompanied by painstakingly sourced information to support what the reader can see for himself is as ridiculous as requiring that every piece of text be accompanied by a verifying image -- after all, how do I know it's true unless I see it?
We need to lighten up a bit here -- we are able to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia because of American fair-use regulations, so let's take advantage of it and not deliberately hobble ourselves out of some need to be pure. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 24.69.160.243 ( talk · contribs) has been adding http://www.tomcruise.com/ to the Tom Cruise's film articles. I think the website appears valid, which is why I left it at Tom Cruise, but are its web pages sufficient for inclusion in all the "External links" sections? I hate to see editors indiscriminately peddle one website across multiple articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SWik78 ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
FamousLocations.com is unique and presents movie and TV filming locations across the world. Would the site FamousLocations.com be able to be added to Wikipedia as a valuable external link resource? Some links by other users have already been added in other Wikipedia languages. We have appeared in several newspapers recently, for example: The Guardian (UK), The Argus (UK), North Florida News Daily (USA), Huntington News (USA) If you search on Google for FamousLocations.com you will see some of these entries. We have 233,000 movies and 10,000’s of filming locations and the movie pages could be added using a template on all movie/tv shows pages on Wikipedia as a resource or in the External Links section. We have also been featured on Radio stations including last weeks interview on The Team Sports Radio ( http://www.theteam1260.com/). Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.58.77 ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion for a requested move of Body of Lies (film) to Body of Lies, currently a disambiguation page. Body of Lies (novel), the source for the film, also exists. Editors are welcome to discuss the move at Talk:Body of Lies (film)#Requested move. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are this necessary? I see it as trivial at best, and it's simply not key information about understanding the film. See the recent edits of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for just some examples. The same thing applies to easter eggs (which also seem to popup in articles): how to find them, what they detail and so on. They are also trivia, and shouldn't be in the article. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Mister Alcohol has started WikiProject Indiana Jones. Thought'd you'd all like to know. Alientraveller ( talk) 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't really be a task force, rather a work page. Is it really worth a task force on such a small number of films? Isn't it a bit narrow in scope? WOuld anybody approve of a Free Willy task force? A Rambo task force perhaps? How about we create a Die Hard task force too seems as there have been 4 films. The Bald One White cat 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are video games and the rest as I am well aware, then it is a media franchise and would be better under WikiProject Media franchises if it is really worth it. I fully agree with Erik that I don;t see the use in it for a film task force given its extremely narrow scope. I would completely object to any task force set up by WP:Films for it. There are far more film series which would seem to have a greater scope than Indiana Jones. The Bald One White cat 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How about an African cinema task force? While not as developed as the rest of the world, it's still an important topic. ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I had intended to re-write this list so that it conforms to criteria set out in WP:MOSDAB since list articles like this one really are disambiguation pages of sort. What I'm mainly refering to in WP:MOSDAB is the removal of pipe-linking in the links (except to italicize part of the link, ie, name of film as per the subsection on WP:PIPING) as well as removal of all other wikilinks except links to the film articles being listed/disambiguated (see WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries). I wanted to see if anyone thinks this is not a good idea or if there is a precedent to this sort of thing.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So I want to find an article of a movie that I think I can work on, but I cannot remember the name. In the plot, a gang travels from the outskirts of a city to inside of the city for a large gang meeting, but someone dies, chaos ensues, and the gang has to reach their home. This sound familiar to anyone? - Pat Peter 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have community discussion about whether or not external links should be used in film infoboxes. Discussion has taken place at the infobox's talk page about the merits of the external links. The infobox currently has three fields for external links: IMDb, Allmovie, and official website. These links are nearly always replicated in the "External links" section of film articles. The redundancy has been brought up by outside editors every once in a while, and with the latest discussion, I think that we should seek a lasting answer. My position is that the "External links" section is more than adequate for having these links as well as other links, but my issue with removing these fields is that it would leave some film articles without such links if they were not duplicated. What do others think about this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
field filled out, but no {{
imdb title}} in the "External links" section, if there is even one. I think that the links should shift to the sections, but I also think we need to see what kind of strategy we can pursue to adequately clean up the redundancy (depending on the consensus of this discussion). —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
field, it plugs the number into the template as well as copying the title? I also ask about copying the title because when a film article has a disambiguated title, a template with only the IMDb ID will process something like Doomsday (film) at the Internet Movie Database. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
After that, if we were going to have another link, it should be TCM and not AMG, but I don't see a compelling reason to have either, so I'd be happy enough if IMDB was the only link.
