![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_films_by_year
ya no 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.28 ( talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the plot section it say:
"The word "Rosebud" painted on the sled burns as the camera closes in on it in the furnace. For the viewer this is supposed to solve the "Rosebud" mystery. Perhaps, the sled is a token of the only time in his life when he was poor; perhaps, more than this, it represents the only time in his life when he was truly happy and wanted for nothing, a period in his life when money hadn't yet corrupted him. After this twist ending, the film ends as it began, with the "No Trespassing" sign at the gates of Kane's estate, Xanadu, an indication that sometimes we can never know the truth behind people."
I tried to fix the end by taking out the "PERHAPS" and the personal opinions of the movie, but someone actually reverted my edits. Then I see the history of this article, and that has been there in a while....seriously? So I reverted it again to my previous edit, but I think the plot section needs another look. Ricardoread ( talk) 05:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it could be too software-oriented, but I think it could be useful to include copyright notice about the film:
Thanks for attention, Kazkaskazkasako ( talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As a rule, should articles of the form "List of [genre] films" (where [genre] is a film genre such as "science fiction") include or exclude all relevant film serials? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've created this template:
{{ New Line}}
Is it good enough to list on all of the New Line movie-related film articles? I mean New Line doesn't have a navigation box yet, I like it. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The following was asked at the help desk:
Is there a way I can have a bot do a mass adding of templates? I'd like to add
this template to the pages in
this category. Thank You!
ISTHnR |
Knock Knock
| Who's There?
02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How about we move it to New Line Cinema Releases or New Line Cinema Films or something like that, then I can create a regular navigation box for the production company... Good? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I heartily agree this template is useless, and as necessary as the succession boxes it was agreed should be eliminated. Why do people want to clutter articles with so much extraneous information? LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on whether or not to merge Samuel L. Jackson filmography back into the main article on the actor. Since filmographies fall under the project, I thought I'd mention this here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A newer editor who didn't know anybetter (AGFing) "passed" Max Payne' as a Good Article with a fake review and basically just making stuff up at Talk:Max Payne (film)/GA1. Its pretty clear it was a fake review, so its been reverted and the article restored to GAN status. Anyone up for giving it a proper review? If so, please clear the current GA (or restart if it its already been deleted). Cross posted to the GA discussion page. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section questioning whether a fictional work can be the source for its own plot. As this discussion could potentially have wide reaching implications across film articles, I felt the project should be made aware of the discussion in case members would like to offer their reviews there. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Previous discussion on the proposal to move James Stewart (actor) to Jimmy Stewart was not to make that move. Further discussion to make James Stewart the American actor (with no disamiguation in the article title) the primary use of James Stewart continues. This proposal would make a James Stewart (disambiguation) page the home to the listing of all uses of the name. Please post your opinion regarding this proposal at Talk:James Stewart. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created in my user subspace two articles, User:NMS Bill/Seth Gordon and User:NMS Bill/H*Commerce: The Business of Hacking You. The first is about film director Gordon, probably best known for The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. The second is about an Internet film series about criminal hacking which he recently directed. That film series was sponsored by antivirus software company McAfee, which is a client of my employer. Hence, my request for someone else to review them and give thumbs-up for moving these into the mainspace, if they are ready. Mindful of my potential conflict of interest I have made sure to source them thoroughly and keep it neutral. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for film infoboxes? Such as "Starring". Which cast members should go there? Are there already existing guidelines? Thank You --- Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is my 1st new page on English wikipédia Michael Kehlmann. It concerns a German actor, and I need help to correct the links (blue or red). Some things i don't know yet is the names or usings for "serie tv" or "tv film" etc... Can someone help me ? tell me where I can find what I need to do this. I contribute in French wikipedia since june 2006, but I'm doing my fisrt step here. Thanks a lot for answering me. Louxema ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this project not have a collaborations of the week (or another length of time)? If not, can we please consider establishing one? They can be quite productive, and it is fun to work together and watch an article expand within such a short time. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've found a picture [ here] that would be great for Dennis the Menace: Dinosaur Hunter but I know next to nothing about uploading images from the internet and don't know how you tell if it is a free image. If someone could upload this image (or a free alternative of the image) for the article I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the nonsensical use of nonadjusted box-office receipts is rampant in Wikipedia. Not only does it appear in things like List of highest-grossing films, but also every film on this list has an "infobox" on its article giving its place in this meaningless list.
This is like a List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article where some buildings are listed in feet, some in meters, and some in fathoms, and the numbers are sorted without converting the units. The only reason to compare nonadjusted numbers is the film industry's desire to promote the latest films by continually setting meaningless "box-office records."
No inflation-adjustment scheme is perfect, but any adjustment would be vastly more informative to the reader than doing no adjustment at all. A simple, standard, widely accepted scheme for US Dollars is the US Bureau of Labor's Consumer Price Index. They have a handy calculator online.
Proposal: convert all box-office receipts into 2000 dollars (to pick a nice round year) using the CPI, and sort the lists accordingly.
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This results in:"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 (${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|293750|1935|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})."
I would, however, oppose attempts to replace the original information with the adjusted-for-inflation figures; the best option, such as in that List of highest-grossing films example, might be to have an inflation-adjusted column beside the original one (though I haven't looked at that specific article closely enough to determine if that's 100% within its scope). Steve T • C 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 ($6.53 million as of 2024)."
How many people read a film article, see it grossed $20,000,000 in 1975, and ask themselves, "Gee, I wonder how much that would be in 2009 dollars?" Also, if an inflation-adjustment scheme were utilized, who would accept the responsibility of changing the figures in every article every couple of years? If anything is "nonsensical" it's this discussion. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Returning to Steven G. Johnson's original point, I see that there is a separate list already on Wikipedia of the highest grossing films, adjusted for inflation. I don't know if he was aware of this when he raised this point initially; I certainly was not. The inflation adjusted numbers come from an apparently reliable website, which resolves the OR issue. As for individual films, I think that would depend on the individual circumstance. The older a film, the greater the need to adjust for inflation. Most film articles don't mention the gross or budget. Stetsonharry ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I support the use of Steve's template thing to be included in infoboxes. It makes numbers much clearer, without wiping the original number, AND, as far as I can see, updates itself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As a note, an administrator has moved Template:Infobox Film to Template:Infobox film, so this should be noted when adding it to new articles (existing instances will still work as the old name was left as a redirect). :) (this change may or may not be kept since it was done without discussion and has already garnered some disagreement, but for now, its there so noting) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Last week in this space (just a few discussions north of here) I proposed two articles that I had created in my user space but, for reasons of potential conflict of interest, came here to seek approval for them both. One, about film director Seth Gordon, was quickly approved. A second, about a recent project of his, still posted at User:NMS Bill/H*Commerce: The Business of Hacking You, was left off because the answering editor could not find the project on IMDb. However, it's always been my impression that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and so far as I can tell, it passes the general notability guideline in any case, with several articles/reviews, primarily in technology publications, when it was released on the web. I haven't heard back from this editor since last week and, assuming he or she has moved on, am requesting assistance again. If there is a better venue for this question -- perhaps WikiProject Business, owing to the commercial nature of the project -- please let me know that, too. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I started a page for an article improvement drive for this month. I know this is kind of last minute, and maybe a little bold, but hopefully it will help the project to continue to expand its featured/good content. Due to the number of delisted GA/FAs in June, I started this page to attempt to get a jump start on returning articles to their former status or improving new ones to higher classes. Any article that is improved to GA/FA/FL status this month (based on edits starting this month) should be listed at the drive's page. Based on the number of articles that are improved should help us gauge whether there is interest in a project-wide contest or other drives. The drive page can be expanded with further details/ideas, and any questions/suggestions can be left on the talk page of the drive. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute over at Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen#Edit dispute again. This time over mention of Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode. regarding well...Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's supposed appearance. One side is arguing that Frenzy's head in a jar constitutes a "cameo appearance" in the new Transformers movie, while the other side is saying that it's a trivial point that isn't a real cameo. The other argument is that including a personal comment that Bonecrusher's Buffalo Mine Sweeper vehicle mode appears in the new movie constitutes original research, because it implies that Bonecrusher is in the movie (and that if the intention is only to point out that the vehicle mode is being used, then it's just as trivial as the Frenzy head comment); the other side says that it's not original research and is important to note that at least the vehicle appears. Additional opinions are requested to hash out this problem. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you handle a situation when an administrator is making a mess out of an article???
