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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Do their figures include marketing costs? Or is that extra? I'm asking because I see film articles that say films broke even because their worldwide revenue just about equaled their listed budget. Gary King ( talk) 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the consensus of adding the year of a film next to the followed by/preceded by in the infobox for films. Like:
Thanks. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I don't know that consensus on this exists, I've seen entries with and without the year of release. My personal opinion is that the year is not necessary. The infobox is meant to display the basic information about the film without going into too much detail. Prequels and sequels to a film are basic information but any additional information about them, including the year of release, is best left handled by the infobox and the article of the prequel or sequel in question. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story#'Accuracy' subsection on whether a religion-based critical review is appropriate to be included. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it the norm or required to add US$ and US$ next to box office and production numbers, even if the film was made in the US? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have this GA on hold, but the main editor has retired. Since all that's needed is the plot section to be modified, would one of you be able to take a crack at it? Thanks, Wizardman 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I read somewhere here, and now can't find, a convincing statement that for a film to recoup all the costs it incurs it must earn twice as much as its budget. (This included the local theater costs, and other things that are apparently not generally included in the the budget or the gross.) Could people comment on how useful this concept is? Is the comparison between budget and gross meant to reflect how much the film's backers made or lost?
A related question is when are these budget and gross figures compiled? How long after a film is released before it can "truly" be said to be a financial failure? Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
At the box office the budget x 3 is seen as a success, and takes into account the cost of prints and P&A. On his commentaries Kevin Smith has stated that a $10m needs to make $30m to be considered a success, the amount of DVDs made are then calculated off the box office (usually 1 million DVDs for each $10m), and horror films tend to rent better than indie films. If you mean at the box office the truth is most films are a success or failure by Sunday night of their first weekend, as the second weekend usually has a 50-70% drop. As an example Old Dogs has a budget of $35m, as of today it has made $25m, it needs to make $115m to be a success (as the P&A will be around $10m) It's first weekend was $16m, and so it may finish with a US domestic gross of around $60m (US dom is usually first weekend x 4). I would call Old Dogs a box office failure. Of course it could make $100m on DVD sales but I doubt it. To test this theory pick a film that did OK, look it up on BOM and check out its budget, its opening weekend and its final take. If the budget is B then the formula is Bx2 for the opening weekend and Bx4 for the final figure for it to be a success. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting the finishing touches on a WP:GAN on an actress, and am having trouble finding a reliable source covering soundtracks (on which the actress appeared) to finish it up. Any suggestions? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The film Old Dogs is not doing too well with film critics' reviews:
And yet, despite this, Shicoco ( talk · contribs) has twice now added tags to the top of the article's page: [1] and [2]. I find it kind of odd that this account has no contributions to Wikipedia since August 2009 [3], but that is besides the point.
I worked very hard on researching and adding material to the Critical reception subsection of this article. It actually does include some positive reception in the article, despite the extremely low ratings at review aggregated sites. I would appreciate some input, at Talk:Old Dogs (film), especially on whether this tagging by Shicoco ( talk · contribs) is appropriate or not. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask again. So there are no limit for the amount of reviews in an article and what makes those comments so notable to be in the intro section? Ricardoread ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Some additional eyes and views could be helpful here. I was called to the attention of this article by a relatively newer editor tried to change WP:MOSFILM's guidelines to allow the article's originally 1000+ word plot summary. This was reverted and he started a discussion questioning the guidelines of 400-700 words (which could also use additional views). In responding to the discussion, I looked at the article and applied some MoS fixes and rewrote the plot summary from its then just over 700 word length to a more compact sub-500 word length, almost entirely by just cleaning up the prose. There is a discussion on the talk page over whether the first paragraph [4] should be restored at Talk:A Serious Man#Remove Notice?, and a second discussion over the apparent dispute with my removing the long cast section as the cast was already listed in the plot at Talk:A Serious Man#Cast section. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There does seem to be some sort of fairly clear sub-genre of horror movies set at Christmas time. Given that Christmas is approaching soon, and it might be nice to have a few topical DYKs for the main page on that day, this might be an interesting one to have available. Is there any sort of real notability to the "genre"? John Carter ( talk) 17:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have serious questions about this article. The username of the editor and primary contributor, as well as that editor's history, indicates a direct connection to the people who made the film, and I don't find any references to the film in google news or any other quickly obvious RS's. John Carter ( talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Some assistance is needed at this article about its Plot and Casting sections: Talk:Jennifer's Body#Plot and Casting sections. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Foluwaso ( talk · contribs) is adding en-masse in the external links section of several films a link to the films' reviews on a website called bestforfilm.com. I've never heard of this website so I hold no opinion as far as its usefulness but the amount of links that are being added, coupled with the fact that most of them are not inserted as references but rather as external links (non-conforming per WP:ELNO), makes me think this is a case of WP:LINKSPAM. Before I do anything with these links, can someone else take a look at this and let me know what you think?
Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the right thing to do when you're updating box office tables on films; and Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers have different numbers for that film. As it stands now, it seems that The-Numbers has the most accurate figures for Foreign markets, but is mostly the same for domestic compared to BOM. So on the tables I cite(ed) both the sites in the Reference cell. Just recently I removed Harry Potter (film series) and Saw (franchise) source for the The-Numbers and just left it one source (BOM) after someone (and I'll admit really doesn't seem to understand WP policy himself) said something about the "accuracy". So after thinking about it I just removed The-Numbers so it wouldn't cause any confusion/problems in the future. What is your take on this? Did I have it right the first time? Thanks per usual -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The reality is, both are reliable. Unless there is a huge difference in the figures, use whichever one you want. Chances are, it's just a matter of one updating before the other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(comment that didn;t get posted from 3 days ago) BOm calculate their figures by multiplying the ticket numbers (where they get these I don't know) by an average ticket price. Clearly since the gross is split among hundreds of organisations the only way to get accurate figures would be as part of the distribution deal. Even then, I have no idea if cinemas are honest about this stuff. But be that as it may, where sources differ we should be a little careful about choosing one. We can give a range which is what we do with other figures. $986 - $988 Million ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough ( talk • contribs) 17:22, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on about the viewing numbers of the film. The http://www.kinokultura.com/plus/prokat2.html site claims 33.3 million viewers while the number gets deleted by a fan of Sofia Rotaru and replaced by a greater number based on an oral statement by Alexander Stefanovich, the director of the film. The latter has later admitted starting rumours on Alla Pugacheva selling 100 million records which he had invented himself. Therefore Stefanovich is a highly unreliable source for such figures. See Talk:Dusha for details. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to confirm that the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" entries in the infobox are for titles of films in a related series, such as The Godfather, The Godfather I, and The Godfather II. Someone edited an article I created and add the unrelated films the director made before and after the film discussed in the article, which I think is incorrect. LargoLarry ( talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions going on regarding the naming of the Twilight film articles that could use some further views from more neutral voices. The first, looking at renaming New Moon (2009 film) to The Twilight Saga: New Moon is at Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move. The second at Talk:Eclipse (2010 film) proposes a similar move of that article to The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I left my neutral opinion on the "New Moon" talk page, hope it helps.... Ricardoread ( talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Further views could also be used regarding the formatting of the cast list of this and the other articles, which I tagged for clean up. Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#Cast Section (s). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The title of the article The Messenger is in italics. I seem to recall a discussion a while back in which the consensus was article titles should not be italicized. Is this format now acceptable? LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This won't be all of them, but I've found the following using AWB if someone wants to sort them out:
PC78 ( talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have worked very hard on this article and I nominated it for consideration for WP:GA. Concerns have been raised at the talk page for the article Inchon (film), about the size of the lede. I directly implemented the suggested wording changes to the lede given by the editor who posted to the talk page [7]. I then worked to significantly trim down the overall size of the lede, from this [8], to this [9]. I'd love to get some more input on my quality improvement efforts, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Another question - why do people keep spelling it lede when it's correctly spelled lead at [10]? 209.247.21.77 ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can't find lede in any dictionary, so it just looks like people don't know how to spell it. Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to use standard English instead of "insider jargon"? 209.247.21.77 ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just really noticed the above named category today, which was created on December 12 by User:TMC1982. Just curious, to most films get this degree of attention? John Carter ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor there is going against WP:Consensus regarding Rotten Tomatoes being a reliable and acceptable source here at Wikipedia. Some assistance in explaining to this editor that this source is perfectly fine for relaying the reception of films is needed: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Rotten Tomatoes. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The backlog at GAN is starting to get out of hand, with 50+ pending noms in the film, music, and theatre section. I doubt the ordinary reviewer body could handle such a huge backload speedily so I'm wondering if some of you guys could help bring it under control. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Could a more experienced movie article editor run their eye over this for me please? Particularly the plot section, which I found quite hard to write. I'd be most appreciative, as I want to nominate it for DYK later in the week. Stu ’Bout ye! 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring here about the use of cast/crew members in navigation boxes, including film navboxes. Comments would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at what's happening with the addition of the Variety review to the article on the recently-opened film Yesterday Was a Lie? An editor added the review here, with what was perhaps a slightly POV description ("otherwise positive" for what was, in fact, a mixed review). I expanded the section by adding more quotes from the review, provided the full text of the bolded lede paragraph of the review in a footnote for support, and moved it up in the "Response" section as the most important review the film has received. I also altered what I had added when I thought it was a bit unbalanced on the negative side by inverting the section so that the review's positive remarks came first. The other editor, after a brief talk page "conversation" with an IP editing from a mobile device (the 166.x range), removed some of the quotes and addding a positive qualifier, and then moved the review back down into the middle of the "Response" section, thus giving pride of place to periodicals such as Film Threat magazine over Variety, the newspaper of record for the film industry. Rather than "avoiding bias" these changes served to introduce bias by misrepresenting the Variety review and attempting to bury it in the article.