Here's another, and I think better suggestion -- how about replacing the IMDB infobox link with an internal wikilink that goes directly to the "External links" section, where the reader can choose which site to go to? This would serve the same function as the IMDB link, but without us "endorsing" one site over another. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm not understanding your concern here. Are we looking at change for the sake of change? What's the philosophical purpose of changing things? How are we providing more functionality or better information resources by making a change? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If excluding them from the infobox means the links will all be included in one place, then I do support this idea. Alientraveller ( talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
and the ID from the infobox, too? It does not seem like a grave concern to me, based on my personal experience. I've seen many, many additions of IMDb, but I cannot really recall an incident in which IMDb was being removed outright. Repeating the link does not seem to defend against removal if an editor were so inclined, and no external links in the infobox is only a slight hindrance to navigation. The large majority of Wikipedia articles have "External links" sections, so if readers don't see links in the infoboxes, they can check these sections. Such a systemwide change will obviously throw people off a little, but they will realize the most consistent location of links to supplementary content. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Maybe I should be a little bit more clear about my point. My point is it's easy to go to a movie page on this site and then click the infobox to get straight to the movie site. But it won't be as easy if I have to get to the bottom of the page. I hope I cleared some confusion I could have been making. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 23:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Feature creep and length of the infobox are more of a concern. Here's what I think, if no one's going to be reasonable and pick up on my idea of an external link shortcut instead of a link to a specific site, I'd vote for IMDB only in the infobox; if that can be done only if IMDB is not allowed in the EL section, then I'd vote for no external link in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald ( talk • contribs) 19:42, September 29, 2008
I must say in retrospect, that this does seem like a good idea - trimming a lot of fat just where it isn't needed, frankly. (I say this having been instrumental in including AMG back in the day...well, we all learn as we go along!) I really don't think that we need too much hand-wringing about "losing" any links - first of all, the amount of template-based EL-linkage across all of the articles is of widely-varying quantity per-article, and secondly, I while marginally useful, none of those links are truly essential for any wiki-based evaluation - even FAC, I dare say. Therefore, my simple, quick, and dirty recommendation, is simply to remove infobox support for those parameters. This will turn them off without requiring anyone to re-edit the infobox; they'll just gradually be removed by random editors over time concurrently with other infobox-based edits. Concerned editors for particular articles who notice a lack of linkage for one site or another presumably will rectify the error in the EL section of the article. If someone really is up for extra credit bot-design, then this also is an optimum solution, since the parameter calls will still exist within the articles - they just will be non-functional vestiges. And those would be my thoughts for the moment, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has become customary to link them at both. I can see why some might think it redundant but I;ve always found it useful, particularly if the article is a long one and it can be quickly accesse din the infobox. If any should be deleted I;d rather see the external link removed rather than the one in the infobox The Bald One White cat 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
imdb_id=
when articles lack {{
imdb title}} in "External links" sections, perhaps we can pursue a drive to clean that up before making such a change. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Just to tally up the preferences as of October 1 14, 2008:
Since the discussion is long, just wanted to consolidate figures and see where we stood so far. If there is anyone who stands differently than I perceived above, let me know. I've also added mention of this discussion in the coming newsletter to facilitate more community involvement since this has systemwide implications. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [Updated with one editor. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be opposed to this change and would prefer keeping the links to IMDB and Allmovie in the film infobox. It is quite convenient and has been helpful to me in the past with ease of research - and I also agree with the rationale provided by others, above. Cirt ( talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I will admit my inexperience in implementing project-wide consensus, but so far we have nine editors arguing for compressing the external links to the "External links" section and three editors who want to keep them. This isn't a typical XFD discussion, and I think it's rare to get 100% agreement on project-wide or system-wide changes. There is not much room in the discussion for compromise, it seems... the links go in the infobox or they don't. A thought is to have an outside, independent editor (of good standing) evaluate our discussion and share his or her perspective of the consensus so far. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the consensus currently is for removing them. As I think I stated before, the easiest way to do this would be to "turn off" the parameters in the infobox template - this would not require any changes to the individual articles. Presumably, a bot could then find all of the articles with the parameter and move the site down to the External links section, but I'm not well-versed in that, so I'll consult about the best way to achieve the desired effect. If anyone has any objections or suggestions - to the method and my conclusions, not the issue which has already been discussed - please let me know. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