I cleaned up an article from this:
Michael Kehlmann was an austrian Film director, screenwriter and actor. He was born on the September 21 1927 in Vienna, Austria and was dead on the December 1st 2005 also in Vienna. He was writer Daniel Kehlmann's father.
to this:
Michael Kehlmann (21 September 1927 - 1 December 2005) was an Austrian film and theatre director, screenwriter and actor. He was the father of writer Daniel Kehlmann.
and User:Garion96, who is an administrator, keeps reverting it to the original sloppy mess. He also keeps reverting a long list of red-linked film titles. These are obscure foreign films made for German television that never will get articles. Wikipedia:Red link clearly states, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created." Shouldn't an administrator know better? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the appropriate tense for documentary synopses: past or present? Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't specifically film related, but it is tangentially. Since the release of Public Enemies was released, several IPs had stuck in notes in the Film depictions section of John Dillinger stating that the film has historical inaccuracies. I've reverted it before for multiple reasons, including that the observations are unsourced. Without belaboring it all too much, tonight a registered editor returned it, and when I removed it and stated that it was "unsourced and does not assert relevance for a fictional film". Editor returned it saying "Unsourced? The dates of deaths are readily available on Wikipedia." I removed it again and left more discussion on the talk page. The basics of it are that besides being unsourced, such content more properly belongs in the article about the film. Film depictions like this are just that, screen depictions, not documentaries. Film depictions are not obligated to be historically accurate, they are fictional films based on stories about such persons as Dillinger that take artistic license for whatever reason to produce the film in the filmmaker's perspective. They aren't documentaries, there are no claims made that such Hollywood productions are obligated to conform to historical accuracy. They aren't made necessarily to put forth an historically accurate story, they are made for entertainment. To me, this is beyond irrelevant. There are several films listed as depictions in the article and I'm thinking that all of them had multiple historical inaccuracies, but until reliable sources actually address that, it doesn't even belong in the film article, otherwise it's original research. In any case, without proper sourcing, original research gleaned from watching the film and drawing conclusions cannot be used. I'd really appreciate feedback here, or at Talk:John Dillinger about this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I remember my newbie months as a Wikipedia editor and did this a lot with articles. It bugged other editors.I realized it was useless, seeing as how film articles are already over linked with actors, directors, or if the film is based on some sort of book or whatever. Anyway, AskFranz keeps linking the year in film for every lead. Should we get a final consensus on this situation? Wildroot ( talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In short, is Category:Malayalam-language films by year a particuarly good idea? I've not seen this level of categorisation anywhere else, and it seems a bit unnecessary for what amounts to just a few hundred films. PC78 ( talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Several film series categories are being discussed for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Dr. No (film) for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The article on Last Tango in Paris needs some attention. There are at least three specific issues on the talkpage (two I added myself just now). Actually, I feel, this article is in pretty bad shape, and could use your attention. Debresser ( talk) 02:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a rewrite of the "Plot" section of the guidelines. Please see the draft here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I recently suggested a split of film into cinema and motion picture. Only one person responded to my suggestion, and he didn't understand what I was saying. I was hoping that I would get more feedback here. What do you think? -- Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For some time now, I have planned to nominate
Fight Club (film) as a Featured Article candidate, especially to display the article on Wikipedia's front page on October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Part of what has held me back is the overwhelming number of academic resources about the film. I decided to relegate academic coverage to a sub-article, which I am developing on my userspace:
User:Erik/Themes in Fight Club. (I will link to the sub-article through a {{
See also}} template in the film article's "Themes" section.) I am requesting advice on the most appropriate article title for this sub-article before I perform the move of the sub-article from my userspace to the mainspace. Should there be a (film)
disambiguation, e.g.
Themes in Fight Club (film), if the book article has no thematic sub-article? Should the article title start with "Themes", "Interpretations", or even "Critical analysis"? At the film article, I wrote in the "Themes" section how filmmakers intended the film, but there are many more perspectives on different elements of the film... are these also classified as themes or interpretations? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(film)
disambiguator, as that's a specific convention to indicate that the article title is that of a film. "Interpretations" (e.g.
Interpretations of Fight Club or similar) is probably the better fit, as it has a broader scope than "Themes", and as there is no sub-article for interpretations of
the book, a hatnote pointing to the
appropriate section of that article will likely be sufficient. It's not ideal, but it saves the article from a cumbersome tile such as
Themes in the film Fight Club or similar.
Steve
T •
C
22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Does the website Allmovie truly benefit film articles by being included in "External links" sections? In the past, we have "staple" links which are links that are tolerated fairly frequently in film articles due to consistent hosting of content that supplement Wikipedia articles. IMDb is included because of cast and crew information and other links to more community-based areas. (I doubt anyone would dispute the popularity of IMDb.) Box Office Mojo is included because of more detailed box office statistics not provided in the article body. (Though some say referencing it is enough; a discussion for another time?) Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are included because they host links to multiple reviews, which is better than including any one typical review. What are the reasons that Allmovie is included? I recall that it seems to have been treated as a "superior" alternative to IMDb. A film page at Allmovie has overview, review, cast, production credits, and sometimes awards. Cast and production credits have more limited information than IMDb; most of it would already be included in a well-developed article. One decent characteristic of Allmovie, in my opinion, is "Similar Works" under the overview page, which can serve as an objective way to introduce readers to similar films in a "See also" section. For example, I cited it at Apt Pupil (film)#See also. So if similar works could theoretically be included in articles, how does Allmovie truly benefit a film article as an external link? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
For info, I've raised a request for a bot to tag American films accordingly. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of SPA IP addresses reverting the criticisms response of the Zeitgeist, the Movie page back to what had been tagged as a quote farm, and had unreliable sources. They are not providing any justification nor responding to comments I have placed on their talk pages. They haven't yet broken 3RR, but I will do technically (I don't want to call their reverts vandalism as such) if I revert again. (Other editors have also been reverting their changes; it's not just me). The criticisms section isn't nice about the film, but that's because there was nothing much nice said about the film in any mainstream or scholarly sources. I suspect POV edit warring, and would appreciate input from other editors. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Triumph of the Will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The {{
Infobox film}} template was modified to include the alt=
field, which allows editors to include alternate text for the poster image in the infobox. See an example of alternate text at
Fight Club. WikiProject Films has not concerned itself with incorporating alternate text before, and I encourage editors of film articles to read
WP:ALT and understand what it entails. In addition to the image in the infobox, images in the article body should be complemented with alternate text (see WP:ALT for instructions). I propose pursuing alternate text for images in
Featured and Good Articles under WikiProject Films. I ask primary editors of these reviewed articles to revisit them and add alternate text to their images. I also ask editors in general to provide alternate text for images at any articles they may edit or may come across. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Having been unable to find any prior discussions regarding the naming of this article, I was ready to boldly move the above article to Television film per naming convention guidelines. I just wanted some second opinions before I do that.
Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I said, I was unable to find any previous discussions about the appropriatness of the article title so I considered the possibility of the it being one of those cases that "slipped through the cracks". Thanks for the input everyone, I'll leave the article as is.