I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look and do whatever is necessary to present the judgment of the Variety article in a NPOV fashion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. I realise that it might be a little presumptuous of me to include it right away as a subpage of the project's Manual of Style, but there isn't anything in the guide that conflicts with or adds to the MoS. Feel free to disagree. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a small question regarding the use of flags in film infoboxes. A while ago, I noticed a lot of film articles have flags in the infobox, but they almost always used the present flag, even on old films before that flag was used, something I found a bit confusing and annoying. I started editing several film articles to add the flag used when the film was made instead. After doing this on quite a few, however, I was told by User:Lugnuts that flags should not be used in infoboxes and referred me to this and this. Although after reading both of them, I haven´t found anything written there that says anything against the use of flags in the described way in particular. The Film Manual of Style says that flags should not be used instead of country names, nothing about using them together with the country name (which I did). The Icon Manual of Style is very unclear about the question too; also saying that they should not be used instead of country names (but nothing about using them together) and not be used to indicate a person’s place of birth.
Am I missing something here? I would really like to get a definite answer as this issue has made me a bit confused. Lugnuts seems to be a respected editor of Wikipedia and I trust his/her word, but the manual of style seems to have no definite answer on this and there are a lot of film articles at present that use flags, so it does not seem to be a prioritized issue. It may be a trivial matter, but I would really like to get this question resolved, and perhaps it can be put in the Manual of Style more clearly. I don´t want any other users to repeat my mistake, and I also would like to see it resolved so we can have consistent film articles instead of some having flags, some haven´t. Either way is fine by me. Hope to hear from you! Ding Chavez ( talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the debate we had about flag usage on the Snooker Project. We came to the conclusion that flags shouldn't be used unless you can demonstrate the real-life usage of the flag in that particular context. Most of the problems derived from the Ulster banner, and I'm sure there are many inflammatory flags - for instance, do you use the Nazi Swastika on films made by Germany under the Nazi regime? A real life context that would justify flag usage in this context would be if a production company regularly used its national flag on distribution literature about the film, because then you could demonstrate a real-life usage. As for the country of origin, I imagine this runs along similar lines to people's nationalities, and historic geography is always used. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic about if the word "mainstream" should be used in the passage about the consensus as report by Metacritic. Erik ( talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) 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. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
...to move Sideways (movie) back to Sideways after it was erroneously moved. See User_talk:Entertainer91#Problems with your page moves for a full rationale. Viriditas ( talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The article was moved back to Sideways, but the talk page was never fixed; It's still over at Talk:Sideways (film). Could someone move it back to Talk:Sideways? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, a discussion has started at Talk:The Lion King#Merge proposal to discuss merging the character articles into a recreation of the already removed character list (removed by consensus from a not too old discussion about the same thing). Additional views would be useful -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do regarding The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel matter at the Avatar (2009 film) article. The brothers' stories are not related to the film in any way, other than as similarities/comparisons, since James Cameron has not commented on using any of them as themes or inspirations for his film Avatar. Despite that, mention of them is currently in the Themes and inspirations section of this article...as if Cameron did use them as themes or inspirations. I ask should this stuff really be in that section? I say no, as did other editors in their removals of this information from that section, but additional opinions are needed about this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Could we receive some opinions here about some fishy reviews supporting a biased review? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean ( talk || contribs) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! And sorry if I'm treading the ground of old arguments, not being a member of the project. I noticed there's a argument over whether the critical reception for The Twilight Saga: New Moon should be called "mostly negative" or "mixed." The film's scored a 28% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a "weighted average score" of 4.7/10. The argument has been going on for about a week, with lots of reverting, but has happily been civil. So, are there some sort of practices or do members of the project just wing it? If it's the latter, could you please bring enough manpower on that article to bring the matter to a conclusion? Thanks, Kiz o r 19:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