PPS. in the context according to
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact and that's the only functionality IMDB has and should have on WP.--
Termer (
talk)
17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is up for deletion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Does a section on bloopers have a place in film articles? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone in the know weigh in with an opinion on this CfD? I've tried to have this category deleted on the grounds that neither us nor WP:KOREA uses it, but speedy deletion has been declined twice. PC78 ( talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#External links revisited. This is a proposed cosmetic change to the infobox which will leave these links intact, but cut down on space and clutter which was one of the concerns raised in the previous discussion. PC78 ( talk) 15:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This recently created article appears to duplicate List of Cambodian films, so I have tagged it for a merge accordingly. I'm mentioning it here should someone feel the inclination to tackle it (which I don't at the moment). PC78 ( talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Members of the film community will, I think, be interested in this notice just received on my talk page. (A reminder that "Filmyear" - shortname "fy" - is a template that expands "{{fy|XXXX}}" to "[[XXXX in film|XXXX]]". It's a shortcut for linking to "year in film" articles for release dates and so on. It's currently used on about 1000 film-related pages.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Filmyear 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. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
New Hollywood has been tagged "This article does not cite any references or sources" since August 2007. As it stands, the article is basically somebody's essay, original research, or opinion. Anyone would be entirely justified in in starting an AFD of this article at any time. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what other people think about this article. So far as I can tell, and in spite of the 17 references used, this "film" appears to be nothing more than a tabloid rumour with little basis in reality, and indeed Tom Cruise seems to have denied the whole thing. Frankly I'm staggered that the article has survived two AfD's, but I would like to get a few more opinions before I think about nominating it again. PC78 ( talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The film A Bullet in the Arse has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. — CactusWriter | needles 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me where all the italics went on WP? All the titles are not showing italics now. -- Melty girl 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Due to continuing issues with User:ItsLassieTime I have removed all of the Lassie articles from my watch list, including the many film articles I had on my to do list to fix up and take to GA and/or FA. "Mediation" with an admin basically resulting in being told to let her do whatever she wants despite her refusing to follow any basic guidelines and her assertions that both the Film and General MoS are meaningless things that she can ignore at her own whims because she prefers to do things her way. She also fluffs up articles with fairly useless trivia and seems to be replicating most of the Ace Collin's book across all of the Lassie articles rather than using a variety of sources. In any case, she refuses to allow me to edit any of the articles, and even went back and removed valid and useful content from some articles, such as The Painted Hills just because I'm the one who added it.
I would still like to see these articles get up to the level they could be. If I can get various Sci Fi B movies and made-for-television articles up to GA, surely such classics can be taken there as well. :-P Particularly Lassie Come Home, as it launched the franchise and won several awards. As such, I'm asking if anyone(s) in the film project would be willing to tackle some of those film articles. I'd be happy to help provide anyone with sources and research, I just won't edit the articles myself directly. As a fan of the films and characters, I own them all and can provide plot write ups, sources from books and articles I own, and I'm happy to do library research as well. A list of the films can be found at this template she made Template:MGMLass (and someone may want to fix that up as she tried to decorate it with a non-free image). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck with that, I loved the films as a kid Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The above article refers to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) as even the article's IMDB link suggests. The article was probably created by mistake and that's the reason why it's never been edited all that much. I don't think that there's any reason whatsoever to keep it around but I'm afraid that it currently doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria and I find PRODing or listing for AfD not necessary in this case. If I were to make the article a redirect to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film), then I believe it would quite easily qualify under speedy criterion WP:CSD#R3 as an implausible misnomer. I'd like to have an available administrator to take a look at this and hopefully speedy delete this article if you agree with my point about the lack of need for The Island of Dr. Moreau (1994 film) as an article or even as a redirect.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion would benefit from more eyes. – xeno ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of editors, including User:John, are editing articles to remove all linked years. As shown by recent threads at WP:ANI concerning Lightbot and User:Lightmouse's actions in delinking years, there is no consensus for the wholesale de-linking of years, but, more to the point, there is a long-standing consensus among those who write and edit film-related articles that linking film release dates to "Year in film" articles is legitimate. This remains true even under the new WP:MOSNUM regime, which calls for links to be appropriate and to add context and information to articles. This is certainly the case with links to "year in film" for release dates, birth and date dates of actors etc, and other significant dates in film history.