Peace! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does User:Wildhartlivie's user page appear in full on the Member list page?! Lugnuts ( talk) 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you just ask Wildhartlivie on his own talk page instead of making this a public issue? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Editor Wbrz ( talk · contribs) added non-free images to film articles of actors in the films. The images are often placed at the bottom of the articles with no actual argument for critical commentary, which WP:NFC stipulates. The placement of the images further demonstrates a purely decorative goal, and this is not even half of the images the editor has put up. A small list is below:
I removed the several dozen non-free images, but he reverted me, saying that there were fair use rationales (which really are the very boilerplate excuses, "Used to illustrate the film"). I ask for other editors to review whether or not this is abuse of non-free images. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this category: Category:Template-Class film articles supposed to exist? As I pointed out on User talk:Ysangkok#Template:Adam Shankman there are already thousands of categories like this on Wikipedia. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
For the guidelines of WikiProject Films, I proposed a write-up about a film's historical and scientific accuracies on its talk page. As part of my proposal, I also rewrote the existing and related "Adaptation from source material" section to be more explanatory. I ask for other editors to provide feedback about the new write-up and/or the changes to the existing section. Discussion can be found here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Wes Craven#Merger proposal regarding the potential merging of 25/8 back into the Craven article. Additional opinions are requested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
During the past couple of weeks, a user has been emphasizing a rumor that Orson Welles rather than Carol Reed directed The Third Man. They have added the word "disputed" beside The Third Man entry on Reed's film template [2], [3], Carol Reed's filmography, Welles' film template [4], [5]], [6] as well as removed Carol Reed's name as director of the film [7] and added the statement that Welles plausibly directed the film [8]. My subsequent discussion with this editor can be found at Talk:The Third Man#No dispute about Reed as director in which I state that all reliable sources, including Welles himself, all say Welles' involvement was only minimal and that Reed was the director. I inserted this text to clarify the issue. I think I've gone as far I can on my own and would prefer a third opinion. Can someone weigh in on the talk page discussion, especially about the proper method for dealing with old rumors like this? — CactusWriter | needles 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, July 21, 2009
Alien vs. Predator will be displayed on the Main Page on July 23. WikiProject Films would like film-related articles to be at their best when presented to a wide audience, so I ask editors to review the film article and make changes to improve it further in time for its showcase. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I addressed this issue at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film), but as it might be overlooked there I would like to repeat it here. According to the article, "[Shane] Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production," yet he is listed in the infobox as "uncredited." Given his contribution appears to have been substantial, I would like to see an explanation of why he received no screen credit somewhere within the article. I think this is something worth discussing. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Xbvca keeps adding screenshots to this article. I tried explaining to him (or her) why these are unnecessary but he just removed my comments from his talk page and keeps reverting the images I deleted. Would someone please intervene and explain why there shouldn't be three images in one short article, especially when nothing in the article refers to the specific images in detail? Thank you for your help. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about public domain images. The description of the pictures used in this article says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice". These are screenshots, so doesn't the studio that made or released the film own them? And where were they published without a copyright notice? If someone puts an image they don't even own on the internet without a copyright notice, does that automatically put it in the public domain? LargoLarry ( talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear All I am working on Bengali Cinema. Most of the cases I add as external links Gomolo.in. Now a day I have a problem with other users,who claim about this site is not WP:RS and its a spam. I dont know any technical aspect about gomolo.in. Is it true this website is a spam? [9], [10]. If surely this site is a spam I shuld not use as a exterlan links. And please check this website, only one I found after imdb and citwf.com one and olny have Bengali Cinema database yaes wise, and other category wise shorted. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in and give you valuable comments. thanks- Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in I demonstrated in great detail how Gomolo.in (a Hindi-Bengali movie database) just exceeds the threshold for notability per the WP:GROUP guide. Unfortunately, the notability guide seems meaningless at AfD. Milo 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Further views would be useful at Talk:The Fox and the Hound#Character section discussing whether a character section or character list would be appropriate for this film. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for dredging this up again, but after I removed material from the Aaron Johnson (actor) article that was sourced to imdb, indicating that imdb is not a reliable source, an editor who insists on including it is arguing that there is no consensus on this point. I responded by pointing to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the various discussions on imdb, which indicate otherwise, including this first page of search results, which features 20 discussions on it, 15 of which include posts by editors who indicate it is clearly unreliable. The other five or so include some ambiguity or dissent. I think it clearly qualifies as a "consensus", but User:Lx 121 insists that it is not. I also pointed to this guideline (a link to which I also found here on the RSN), but he claims that's for notability, not verifiability, which I think is hair-splitting, since the spirit of that guideline is that imdb is simply not reliable. So I ask: Don't all these discussions constitute a consensus for the purpose of removing it per WP:V/ WP:RS? Doesn't that guideline reasonably apply to verifiability? Nightscream ( talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm having some trouble with a user (anon IP) who keeps adding the IMDB rating for The Fifth Element insisting that there's no problem including it. I spoke with Collectonian on this, who agreed with me and said that there should be a discussion here, I believe, establishing that IMDB ratings shouldn't be included, but I'm having trouble finding said discussion. I'd really appreciate it if someone with a bit more experience, or perhaps authority/diplomacy, than I could either get this sorted out or point me in the right direction. Hm, just noticed that the item right before mine is similar to this one.
Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) is ambitiously working to get all Star Trek films to Featured Article status. He's achieved this with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Currently, he has Star Trek: First Contact placed for peer review, so if anyone has time, please review the article and share your thoughts in regard to the style and content. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is currently undergoing its second featured article candidacy. Its been a week since it was nominated, with no support/opposes at all, only two comment (one added today), that doesn't actually indicate if they support or oppose. More views would be helpful one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
On Twitter, Jimmy Wales tweeted this article about the Davos World Economic Forum releasing its Flickr stream of 2,600 photos under the Attribution-ShareAlike license. (See more about licenses here.) Most film articles have copyrighted photos—screenshots or production stills—since only the oldest films are in public domain. Is anyone familiar enough with film studios to know if they maintain archives of production stills or specific screenshots? It may be a worthwhile campaign to petition to studios about being providers of such images, using one of the Creative Commons licenses. This way, we could illustrate film articles without struggling for adequate rationale of non-free images. What do others think? Is it in the realm of possibility? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled on this "lovely" list while looking at articles in the GAR Sweeps queue. It was riddled with excessive non-free images, copyright violating links to YouTube videos, fansite "sources", ridiculously minor characters, etc. [12] It still has a lot of problems with excessive plot, in-universe prose, lack of any real notability, lack of sources, and a lot of OR. Personally, I don't think the list is necessary at all, however as it exists, before discussing merging or deletion, clean up to see if its salvageable seems the better option. So I did an initial clean up to address the first, and most major of issues regarding removing the illegal stuff and the fansite and minor characters. [13] The talk page also has nothing but forum discussions and opinions rather than discussions on approving the articles. One of the list's only editors reverted this as "vandalism" (for which he has been warned), however additional eyes and discussion is likely going to be needed here as his response to the message was to blank it. Thoughts on other clean ups to do and other ways of dealing with the list? Volunteers to help cull down the excessive plot and look for third-party sources to justify this list? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club, which recently went through the FAC process to become a Featured Article, has a dispute going on about whether or not the "See also" section's list of similar works, cited by Allmovie, is appropriate to include. FAC reviewers that supported the article's nomination as FA did not seem to have a problem with it, but a couple of editors after the article's promotion seem to disagree that the "See also" section is appropriate. Can others review the situation to weigh the merits of the section or lack thereof? Discussion is here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 00:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Characters of From Dusk till Dawn has a "gallery" of characters embedded way down at the bottom of the article. Need opinions on whether or not it passes muster for Fair-Use.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Would somebody please explain to me why this article is even necessary? Shouldn't the characters be described in the individual film articles? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Adaptation.#Move is going through a discussion whether or not people want to change the article. Need opinions on whether it should change or not. Wildroot ( talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
After seeing this at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) as the latest in the proliferation of so-called succession boxes, I am coming to the conclusion that these boxes are being abused. It does not seem relevant to have these boxes, especially so many. If a film holds the #1 position at the box office in whatever territory for quite a few weekends, it should already be covered in prose. It's not really relevant to know what came after (important usurpers can be written in prose) and even less relevant to know what came before, at least in the scope of that particular article. I would like to see if there is consensus to remove such boxes or at least impose some kind of limit on them. (We may need to conduct similar discussions about award-related succession boxes; what came before and after one particular year's Best Picture winner is not within the topical scope of that one film.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
← To help build consensus, I've nominated the templates {{ Box Office Leaders}} and {{ Box Office Leaders USA}} for deletion; see discussion here. While this will not remove all box office-related succession boxes, these templates are used in quite a few articles already, and successful deletion of them may serve as a catalyst to deprecating the boxes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two discussions going on about the guidelines at its talk page:
Please feel free to share your thoughts! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just saw Australia on DVD and I immediately noticed an anachronism. The film opens in September 1939. Lady Ashley sees a newspaper ad for The Wizard of Oz before the start of the cattle drive, which arrives in Darwin just before the beginning of the rainy season, which lasts from November through April according to [14]. This means it's safe to assume she saw the ad in September or October 1939. But The Wizard of Oz didn't open in Australia until April 1940. Also, it opened in the United States in August 1939, so I doubt Australians would have been that familiar with "Over the Rainbow" just one or two months later, but Lady Ashley knew the tune and some of the words. It's amazing that Baz Luhrmann didn't do better research. If he was going to make The Wizard of Oz such an important element of the film, he should have set the beginning a year later than he did. I'm wondering if this anachronism is something that should be mentioned in the article. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions The Wizard of Oz and "Over the Rainbow" so why not mention the ananchronism in the same section? I think it's too important to ignore. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone requested help tagging all the movie articles on the project, and the bot went nuts (in my opinion) and started tagging articles for movie-based theme park attractions (like Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin) and movie-themed amusement parks (like Universal Studios Hollywood). After I went through deleting the truly inappropriate tags, a couple of editors of these articles thought that the tag was appropriate in select cases ... for example, for Star Tours, the Star Wars-themed motion simulator ride at Disney theme parks worldwide. The two schools of thought are: (a) it's not a film, it's a ride; and (b) the main component of the ride is a film.
So, I asked on the talk page if the editors of that article thought that such attractions (those that have movie components, like motion simulators and in-park 3-D movies; not those themed to a certain movie) truly do fall within the scope of the Films WikiProject. At the same time, I thought I'd ask the WikiProject itself what its members thought ... should theme-park rides with movie components fall within its scope?
Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Argentine films contains only links found in Template:Cinema of Argentina. For this reason I am removing the former form articles also containing the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
At the Featured Article Rob-B-Hood, six non-free images are being used in the article body. Judging from the content, the only image that seems appropriate for inclusion is the one of Jackie Chan hanging from the roller coaster (due to neighboring content about stunts). The "Writing" image adds nothing to the article, the baby is not important to show in the "Cast" section, and the two images in the "Plot" section are just decorative of the scenes with no significance attached through critical commentary. Lastly, the poster image in the "Reception" section is a near-duplicate of the image in the infobox. Since this is a Featured Article (and I am a bit astounded about the lack of image review at its FAC), I wanted to see what other film editors thought about how the images are applied before I go about removing them. Please see the discussion at Talk:Rob-B-Hood#Overuse of non-free images. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently User:Marychan41 began changing many film articles to change the distributor listed for the film from Universal Studios to Universal Pictures, even though the later redirects to the former. From her edit summaries, she feels that Universal Pictures is more accurate, stating some variation of "The film was released by Universal Pictures! The film's poster clearly states that the film is [Universal Pictures presents]". It became a full blown edit war over the issue between her and another editor (not me) at The Lost World: Jurassic Park. In subseqeunt edit summaries, she's stated
I've invited both editors here to discuss it and to get consensus on which should be used. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
← ( edit conflict) Let's shift discussion to Talk:Universal Studios/Archives/2014#Universal Pictures because we don't need to discuss specifics on a community level for this particular article. If anyone is interested in joining discussion, feel free to drop by there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of TLC. Most of the Adaptation section is missing references. The Character Search section is mostly just a list of actors and the referenced source is IMDb trivia. The Source section is all POV. This classic film deserves a much better Wikipedia article than this. 63.3.15.2 ( talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Lion King and The Care Bears Movie are both currently undergoing Good Article Reassessments as part of the Sweeps effort. Both failed the GA criteria right now and will be delisted in seven days if they aren't fixed. Any volunteers? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please explain to me why the first release of a film doesn't count if its at a film festival? BOVINEBOY2008 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion to move multiple lists of film series to more direct list names, for example, to move List of film octologies to List of film series with eight entries. Please see the multiple-move discussion here: Talk:Film series#Requested move. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this article really within the scope of our project? It looks to be very much like a TV series to me, yet it is classed as one of our core articles. PC78 ( talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Psycho (1960 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A number of IP users have been changing " Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to " East Sea (Sea of Japan)"; this is contrary to existing Wikipedia concensus outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). I've reverted, pointed the IPs to the relevant guideline, even had the article protected for a few days, but it keeps happening. A few more eyes on this would be welcome, especially as I'm going to be offline for a few days. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that was in sad need of cleanup and sourcing [15], so I did so... removing the "citation needed" tags and "unreferenced" tags as I added the requested citations as I cleaned the darn thing. [16] However the editor who had done all the tagging, came back and replaced a "unreferenced" tag on the filmography section [17] with a caution that I not remove his tag unless I source the section. So I added some [18] and simply tagged the section for "more sources". In my noticing that actor articles do not have their filmography sections specifcally sourced, I am wondering is this something that we need do now for all actor articles? If so, there are a few thousand actor articles that now need to be so tagged. If such is not required, might I have a link to the guideline or decision that states it, so I might forward that on to the tagging editor? Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 02:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Sourcing_a_filmology decltype ( talk) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to nominate this article for deletion if my reasoning is wrong, so could someone please give me advice before I do?
I don't think it meets notability requirements because
Thank you for your help. MovieMadness ( talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, since Adaptation. was moved to Adaptation (film) and Good Night, and Good Luck. was moved to Good Night, and Good Luck, I started discussion at WT:NCF to see if we need guidelines for films with punctuation and other special characters at WP:NCF. See the discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
For a long time, WikiProject Films has used bold formatting mainly in the "Cast" sections of its film articles. Despite this tradition, though, MOS:BOLD makes clear that outside the lead sentence, only a "few special uses" apply: table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers of journal articles. I was removing the bold formatting on several film articles (mainly mainstream ones that get the most attention) when an editor took issue with it. Do others think that there is any reason to ignore MOS:BOLD? I consulted with Tony1, who helped get dates de-linked across Wikipedia articles, and he said this about the formatting. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Per a recent TfD, Template:Box Office Leaders was deleted and subsequently removed from all articles. But it seems there are still a lot of articles left with "Box office number-one films" succession boxes, using Template:Succession box instead of Template:Box Office Leaders ( Hot Fuzz and Norbit, for instance), so some help in cleaning those up would be appreciated. -- Conti| ✉ 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I found some 2007 films that still had the boxes, but I'm going to stop since there's no point in two people working on the same project. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Conti, I left this message on your talk page, but figured I'd copy it here since others may be engaging in the same task. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road, especially since this huge change has precipitated in little more than a week. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Under what circumstances should a cast be converted into a table, or should it just be avoided altogether?
Actor | Role |
---|---|
John Doe | Not Real |
Bob Johnson | John Q. Public |
^^^ Such as this ^^^ • S • C • A • R • C • E • 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, at The Hurt Locker, an editor is unable to assume good faith of others' contributions and reverts our changes, such as the addition of a "Cast" section and the expansion of the "Plot" section. I ask other editors to visit the film article and see what changes they endorse. See page history here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
← I blocked Inurhead for edit warring. I urge you to once again read WP:VANDAL. Finally, consensus can change. You happen to be on the wrong side of it. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about Pulp Fiction at the article's talk page about how the plot summary is structured. Please see the discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Ymovies title 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. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Did some clean up at the List of The Lion King characters to remove what I felt were minor characters, excessive plottiness, etc in an attempt to see if the list has any actual notability and value before sending it to AfD. [19] Primarily one other editor and I are in disagreement over this clean up as he feels all of the minor characters removed should be restored and that I'm only pushing my own POV instead of following guidelines, while I feel we should be moving on to sourcing what's left and adding creation/conception and reception sections to validate the lists existence. Additional views are seriously needed at Talk:List of The Lion King characters#Cleanup - overdoing it? as we are basically doing nothing now but arguing back and forth which will never solve anything. Please come take a look and offer additional views. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Softlavender is adding Category:Films based on short stories to articles that already have Category:Films based on short fiction in them. Isn't this redundant? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think short stories are understood to be works of fiction. In fact, the article Short story says it refers to a work of fiction that is usually written in prose, usually in narrative format. Sodtlavender's addition seems unnecessary. (Recently she added Category:Monodrama to articles that already had Category:Plays for one performer so it seems she likes to over-categorize if such a word exists!) LargoLarry ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The above section of WP:MOSFILM states the following:
"Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
Should this be interpreted to mean:
or
There seems to be a dispute on Meet the Parents on whether it's appropriate or not to list other English speaking countries' dates of release if the American film was first released in the United States.
Thanks you! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
- The film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{ Start date}} should be used.
- Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases.
- Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film.
- In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
- The film's earliest theatrical release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{ Start date}} should be used.
Guideline removed- Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film. This should concur with the "Country" parameter in the infobox.
- In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
Changes are italicized above. Any suggestions or oppositions would be helpful. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i am added new task force for Sri lankan Tamil cinema, as am quite new to here, please help me to work better here.--BlueLankan 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ italic title}} was created so titles of articles about films, plays, books, TV shows, etc could be italicized but I don't see it being used. Is there a reason for that? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In the article about the film Zinda which is a remake of Oldboy, there is a section discussing the similarities and differences between the two films. Zhanzhao ( talk · contribs) has been reverting everyone who removes this section. According to WP:MOSFILM (4.4.5) such sections should not be created and particular differences/similarities should be mentioned only in context: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." - wrong? Shahid • Talk2me 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Future film 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. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the people who prepare the main page of Wikipedia didn't think it was important enough to mention, I would like to note that on this day in 1939 The Wizard of Oz was released! 63.3.15.129 ( talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it has to be said. "I can while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain. And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain." There. I feel better. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings film buffs,
An IP has pointed out that our article on Donnie Darko gives two different figures for both budget and revenue ( [20]). Different websites give different figures and I don't know what's a reliable source for this kind of information, so I thought I'd seek help here.
Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just nominated these categories at WP:CFD, since I think they may be examples of over-categorisation: the discussion is here. I wondered who best to notify, and thought this was probably the best place. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for this sort of help but hopefully there is a quick fix here. A user with a long history of vandalism has recently made a minor change to Scream 2 which does look plausible but then I have never seen the film, given the editor's background could somebody have a quick look and ensure his edit is correct? RaseaC ( talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_films_by_year
ya no 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.28 ( talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the plot section it say:
"The word "Rosebud" painted on the sled burns as the camera closes in on it in the furnace. For the viewer this is supposed to solve the "Rosebud" mystery. Perhaps, the sled is a token of the only time in his life when he was poor; perhaps, more than this, it represents the only time in his life when he was truly happy and wanted for nothing, a period in his life when money hadn't yet corrupted him. After this twist ending, the film ends as it began, with the "No Trespassing" sign at the gates of Kane's estate, Xanadu, an indication that sometimes we can never know the truth behind people."
I tried to fix the end by taking out the "PERHAPS" and the personal opinions of the movie, but someone actually reverted my edits. Then I see the history of this article, and that has been there in a while....seriously? So I reverted it again to my previous edit, but I think the plot section needs another look. Ricardoread ( talk) 05:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it could be too software-oriented, but I think it could be useful to include copyright notice about the film:
Thanks for attention, Kazkaskazkasako ( talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As a rule, should articles of the form "List of [genre] films" (where [genre] is a film genre such as "science fiction") include or exclude all relevant film serials? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've created this template:
{{ New Line}}
Is it good enough to list on all of the New Line movie-related film articles? I mean New Line doesn't have a navigation box yet, I like it. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The following was asked at the help desk:
Is there a way I can have a bot do a mass adding of templates? I'd like to add
this template to the pages in
this category. Thank You!
ISTHnR |
Knock Knock
| Who's There?
02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How about we move it to New Line Cinema Releases or New Line Cinema Films or something like that, then I can create a regular navigation box for the production company... Good? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I heartily agree this template is useless, and as necessary as the succession boxes it was agreed should be eliminated. Why do people want to clutter articles with so much extraneous information? LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on whether or not to merge Samuel L. Jackson filmography back into the main article on the actor. Since filmographies fall under the project, I thought I'd mention this here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A newer editor who didn't know anybetter (AGFing) "passed" Max Payne' as a Good Article with a fake review and basically just making stuff up at Talk:Max Payne (film)/GA1. Its pretty clear it was a fake review, so its been reverted and the article restored to GAN status. Anyone up for giving it a proper review? If so, please clear the current GA (or restart if it its already been deleted). Cross posted to the GA discussion page. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section questioning whether a fictional work can be the source for its own plot. As this discussion could potentially have wide reaching implications across film articles, I felt the project should be made aware of the discussion in case members would like to offer their reviews there. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Previous discussion on the proposal to move James Stewart (actor) to Jimmy Stewart was not to make that move. Further discussion to make James Stewart the American actor (with no disamiguation in the article title) the primary use of James Stewart continues. This proposal would make a James Stewart (disambiguation) page the home to the listing of all uses of the name. Please post your opinion regarding this proposal at Talk:James Stewart. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created in my user subspace two articles, User:NMS Bill/Seth Gordon and User:NMS Bill/H*Commerce: The Business of Hacking You. The first is about film director Gordon, probably best known for The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. The second is about an Internet film series about criminal hacking which he recently directed. That film series was sponsored by antivirus software company McAfee, which is a client of my employer. Hence, my request for someone else to review them and give thumbs-up for moving these into the mainspace, if they are ready. Mindful of my potential conflict of interest I have made sure to source them thoroughly and keep it neutral. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for film infoboxes? Such as "Starring". Which cast members should go there? Are there already existing guidelines? Thank You --- Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is my 1st new page on English wikipédia Michael Kehlmann. It concerns a German actor, and I need help to correct the links (blue or red). Some things i don't know yet is the names or usings for "serie tv" or "tv film" etc... Can someone help me ? tell me where I can find what I need to do this. I contribute in French wikipedia since june 2006, but I'm doing my fisrt step here. Thanks a lot for answering me. Louxema ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this project not have a collaborations of the week (or another length of time)? If not, can we please consider establishing one? They can be quite productive, and it is fun to work together and watch an article expand within such a short time. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've found a picture [ here] that would be great for Dennis the Menace: Dinosaur Hunter but I know next to nothing about uploading images from the internet and don't know how you tell if it is a free image. If someone could upload this image (or a free alternative of the image) for the article I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the nonsensical use of nonadjusted box-office receipts is rampant in Wikipedia. Not only does it appear in things like List of highest-grossing films, but also every film on this list has an "infobox" on its article giving its place in this meaningless list.
This is like a List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article where some buildings are listed in feet, some in meters, and some in fathoms, and the numbers are sorted without converting the units. The only reason to compare nonadjusted numbers is the film industry's desire to promote the latest films by continually setting meaningless "box-office records."
No inflation-adjustment scheme is perfect, but any adjustment would be vastly more informative to the reader than doing no adjustment at all. A simple, standard, widely accepted scheme for US Dollars is the US Bureau of Labor's Consumer Price Index. They have a handy calculator online.
Proposal: convert all box-office receipts into 2000 dollars (to pick a nice round year) using the CPI, and sort the lists accordingly.
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This results in:"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 (${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|293750|1935|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})."
I would, however, oppose attempts to replace the original information with the adjusted-for-inflation figures; the best option, such as in that List of highest-grossing films example, might be to have an inflation-adjusted column beside the original one (though I haven't looked at that specific article closely enough to determine if that's 100% within its scope). Steve T • C 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 ($6.53 million as of 2024)."
How many people read a film article, see it grossed $20,000,000 in 1975, and ask themselves, "Gee, I wonder how much that would be in 2009 dollars?" Also, if an inflation-adjustment scheme were utilized, who would accept the responsibility of changing the figures in every article every couple of years? If anything is "nonsensical" it's this discussion. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Returning to Steven G. Johnson's original point, I see that there is a separate list already on Wikipedia of the highest grossing films, adjusted for inflation. I don't know if he was aware of this when he raised this point initially; I certainly was not. The inflation adjusted numbers come from an apparently reliable website, which resolves the OR issue. As for individual films, I think that would depend on the individual circumstance. The older a film, the greater the need to adjust for inflation. Most film articles don't mention the gross or budget. Stetsonharry ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I support the use of Steve's template thing to be included in infoboxes. It makes numbers much clearer, without wiping the original number, AND, as far as I can see, updates itself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As a note, an administrator has moved Template:Infobox Film to Template:Infobox film, so this should be noted when adding it to new articles (existing instances will still work as the old name was left as a redirect). :) (this change may or may not be kept since it was done without discussion and has already garnered some disagreement, but for now, its there so noting) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Last week in this space (just a few discussions north of here) I proposed two articles that I had created in my user space but, for reasons of potential conflict of interest, came here to seek approval for them both. One, about film director Seth Gordon, was quickly approved. A second, about a recent project of his, still posted at User:NMS Bill/H*Commerce: The Business of Hacking You, was left off because the answering editor could not find the project on IMDb. However, it's always been my impression that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and so far as I can tell, it passes the general notability guideline in any case, with several articles/reviews, primarily in technology publications, when it was released on the web. I haven't heard back from this editor since last week and, assuming he or she has moved on, am requesting assistance again. If there is a better venue for this question -- perhaps WikiProject Business, owing to the commercial nature of the project -- please let me know that, too. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I started a page for an article improvement drive for this month. I know this is kind of last minute, and maybe a little bold, but hopefully it will help the project to continue to expand its featured/good content. Due to the number of delisted GA/FAs in June, I started this page to attempt to get a jump start on returning articles to their former status or improving new ones to higher classes. Any article that is improved to GA/FA/FL status this month (based on edits starting this month) should be listed at the drive's page. Based on the number of articles that are improved should help us gauge whether there is interest in a project-wide contest or other drives. The drive page can be expanded with further details/ideas, and any questions/suggestions can be left on the talk page of the drive. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute over at Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen#Edit dispute again. This time over mention of Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode. regarding well...Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's supposed appearance. One side is arguing that Frenzy's head in a jar constitutes a "cameo appearance" in the new Transformers movie, while the other side is saying that it's a trivial point that isn't a real cameo. The other argument is that including a personal comment that Bonecrusher's Buffalo Mine Sweeper vehicle mode appears in the new movie constitutes original research, because it implies that Bonecrusher is in the movie (and that if the intention is only to point out that the vehicle mode is being used, then it's just as trivial as the Frenzy head comment); the other side says that it's not original research and is important to note that at least the vehicle appears. Additional opinions are requested to hash out this problem. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you handle a situation when an administrator is making a mess out of an article???