All of the above is cited; none is editor interpretation. Of course, the problem you might have is that seemingly equally reliable sources might label the reception everything from "negative" to "mixed" to "alright" :-) But at least that narrows the focus of the dispute down to what the sources say, rather than what we think they imply. All the best, Steve T • C 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)New Moon received mixed reviews from film critics. [1] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 199, with an average score of 4.7 out of 10. [2] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 44 based on 32 reviews. [1]
Are Yahoo! Movies critics aggregate scores considered reliable and appropriate for inclusion, like RT's and MetaCritics? According to their site "Yahoo! Movies converts each critic's published rating into a letter grade. If the critic's review does not include a rating, Yahoo! Movies assigns a grade based on an assessment of the review." It then averages those grades into a Critics assessment. This generally seems to be from 10-15 critics that they link to. Some examples [14] [15] Previously, consensus seemed to be that Yahoo! Movies should not be included. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I brought it up on the film's talk page, but not sure it'll get many responses. But shouldn't the article be renamed to the official title (what most notable sources call it and it's on the film poster) to Disney's A Christmas Carol? I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and this is the same thing that happened with The Twilight Saga: New Moon and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. How do we get this looked into? Thanks. -- Mike Allen 06:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
According to IMDB it has two titles for its US release. For its normal release it was released as "Disney's A Christmas Carol" but for the IMAX version it was released as "A Christmas Carol". Amazon on the otherhand has its theatrical release down just as "A Christmas Carol" [17].ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1261940911&sr=1-1]. I'd say both titles are legitimate, but if one is taken why not go with the other? Betty Logan ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This film's wiki page has some errors. I fixed them, but then Collectonian would put those errors back in the page; I don't know why? Firstly, this film's UK release date is June 26 2009, but Collectonian keep stating that it is June 18, 2009 and put the date in this film's wiki page. Secondly, East Wing Holdings only produced this film, but didn't release it. But Collectonian keep stating this error info and put the error info in the infobox of this film's wiki page. On the other hand, Collectonian states that a infobox of a film's wiki page should only include the distributor in that film's original countries. It is ridiculous. United States is the most important film market in the world, especially for English-language films like Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film). It is the reason why its United States theatrical distributor should be included in the infobox of this film's wiki page. (Of course, Collectonian keeps delete it) In fact, many infoboxs of many non-US films' wiki pages have listed their United States theatrical distributors. For instance, based on what Collectonian said, maybe we should delete Sony Pictures Classics from the infobox of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus wiki page? Maybe we should also delete 20th Century Fox from the infobox of Taken wiki page? - Marychan41 ( talk • contrib) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I humbly suggest members of this WikiProject have a trawl through articles about films and fix usage of the term "domestic" box office to reflect which countries are actually meant by this? Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This ham-fisted search hit 388 uses on en:, but not all of them are film-related. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Toruk Makto!!! Cirt ( talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion on Sherlock Holmes talk page on whether to include the Motion picture ratings into the article or not, would be appreciated. Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello to the films project! Im Mark, and a member of the WP:Musical Theatre/Theatre. Was wondering if anyone on this project would mine giving a look over Legally Blonde (musical) because im really at a loss who to ask and I really want to get working on the article. Its based on the movie Legally Blonde so thought this might be a good place to ask :). Hope you can help :) Mark E ( talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an editor experienced with image policies to look at The Lovely Bones (film)? There is a string of individual photos of cast members in a row at the end of the cast section and I would like to know if it is acceptable. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been in use for a while now and seems to be the adopted standard for films, regarding writing credits and more than one relevant country of release. It was even in the MOS for film, before Bovineboy2008 went and changed it by his own apparent "consnesus". I think it is necessary for the writing credits, because written by and screenplay by are different things according to the WGA, so you know encyclopedia and accuracy and all. Plus it's aesthetically better than crunched up little writing to the side, for release dates, I don't know whatever I can concede that, but I feel screenplay and story credits are important, so I don't see why having that information bold is so horrible.