Those who wish to weigh in on this might wish to add their comments
here on the talk page of the
Marlene Dietrich article, where
User:John and I are in edit conflict concerning this issue.
Ed Fitzgerald
t /
c
18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In the present circumstances, it is, as I mentioned, a long-standing convention in film articles that release dates of films are linked to the relevant year in film article, since those articles provide additional context for the reader as to what else occured in the film world at the time of the film's release. In filmographies, where many films are listed one after the other, only the first instance of the release date is linked, in order to avoid unnecessary overlinking. Other dates which are significant to the history of film, such as the birth and death dates of actors, directors, etc. are linked as well, but dates of ordinary events are not linked, either to "year in film" or to the general "year" articles. This seems to me to be a reasonable scheme, and well within the requirements of the new date-linking guidlelines.
While it's reasonable and helpful to go through articles and strip out the occasional unnecessary link, the wholesale removal of them is neither useful or beneficial, nor is it in line with general consensus, as the WP:ANI threads above show. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to evaluate the appropriate context in which years can be wiki-linked. For example, the first mention of the year in an individual film article (i.e., "Wikimaniacs is a 2008 film...") should wiki-link to "2008 in film". On the other hand, though, I am not so sure if it is appropriate to wiki-link "year in film" for a release date in the film's infobox. The date is unique for that particular film and not part of a chronological category like my "2008 in film" example. Beyond these two instances, there would be different context for how "year in film" was used. For example, if we said that Wikimaniacs was the first 2008 film to cross the $100 million milestone, it seems appropriate to wiki-link "2008 in film". Looking at
Marlene Dietrich, I do not think that it is relevant to wiki-link the birth year and the death year of the actress. It's not pertinent to what was going on in film that year. On the other hand, the "Years active" attribute's years are appropriate. Hopefully you see the difference there. John, I would caution against mass edits like this. It is not like overlinking is a grave threat to Wikipedia, so I think it is best to build consensus before embarking on a series of edits like these. We can fine-tune the task that needs to be done, and once we find common ground, we can make the edits and refer any inquisitive outsiders to the discussion. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) - 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [Struck out incorrect statement. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In a representative edit of mine to film-related articles involving linked years, I would change a number of straight linked years (i.e. to "the year XXXX") to "year in film" links, while at the same time removing links to day/months, so let's please not frame this discussion as unwillingness to adhere to the new MOSNUM guideline. We're talking about differeing interpretations here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) / Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok, back on topic. I am still not seeing the claimed pre-existing consensus (ie not a woolly statement like "we've always done it this way", but a link or a diff to where it was agreed), and I am still not seeing a coherent encyclopedic reason why linking this way brings benefit to our readers (not our editors). Can anybody help me with either? -- John ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is no consensus whatsoever for the wholesale removal of linked dates, as indicated by the WP:ANI threads I linked to above. That's the state of things.