I cleaned up an article from this:
Michael Kehlmann was an austrian Film director, screenwriter and actor. He was born on the September 21 1927 in Vienna, Austria and was dead on the December 1st 2005 also in Vienna. He was writer Daniel Kehlmann's father.
to this:
Michael Kehlmann (21 September 1927 - 1 December 2005) was an Austrian film and theatre director, screenwriter and actor. He was the father of writer Daniel Kehlmann.
and User:Garion96, who is an administrator, keeps reverting it to the original sloppy mess. He also keeps reverting a long list of red-linked film titles. These are obscure foreign films made for German television that never will get articles. Wikipedia:Red link clearly states, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created." Shouldn't an administrator know better? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the appropriate tense for documentary synopses: past or present? Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't specifically film related, but it is tangentially. Since the release of Public Enemies was released, several IPs had stuck in notes in the Film depictions section of John Dillinger stating that the film has historical inaccuracies. I've reverted it before for multiple reasons, including that the observations are unsourced. Without belaboring it all too much, tonight a registered editor returned it, and when I removed it and stated that it was "unsourced and does not assert relevance for a fictional film". Editor returned it saying "Unsourced? The dates of deaths are readily available on Wikipedia." I removed it again and left more discussion on the talk page. The basics of it are that besides being unsourced, such content more properly belongs in the article about the film. Film depictions like this are just that, screen depictions, not documentaries. Film depictions are not obligated to be historically accurate, they are fictional films based on stories about such persons as Dillinger that take artistic license for whatever reason to produce the film in the filmmaker's perspective. They aren't documentaries, there are no claims made that such Hollywood productions are obligated to conform to historical accuracy. They aren't made necessarily to put forth an historically accurate story, they are made for entertainment. To me, this is beyond irrelevant. There are several films listed as depictions in the article and I'm thinking that all of them had multiple historical inaccuracies, but until reliable sources actually address that, it doesn't even belong in the film article, otherwise it's original research. In any case, without proper sourcing, original research gleaned from watching the film and drawing conclusions cannot be used. I'd really appreciate feedback here, or at Talk:John Dillinger about this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I remember my newbie months as a Wikipedia editor and did this a lot with articles. It bugged other editors.I realized it was useless, seeing as how film articles are already over linked with actors, directors, or if the film is based on some sort of book or whatever. Anyway, AskFranz keeps linking the year in film for every lead. Should we get a final consensus on this situation? Wildroot ( talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In short, is Category:Malayalam-language films by year a particuarly good idea? I've not seen this level of categorisation anywhere else, and it seems a bit unnecessary for what amounts to just a few hundred films. PC78 ( talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Several film series categories are being discussed for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Dr. No (film) for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The article on Last Tango in Paris needs some attention. There are at least three specific issues on the talkpage (two I added myself just now). Actually, I feel, this article is in pretty bad shape, and could use your attention. Debresser ( talk) 02:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a rewrite of the "Plot" section of the guidelines. Please see the draft here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I recently suggested a split of film into cinema and motion picture. Only one person responded to my suggestion, and he didn't understand what I was saying. I was hoping that I would get more feedback here. What do you think? -- Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For some time now, I have planned to nominate
Fight Club (film) as a Featured Article candidate, especially to display the article on Wikipedia's front page on October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Part of what has held me back is the overwhelming number of academic resources about the film. I decided to relegate academic coverage to a sub-article, which I am developing on my userspace:
User:Erik/Themes in Fight Club. (I will link to the sub-article through a {{
See also}} template in the film article's "Themes" section.) I am requesting advice on the most appropriate article title for this sub-article before I perform the move of the sub-article from my userspace to the mainspace. Should there be a (film)
disambiguation, e.g.
Themes in Fight Club (film), if the book article has no thematic sub-article? Should the article title start with "Themes", "Interpretations", or even "Critical analysis"? At the film article, I wrote in the "Themes" section how filmmakers intended the film, but there are many more perspectives on different elements of the film... are these also classified as themes or interpretations? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(film)
disambiguator, as that's a specific convention to indicate that the article title is that of a film. "Interpretations" (e.g.
Interpretations of Fight Club or similar) is probably the better fit, as it has a broader scope than "Themes", and as there is no sub-article for interpretations of
the book, a hatnote pointing to the
appropriate section of that article will likely be sufficient. It's not ideal, but it saves the article from a cumbersome tile such as
Themes in the film Fight Club or similar.
Steve
T •
C
22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Does the website Allmovie truly benefit film articles by being included in "External links" sections? In the past, we have "staple" links which are links that are tolerated fairly frequently in film articles due to consistent hosting of content that supplement Wikipedia articles. IMDb is included because of cast and crew information and other links to more community-based areas. (I doubt anyone would dispute the popularity of IMDb.) Box Office Mojo is included because of more detailed box office statistics not provided in the article body. (Though some say referencing it is enough; a discussion for another time?) Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are included because they host links to multiple reviews, which is better than including any one typical review. What are the reasons that Allmovie is included? I recall that it seems to have been treated as a "superior" alternative to IMDb. A film page at Allmovie has overview, review, cast, production credits, and sometimes awards. Cast and production credits have more limited information than IMDb; most of it would already be included in a well-developed article. One decent characteristic of Allmovie, in my opinion, is "Similar Works" under the overview page, which can serve as an objective way to introduce readers to similar films in a "See also" section. For example, I cited it at Apt Pupil (film)#See also. So if similar works could theoretically be included in articles, how does Allmovie truly benefit a film article as an external link? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
For info, I've raised a request for a bot to tag American films accordingly. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of SPA IP addresses reverting the criticisms response of the Zeitgeist, the Movie page back to what had been tagged as a quote farm, and had unreliable sources. They are not providing any justification nor responding to comments I have placed on their talk pages. They haven't yet broken 3RR, but I will do technically (I don't want to call their reverts vandalism as such) if I revert again. (Other editors have also been reverting their changes; it's not just me). The criticisms section isn't nice about the film, but that's because there was nothing much nice said about the film in any mainstream or scholarly sources. I suspect POV edit warring, and would appreciate input from other editors. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Triumph of the Will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The {{
Infobox film}} template was modified to include the alt=
field, which allows editors to include alternate text for the poster image in the infobox. See an example of alternate text at
Fight Club. WikiProject Films has not concerned itself with incorporating alternate text before, and I encourage editors of film articles to read
WP:ALT and understand what it entails. In addition to the image in the infobox, images in the article body should be complemented with alternate text (see WP:ALT for instructions). I propose pursuing alternate text for images in
Featured and Good Articles under WikiProject Films. I ask primary editors of these reviewed articles to revisit them and add alternate text to their images. I also ask editors in general to provide alternate text for images at any articles they may edit or may come across. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Having been unable to find any prior discussions regarding the naming of this article, I was ready to boldly move the above article to Television film per naming convention guidelines. I just wanted some second opinions before I do that.
Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I said, I was unable to find any previous discussions about the appropriatness of the article title so I considered the possibility of the it being one of those cases that "slipped through the cracks". Thanks for the input everyone, I'll leave the article as is.