Also feel free to chime in over in the Watchmen_(film) article about this, if I'm wrong about this then... hell, it'll be good/better getting more than one persons apparent personal "consensus" that he's right and I'm wrong. Thank you. 173.88.129.35 ( talk) 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I had suggested creating this previously - it is interestingly applied at the article Avatar (2009 film).
What do editors think of this new template? Cirt ( talk) 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
One idea here, could the "cast" info include character/roles? Kind of annoying seeing names of actors but not who plays what part. I know the films do it that way, but seems like wiki could do better at getting info out there.
Richmondian ( talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
After a short discussion at WT:ANIME, which concluded that Firefox News is a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source, I have started a general discussion about the reliability of Firefox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firefox.org/news/. I'm placing this notice here as a number of film articles also reference Firefox News for information. — Farix ( t | c) 14:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a request to move Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film). Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
On a similar note to the above. There is a request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film). Discussion can be found here. kollision ( talk) 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I prodded this film as non-notable, but one of the usual ARS members deprodded it and tried to expand it using non-reliable sources. After others in RSN confirmed what I'd already explained, that this random review on some random website is not a reliable source, he is continuing to try to shove a link to it in the external links section, claiming it meets WP:ELMAYBE, despite there being no evidence this random person who reviewed the article is any sort of film critic or professional. As he and I have butted heads multiple times over his "rescue" of articles using very dubious sourcing, it would be useful if some others could take a look and see if the link is appropriate for adding or not. The discussion is at Talk:King Cobra (film)#Apollo Movie Guide and another ARS member is engaging in tag-teaming to try to get around 3RR and force the addition of this and another invalid link to the article. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Characters and wildlife in Avatar, a sub-article of Avatar (2009 film), underwent AFD as seen here; the outcome was to keep the article. I have worked on the article to ensure real-world context because its initial incarnation violated WP:WAF. I believe that the sub-article will benefit from a move to adjust the scope to be more encompassing; see my comments here, particularly my most recent comment. Erik ( talk) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
See where this begin on this page, this page, and this page.
Since the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is not a US film (it's a UK film), should we add the GBP currency (with the appropriate USD after it) next to the budget/gross within the infobox and within the Box office section? That's the way I have it in the infobox now, but wondered if I should be consistent and use only GBP within the article or GBP along with USD? -- Mike Allen 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's on the actual film's article the home currency should take precedence, after all the currency of the UK is GBP. Listing it in dollars is as diabolical as listing the grosses of US films in GBP - it violates NPOV. There is one exception I can think of: if the worldwide gross is not available in pounds but it is available in dollars, then the dollar currency should take precedence. I am against DIY dollar/pound conversions because the exchange rate fluctuates on a day-to-day basis so the conversion will always be inaccurate. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Unrelated to the above discussion,
Chris Cunningham will make an editprotected request to include genre=
in the {{
Infobox film}} template based on a discussion from October 2009. If anyone has anything to add, please do so
here.
Erik (
talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Many of the B movies of the 1950s and early 1960s were produced and released as part of a double bill or double feature; shouldn't the double bill "partner" be part of the history of such films? E.g. "Attack of the Puppet People was released as part of a double bill with War of the Colossal Beast." Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (Before I posted this I did a search of the archive for "double bill" and "double feature" but suspect this question may have been raised and answered already. Still, am curious.)