There are plenty of linked dates that are clearly ripe for being delinked: month/days, non-release dates, non-significant events, and so on, and it might be more constructive to concerntrate on those, about which few people (if any) are going to argue. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In any case, please clarify what links I've been adding that I admit are valueless. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, absolutely no one, except you, has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified - so it's abundantly clear that there's no consensus for that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the links I added are to "year in film" articles, and they add context and value to the film articles they appear in. I have never, to my knowledge, added a link of any sort whatsoever, to a date or anything else, that I didn't think was appropriate and added value to the article. I hope that's clear enough for you -- if you need further explication, please let me know. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Passing by more personal interactions, I do believe that this (by me, from above) is a relatively accurate summary of the state of the discussion so far:
I see a clear consensus for linking release dates, no clear consensus for linking birth and death dates, and a consensus that linking other dates in the text is not worthwhile. It seems, at least by the evidence of this discussion, that film-article editors are of the opinion that linking years to "year in film" articles does provide additional value, depending on the circumstances, and this is clearly in line with the new MOSNUM guidelines.
On the other hand, [only one editor] has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified
Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary Ed to keep using bold in your comments?. It looks as if you are shouting at other editors Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if FUBAR: The Movie is the actual name of this film or if The Movie is some kind of an unofficial designation by the distributors to differentiate it from things like "FUBAR: The Album"? I believe that FUBAR is the official name of the film and that the article's name should, therefore, be FUBAR (film). The IMBD entry lists it as only FUBAR, confirming to me that I may be right. But I'm not 100% sure that The Movie is safe to be removed from the title so I wanted second opinions. Please and thank you. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a current debate over whether this meets our film content requirements. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it claims more notability than this for instance. No notability or information either other than being directed by George Lucas Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion for this problematic category can be found here. PC78 ( talk) 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How is the cast in films suppost to be set out? Is there a set thing because at the moment to connect actors to there roles there are different connectors such as: "as"; "-"; "..."; "plays"; "stars"; in table form and others. Which is the correct one to use?
If there is not already an agreement on this, please could we put one into play right away as it becomes quite annoying when looking at two different films. Thanks Ste900R ( talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The only other format I dislike is the "....." one, which makes the list look like a direct cut-and-paste from IMDB, and is not very attractive the way our pages are rendered. Any other variations are acceptable to me, although I myself prefer
because I believe the italics on the character name helps to set it apart from both the actor's name and the "as". (I know some other folks vehemently disagree with my preference about that, but that's what I think.)Actor's name as Character name
As for length of cast list, I do agree in principle that the list should be shorter rather than longer, but I'm also guilty of putting more names in on occasion, when, again, it seems to me that circumstances warrant it. Certainly, I try to cut off the list well before the end of IMDB's principle cast list (i.e. above their divider that says "Rest of cast listed alphabetically), and then put any other interesting cast information – especially uncredited roles, bit parts, cameos, and starting roles for actors who later become notable – into a "Cast notes" section under the cast list. With some frequency, when I'm unsure about which parts are the nost notable, I'll compare TCM's short cast list (in their overview front page) to the cast list on Allmovie, where stars and featured actors are bolded, and just make sure I have all those parts listed, then add anyone else I think is notable.
If the situation seems to call for a long cast list, and it's in list form and not in a table, I also prefer to columnize the list, to reduce the amount of whitespace in the article. In the articles with shorter lists, the whitespace to the right is ideal for an image, especially a screenshot that shows multiple cast members. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ste900R, I think it may be safe to say that "Actor as Role" would be as close of a standard as we'll get. Ed is alright with it, and I think Blofeld endorses it indirectly by mentioning Casino Royale. To my recollection, a number of editors with whom I work use "Actor as Role" as well. If you need an express answer, I think that's the best you can get. Your inquiry makes me think that we should review the "Cast" section at MOS:FILM. Seems like we could iron out a few details regarding the current topic, wikitable deprecation, bolding issues (this may be a little tricky), and guidelines on prose. I may start the relevant discussion since my long-term goal has been continuous improvement of MOS:FILM (was actually working on a "Marketing" component draft the other day). Anyone feel like they want to pitch in that kind of discussion? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't feel this is a major issue, my preference is Julia Roberts ..... Erin Brockovich. I'm in agreement with those who dislike tables. In my opinion, the plot synopsis should include enough of a character description so that adding them to cast lists is unnecessary. Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would take the time to change the format of existing cast lists instead of making more creative edits to articles that desperately need them. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 14:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on this article? To me it looks very much like a catalogue of DVDs by a single distributor, and would seem to be a typical example of what Wikipedia is not, but apparently there is a category for this and similar lists. Is this sort of thing OK or not? PC78 ( talk) 11:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up my watchlist and I need someone (or a few people) to watch all the film articles that I've just removed from it. Mostly due to blindness, I'm not at all interested in films - I've only been watching actor articles because of an anonymous user who would frequently make edits like these, adding hoax films and birthdates. I haven't encountered that editor for a while now but these articles are susceptible to unhelpful edits. Some of the actors are very famous, while I don't know if some of them should have articles on Wikipedia. The list is at User:Graham87/Films; if you want to convert it into a format suitable for the raw watchlist function, use find and replace to remove all instances of "*{{la|" and "}}". Thanks, Graham 87 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
user page transclusion removed
Hi I was wondering what people thought about adding a bit of color to accentuate the title in the infobox in coordination with most other infoboxes on wikipedia like actors etc kind of like the dead actor silver strip. I would suggest a silver strip at the top to highlight the title only or one at the top and bottom (imdb column) to accentuate it. For example (forgive the strange concoction of Humphrey Bogarts infobox and a film poster from the 1950s) see the sort of thing I mean on the right. Just a small graphical suggestion that could improve its appearance. Any thoughts anybody? Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Note. What you see there is an actor box!! I mean adding this style to the film infobox (which I can only view not edit), so the bottom section in silver would be the imdb.amg link. I think it adds a nice and a classic rendering which compliments the film posters. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep perhaps. I was thinking more in terms of the title strip as is shown here. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm not too concerned about the bottom strip rather that the title strip is rendered as in the example. Visually I think it gives more weight to the infobox and has the effect of highlighting what is inside the infbox without being overpowering Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about these coloured stripes, personally. Is it just me or do they look kind of tacky? Flowerparty☀ 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Tacky?? Most of the articles across wikipedia have a similar infobox. All of our actors Lauren Bacall etc Salvador Dalí the painter. To you mean to say that all of these articles look tacky? If it was a hot pink colour I might agree but part of WP:Films templates and article templates are designed with similar colours Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that looks absolutely fine in silver and would look good in the article. The only thing is that poster isn't a very good model because it has text at the top which changes how it compares to the title banner. Looks perfect I think. One could argue though against many suggestions people make at WP:Films in whether they are really necessary, Indiana Jones wiki projects for one! Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree completely on that one. Its awful when there is the option to have any colour and people start introducing really horrid colours. I'm not a fan of the block blue on the painter box either but others seemed to like it. One standard colour for all I think, obviously whats really important is the quality of text and the article itself, but I think it helps the presentation. We don't want anything too overbearing, silver would seemingly be more subtle. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe tacky isn't the right word. But what reason is there to add a coloured stripe, really? To emphasise the title? The title is already prominently displayed in the pagename and in the first word of the article, and it's invariably written on the film poster as well. The stripe just adds visual noise, to my eye. Flowerparty☀ 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you could try asking most of the wikiprojects on wikipedia why they use any color in their infoboxes at all and keep everything plain white. Why do we use gold for living actors and for musical artists and albums etc? Its just for presentation, I agree it should be the least of our concerns but... Many infoboxes that exist are rather more bolder than this. The mosque infobox for instance is just a dark green blob where the text is barely readible, and don't get me started on the beauty pageants one!. Hey with a user name like yourself I'd have expected you to love color!! Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think the infobox needs a color bar at the top or bottom, I won't cry myself to sleep if people wanted one at the top -- the bottom really doesn't work for me visually. However, there's a really simple practical reason why we don't need the top color bar: a significant percentage of film articles have a colorful and/or eye-attracting poster right at the top, which generally displays the film's name, sometimes in quite large print. With that big magnet sitting there, the color bar isn't needed. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Big magnet? LOL. Just imagine the damage it will do on the Spy Who lOved Me poster by connecting with the teeth of the giant Jaws! Chuckle. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we make the change then as a trial? If people don't like it then it can always be reversed later Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)