Peace! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does User:Wildhartlivie's user page appear in full on the Member list page?! Lugnuts ( talk) 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you just ask Wildhartlivie on his own talk page instead of making this a public issue? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Editor Wbrz ( talk · contribs) added non-free images to film articles of actors in the films. The images are often placed at the bottom of the articles with no actual argument for critical commentary, which WP:NFC stipulates. The placement of the images further demonstrates a purely decorative goal, and this is not even half of the images the editor has put up. A small list is below:
I removed the several dozen non-free images, but he reverted me, saying that there were fair use rationales (which really are the very boilerplate excuses, "Used to illustrate the film"). I ask for other editors to review whether or not this is abuse of non-free images. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this category: Category:Template-Class film articles supposed to exist? As I pointed out on User talk:Ysangkok#Template:Adam Shankman there are already thousands of categories like this on Wikipedia. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
For the guidelines of WikiProject Films, I proposed a write-up about a film's historical and scientific accuracies on its talk page. As part of my proposal, I also rewrote the existing and related "Adaptation from source material" section to be more explanatory. I ask for other editors to provide feedback about the new write-up and/or the changes to the existing section. Discussion can be found here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Wes Craven#Merger proposal regarding the potential merging of 25/8 back into the Craven article. Additional opinions are requested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
During the past couple of weeks, a user has been emphasizing a rumor that Orson Welles rather than Carol Reed directed The Third Man. They have added the word "disputed" beside The Third Man entry on Reed's film template [2], [3], Carol Reed's filmography, Welles' film template [4], [5]], [6] as well as removed Carol Reed's name as director of the film [7] and added the statement that Welles plausibly directed the film [8]. My subsequent discussion with this editor can be found at Talk:The Third Man#No dispute about Reed as director in which I state that all reliable sources, including Welles himself, all say Welles' involvement was only minimal and that Reed was the director. I inserted this text to clarify the issue. I think I've gone as far I can on my own and would prefer a third opinion. Can someone weigh in on the talk page discussion, especially about the proper method for dealing with old rumors like this? — CactusWriter | needles 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, July 21, 2009
Alien vs. Predator will be displayed on the Main Page on July 23. WikiProject Films would like film-related articles to be at their best when presented to a wide audience, so I ask editors to review the film article and make changes to improve it further in time for its showcase. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I addressed this issue at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film), but as it might be overlooked there I would like to repeat it here. According to the article, "[Shane] Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production," yet he is listed in the infobox as "uncredited." Given his contribution appears to have been substantial, I would like to see an explanation of why he received no screen credit somewhere within the article. I think this is something worth discussing. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Xbvca keeps adding screenshots to this article. I tried explaining to him (or her) why these are unnecessary but he just removed my comments from his talk page and keeps reverting the images I deleted. Would someone please intervene and explain why there shouldn't be three images in one short article, especially when nothing in the article refers to the specific images in detail? Thank you for your help. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about public domain images. The description of the pictures used in this article says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice". These are screenshots, so doesn't the studio that made or released the film own them? And where were they published without a copyright notice? If someone puts an image they don't even own on the internet without a copyright notice, does that automatically put it in the public domain? LargoLarry ( talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear All I am working on Bengali Cinema. Most of the cases I add as external links Gomolo.in. Now a day I have a problem with other users,who claim about this site is not WP:RS and its a spam. I dont know any technical aspect about gomolo.in. Is it true this website is a spam? [9], [10]. If surely this site is a spam I shuld not use as a exterlan links. And please check this website, only one I found after imdb and citwf.com one and olny have Bengali Cinema database yaes wise, and other category wise shorted. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in and give you valuable comments. thanks- Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in I demonstrated in great detail how Gomolo.in (a Hindi-Bengali movie database) just exceeds the threshold for notability per the WP:GROUP guide. Unfortunately, the notability guide seems meaningless at AfD. Milo 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Further views would be useful at Talk:The Fox and the Hound#Character section discussing whether a character section or character list would be appropriate for this film. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for dredging this up again, but after I removed material from the Aaron Johnson (actor) article that was sourced to imdb, indicating that imdb is not a reliable source, an editor who insists on including it is arguing that there is no consensus on this point. I responded by pointing to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the various discussions on imdb, which indicate otherwise, including this first page of search results, which features 20 discussions on it, 15 of which include posts by editors who indicate it is clearly unreliable. The other five or so include some ambiguity or dissent. I think it clearly qualifies as a "consensus", but User:Lx 121 insists that it is not. I also pointed to this guideline (a link to which I also found here on the RSN), but he claims that's for notability, not verifiability, which I think is hair-splitting, since the spirit of that guideline is that imdb is simply not reliable. So I ask: Don't all these discussions constitute a consensus for the purpose of removing it per WP:V/ WP:RS? Doesn't that guideline reasonably apply to verifiability? Nightscream ( talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm having some trouble with a user (anon IP) who keeps adding the IMDB rating for The Fifth Element insisting that there's no problem including it. I spoke with Collectonian on this, who agreed with me and said that there should be a discussion here, I believe, establishing that IMDB ratings shouldn't be included, but I'm having trouble finding said discussion. I'd really appreciate it if someone with a bit more experience, or perhaps authority/diplomacy, than I could either get this sorted out or point me in the right direction. Hm, just noticed that the item right before mine is similar to this one.
Thanks for your help! Doniago ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) is ambitiously working to get all Star Trek films to Featured Article status. He's achieved this with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Currently, he has Star Trek: First Contact placed for peer review, so if anyone has time, please review the article and share your thoughts in regard to the style and content. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is currently undergoing its second featured article candidacy. Its been a week since it was nominated, with no support/opposes at all, only two comment (one added today), that doesn't actually indicate if they support or oppose. More views would be helpful one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
On Twitter, Jimmy Wales tweeted this article about the Davos World Economic Forum releasing its Flickr stream of 2,600 photos under the Attribution-ShareAlike license. (See more about licenses here.) Most film articles have copyrighted photos—screenshots or production stills—since only the oldest films are in public domain. Is anyone familiar enough with film studios to know if they maintain archives of production stills or specific screenshots? It may be a worthwhile campaign to petition to studios about being providers of such images, using one of the Creative Commons licenses. This way, we could illustrate film articles without struggling for adequate rationale of non-free images. What do others think? Is it in the realm of possibility? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled on this "lovely" list while looking at articles in the GAR Sweeps queue. It was riddled with excessive non-free images, copyright violating links to YouTube videos, fansite "sources", ridiculously minor characters, etc. [12] It still has a lot of problems with excessive plot, in-universe prose, lack of any real notability, lack of sources, and a lot of OR. Personally, I don't think the list is necessary at all, however as it exists, before discussing merging or deletion, clean up to see if its salvageable seems the better option. So I did an initial clean up to address the first, and most major of issues regarding removing the illegal stuff and the fansite and minor characters. [13] The talk page also has nothing but forum discussions and opinions rather than discussions on approving the articles. One of the list's only editors reverted this as "vandalism" (for which he has been warned), however additional eyes and discussion is likely going to be needed here as his response to the message was to blank it. Thoughts on other clean ups to do and other ways of dealing with the list? Volunteers to help cull down the excessive plot and look for third-party sources to justify this list? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club, which recently went through the FAC process to become a Featured Article, has a dispute going on about whether or not the "See also" section's list of similar works, cited by Allmovie, is appropriate to include. FAC reviewers that supported the article's nomination as FA did not seem to have a problem with it, but a couple of editors after the article's promotion seem to disagree that the "See also" section is appropriate. Can others review the situation to weigh the merits of the section or lack thereof? Discussion is here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 00:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Characters of From Dusk till Dawn has a "gallery" of characters embedded way down at the bottom of the article. Need opinions on whether or not it passes muster for Fair-Use.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Would somebody please explain to me why this article is even necessary? Shouldn't the characters be described in the individual film articles? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Adaptation.#Move is going through a discussion whether or not people want to change the article. Need opinions on whether it should change or not. Wildroot ( talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
After seeing this at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) as the latest in the proliferation of so-called succession boxes, I am coming to the conclusion that these boxes are being abused. It does not seem relevant to have these boxes, especially so many. If a film holds the #1 position at the box office in whatever territory for quite a few weekends, it should already be covered in prose. It's not really relevant to know what came after (important usurpers can be written in prose) and even less relevant to know what came before, at least in the scope of that particular article. I would like to see if there is consensus to remove such boxes or at least impose some kind of limit on them. (We may need to conduct similar discussions about award-related succession boxes; what came before and after one particular year's Best Picture winner is not within the topical scope of that one film.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
← To help build consensus, I've nominated the templates {{ Box Office Leaders}} and {{ Box Office Leaders USA}} for deletion; see discussion here. While this will not remove all box office-related succession boxes, these templates are used in quite a few articles already, and successful deletion of them may serve as a catalyst to deprecating the boxes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two discussions going on about the guidelines at its talk page:
Please feel free to share your thoughts! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just saw Australia on DVD and I immediately noticed an anachronism. The film opens in September 1939. Lady Ashley sees a newspaper ad for The Wizard of Oz before the start of the cattle drive, which arrives in Darwin just before the beginning of the rainy season, which lasts from November through April according to [14]. This means it's safe to assume she saw the ad in September or October 1939. But The Wizard of Oz didn't open in Australia until April 1940. Also, it opened in the United States in August 1939, so I doubt Australians would have been that familiar with "Over the Rainbow" just one or two months later, but Lady Ashley knew the tune and some of the words. It's amazing that Baz Luhrmann didn't do better research. If he was going to make The Wizard of Oz such an important element of the film, he should have set the beginning a year later than he did. I'm wondering if this anachronism is something that should be mentioned in the article. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions The Wizard of Oz and "Over the Rainbow" so why not mention the ananchronism in the same section? I think it's too important to ignore. LargoLarry ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone requested help tagging all the movie articles on the project, and the bot went nuts (in my opinion) and started tagging articles for movie-based theme park attractions (like Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin) and movie-themed amusement parks (like Universal Studios Hollywood). After I went through deleting the truly inappropriate tags, a couple of editors of these articles thought that the tag was appropriate in select cases ... for example, for Star Tours, the Star Wars-themed motion simulator ride at Disney theme parks worldwide. The two schools of thought are: (a) it's not a film, it's a ride; and (b) the main component of the ride is a film.
So, I asked on the talk page if the editors of that article thought that such attractions (those that have movie components, like motion simulators and in-park 3-D movies; not those themed to a certain movie) truly do fall within the scope of the Films WikiProject. At the same time, I thought I'd ask the WikiProject itself what its members thought ... should theme-park rides with movie components fall within its scope?
Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Argentine films contains only links found in Template:Cinema of Argentina. For this reason I am removing the former form articles also containing the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
At the Featured Article Rob-B-Hood, six non-free images are being used in the article body. Judging from the content, the only image that seems appropriate for inclusion is the one of Jackie Chan hanging from the roller coaster (due to neighboring content about stunts). The "Writing" image adds nothing to the article, the baby is not important to show in the "Cast" section, and the two images in the "Plot" section are just decorative of the scenes with no significance attached through critical commentary. Lastly, the poster image in the "Reception" section is a near-duplicate of the image in the infobox. Since this is a Featured Article (and I am a bit astounded about the lack of image review at its FAC), I wanted to see what other film editors thought about how the images are applied before I go about removing them. Please see the discussion at Talk:Rob-B-Hood#Overuse of non-free images. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently User:Marychan41 began changing many film articles to change the distributor listed for the film from Universal Studios to Universal Pictures, even though the later redirects to the former. From her edit summaries, she feels that Universal Pictures is more accurate, stating some variation of "The film was released by Universal Pictures! The film's poster clearly states that the film is [Universal Pictures presents]". It became a full blown edit war over the issue between her and another editor (not me) at The Lost World: Jurassic Park. In subseqeunt edit summaries, she's stated
I've invited both editors here to discuss it and to get consensus on which should be used. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
← ( edit conflict) Let's shift discussion to Talk:Universal Studios/Archives/2014#Universal Pictures because we don't need to discuss specifics on a community level for this particular article. If anyone is interested in joining discussion, feel free to drop by there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of TLC. Most of the Adaptation section is missing references. The Character Search section is mostly just a list of actors and the referenced source is IMDb trivia. The Source section is all POV. This classic film deserves a much better Wikipedia article than this. 63.3.15.2 ( talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Lion King and The Care Bears Movie are both currently undergoing Good Article Reassessments as part of the Sweeps effort. Both failed the GA criteria right now and will be delisted in seven days if they aren't fixed. Any volunteers? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please explain to me why the first release of a film doesn't count if its at a film festival? BOVINEBOY2008 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion to move multiple lists of film series to more direct list names, for example, to move List of film octologies to List of film series with eight entries. Please see the multiple-move discussion here: Talk:Film series#Requested move. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this article really within the scope of our project? It looks to be very much like a TV series to me, yet it is classed as one of our core articles. PC78 ( talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Psycho (1960 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A number of IP users have been changing " Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to " East Sea (Sea of Japan)"; this is contrary to existing Wikipedia concensus outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). I've reverted, pointed the IPs to the relevant guideline, even had the article protected for a few days, but it keeps happening. A few more eyes on this would be welcome, especially as I'm going to be offline for a few days. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that was in sad need of cleanup and sourcing [15], so I did so... removing the "citation needed" tags and "unreferenced" tags as I added the requested citations as I cleaned the darn thing. [16] However the editor who had done all the tagging, came back and replaced a "unreferenced" tag on the filmography section [17] with a caution that I not remove his tag unless I source the section. So I added some [18] and simply tagged the section for "more sources". In my noticing that actor articles do not have their filmography sections specifcally sourced, I am wondering is this something that we need do now for all actor articles? If so, there are a few thousand actor articles that now need to be so tagged. If such is not required, might I have a link to the guideline or decision that states it, so I might forward that on to the tagging editor? Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 02:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Sourcing_a_filmology decltype ( talk) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to nominate this article for deletion if my reasoning is wrong, so could someone please give me advice before I do?
I don't think it meets notability requirements because
Thank you for your help. MovieMadness ( talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, since Adaptation. was moved to Adaptation (film) and Good Night, and Good Luck. was moved to Good Night, and Good Luck, I started discussion at WT:NCF to see if we need guidelines for films with punctuation and other special characters at WP:NCF. See the discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
For a long time, WikiProject Films has used bold formatting mainly in the "Cast" sections of its film articles. Despite this tradition, though, MOS:BOLD makes clear that outside the lead sentence, only a "few special uses" apply: table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers of journal articles. I was removing the bold formatting on several film articles (mainly mainstream ones that get the most attention) when an editor took issue with it. Do others think that there is any reason to ignore MOS:BOLD? I consulted with Tony1, who helped get dates de-linked across Wikipedia articles, and he said this about the formatting. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Per a recent TfD, Template:Box Office Leaders was deleted and subsequently removed from all articles. But it seems there are still a lot of articles left with "Box office number-one films" succession boxes, using Template:Succession box instead of Template:Box Office Leaders ( Hot Fuzz and Norbit, for instance), so some help in cleaning those up would be appreciated. -- Conti| ✉ 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I found some 2007 films that still had the boxes, but I'm going to stop since there's no point in two people working on the same project. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Conti, I left this message on your talk page, but figured I'd copy it here since others may be engaging in the same task. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road, especially since this huge change has precipitated in little more than a week. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Under what circumstances should a cast be converted into a table, or should it just be avoided altogether?
Actor | Role |
---|---|
John Doe | Not Real |
Bob Johnson | John Q. Public |
^^^ Such as this ^^^ • S • C • A • R • C • E • 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, at The Hurt Locker, an editor is unable to assume good faith of others' contributions and reverts our changes, such as the addition of a "Cast" section and the expansion of the "Plot" section. I ask other editors to visit the film article and see what changes they endorse. See page history here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
← I blocked Inurhead for edit warring. I urge you to once again read WP:VANDAL. Finally, consensus can change. You happen to be on the wrong side of it. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about Pulp Fiction at the article's talk page about how the plot summary is structured. Please see the discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Ymovies title 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. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Did some clean up at the List of The Lion King characters to remove what I felt were minor characters, excessive plottiness, etc in an attempt to see if the list has any actual notability and value before sending it to AfD. [19] Primarily one other editor and I are in disagreement over this clean up as he feels all of the minor characters removed should be restored and that I'm only pushing my own POV instead of following guidelines, while I feel we should be moving on to sourcing what's left and adding creation/conception and reception sections to validate the lists existence. Additional views are seriously needed at Talk:List of The Lion King characters#Cleanup - overdoing it? as we are basically doing nothing now but arguing back and forth which will never solve anything. Please come take a look and offer additional views. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Softlavender is adding Category:Films based on short stories to articles that already have Category:Films based on short fiction in them. Isn't this redundant? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think short stories are understood to be works of fiction. In fact, the article Short story says it refers to a work of fiction that is usually written in prose, usually in narrative format. Sodtlavender's addition seems unnecessary. (Recently she added Category:Monodrama to articles that already had Category:Plays for one performer so it seems she likes to over-categorize if such a word exists!) LargoLarry ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The above section of WP:MOSFILM states the following:
"Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
Should this be interpreted to mean:
or
There seems to be a dispute on Meet the Parents on whether it's appropriate or not to list other English speaking countries' dates of release if the American film was first released in the United States.
Thanks you! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
- The film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{ Start date}} should be used.
- Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases.
- Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film.
- In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:
- The film's earliest theatrical release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{ Start date}} should be used.
Guideline removed- Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film. This should concur with the "Country" parameter in the infobox.
- In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
Changes are italicized above. Any suggestions or oppositions would be helpful. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi i am added new task force for Sri lankan Tamil cinema, as am quite new to here, please help me to work better here.--BlueLankan 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ italic title}} was created so titles of articles about films, plays, books, TV shows, etc could be italicized but I don't see it being used. Is there a reason for that? 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In the article about the film Zinda which is a remake of Oldboy, there is a section discussing the similarities and differences between the two films. Zhanzhao ( talk · contribs) has been reverting everyone who removes this section. According to WP:MOSFILM (4.4.5) such sections should not be created and particular differences/similarities should be mentioned only in context: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." - wrong? Shahid • Talk2me 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Future film 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. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the people who prepare the main page of Wikipedia didn't think it was important enough to mention, I would like to note that on this day in 1939 The Wizard of Oz was released! 63.3.15.129 ( talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it has to be said. "I can while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain. And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain." There. I feel better. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings film buffs,
An IP has pointed out that our article on Donnie Darko gives two different figures for both budget and revenue ( [20]). Different websites give different figures and I don't know what's a reliable source for this kind of information, so I thought I'd seek help here.
Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just nominated these categories at WP:CFD, since I think they may be examples of over-categorisation: the discussion is here. I wondered who best to notify, and thought this was probably the best place. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for this sort of help but hopefully there is a quick fix here. A user with a long history of vandalism has recently made a minor change to Scream 2 which does look plausible but then I have never seen the film, given the editor's background could somebody have a quick look and ensure his edit is correct? RaseaC ( talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)