There was a recent discussion about how the list of distributors should be restricted to the countries that produced the film. Can I clarify if the list should just be restricted to theatrical distributors or if home video distributors should also be included? It doesn't specify in the infobox guidelines but since some films have separate distributors for cinema and video it would be useful to know. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed several quotes on my creation, Todd Field because I felt they violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE for an article like this. Today, Tellusmore ( talk · contribs) (who I think is a sock) added three reviews (with sources), according to a hidden message I added about a year and a half ago, with the edit summary: (As requested by SchfiftyThree, have added back three reviews only to properly represent scope: Magazine (Newsweek), Newspaper (NY Times), Foreign Press (The Independent)). Are short film reviews acceptable for an article on a celebrity? I'm slowly trying to upgrade this page to a class B, but there are things that need to get settled first. Schfifty 3 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Just thought that I would alert the members of the film project that User:Nicholsy2 has, once again, created a page for this upcoming film. The page is now entitled Thor (movie) which I know is not following the naming conventions for a film. Also, in looking at the editors talk page this seems to be an ongoing thing. I am not quite sure how to proceed so I thought that would let those of you who have dealt with this before do whatever is necessary. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do to clear this up. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments on a proper redirect are requested here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice Allmovie is being mass-removed from film articles. Is this the result of "consensus" here? Or is this a case of individual zealotry which has not infected the group yet? In either case, just to soothe my own conscience, I'd like to remind the project: There are people who use Wikipedia as a reference source, rather than an online game in which one shoots down information instead of aliens. The removal of this external link in no way benefits them, and actually causes much harm. Not that the "less is more, nothing is perfect" crowd cares, of course... But maybe someone does. Dekkappai ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
External links are supposed to provide information that supplements the Wikipedia article about the film. Allmovie is acceptable as a reliable source, so it should be used in the article. I was not targeting Allmovie specifically; there were other websites that I was removing from the "External links" sections. I provide a breakdown of Allmovie at Template talk:Amg movie#Discussion for deprecation if anyone is interested. The problem is that Allmovie's proliferation has been taken for granted, and it proliferates because it has been proliferated. If you want, I can go back and put Allmovie on the film articles' talk pages as a reference to use. From what I can tell, though, people want to overlook WP:EL and treat the "External links" section as a repository for possible references (which it clearly should not be). People at TFD argued that each Allmovie EL should be assessed on its own, which is an insurmountable task, and I guarantee you that people blindly added Allmovie 99% of the time. I know because I did that, too. Please see my link above to see why Allmovie does not qualify as an EL. That's all I will say about Allmovie here; please let me know if you want these links placed on the talk pages instead. Erik ( talk) 12:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Allmovie was discussed back in September and consensus was clear. That the same people are putting forth the same arguments for its indiscriminate removal changes nothing. This was a rather blatant and underhanded attempt to ignore consensus. There's nothing more to say about it. Dekkappai ( talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The template discussion was in regards to deleting the template so Erik's actions aren't against "consensus" so to speak. What I would like to know from Erik is what criteria he is using? If he's indiscriminately removing the template from every article then that is a backdoor way of deleting the template which is against consensus, but if there is a prevailing criteria for including the template and he's just removing it from articles where that criteria isn't met then he isn't doing anything wrong. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Is moviezen.com a reliable source for information on cast and producers lists (or anything else for that matter)? And is it appropriate for external links? Freikorp ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it is unhelpful to readers to have multiple external links providing unique information otherwise inappropriate for inclusion in a film's article, better to default to IMDB for that unique information. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please semi-protect Fictional universe in Avatar? There are IPs trying to copy information directly from the James Cameron's Avatar Wikia. I've had to undo this four times so far. Erik ( talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has raised the question at the Village Pump as to whether the use of Ebert's reviews in many film articles is an overuse, and if his opinion is being given undue weight. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk · contribs) has started a discussion about primary topics in relation to titling film articles. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose an update to the guidelines to standardize the naming of sub-articles that list various recognitions received by a film. In the past, we have used the title "List of awards and nominations received by <film>". The problem with this title is that nominations fall under the class of awards, for which a film can be nominated or can win. Effort has been made to instead name these lists "List of awards and honors received by <film>". The "awards" part encompasses nominations and wins, where the "honors" part encompasses critical recognition, such as AFI's Top 100. It appears that this renaming effort was undone by an admin because he perceived "List of awards and nominations..." as the standard naming. Thus, I would like to make it clear in the guidelines to give lists a more accurate title. There is a similar pattern with articles under WP:ACTOR where "awards and honors" have been pushed back to "awards and nominations", so I have notified editors there as well. What does everyone think of standardizing this titling for such lists? Erik ( talk) 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that we're looking for a one-size-fits-all title. If that's not possible, why try to fudge it when we can perhaps put together some baggier recommendations based on the circumstances? For a straight list of awards wins, List of awards received by xxxx should be perfectly acceptable, as should something more specific if editors want to include nominations or other accolades, such as appearances on AFI lists. I dunno, List of awards and accolades received by xxxx or something (maybe even just List of accolades received by xxxx). I don't think it's necessary to be too prescriptive, as long as the title gives an adequate description of the content; sensible editors can work it out on a case-by-case basis. Steve T • C 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here from a new project that you may have heard of: Wikipedia:Article incubator. It's kind of a centralized and monitored version of userfication, for articles that have been or are about to be deleted or userfied. When someone expresses an interest in "saving" such an article, but needs more time, the incubator is a place where it can receive patient attention without the threat of imminent deletion. You can read all about it at the link.
Anyway, someone suggested adding the incubator to Wikipedia:Article alerts, but their feature requests page seems inactive. So, I'm doing this manually.
We've got a few film articles, and I'm notifying this project of their existence, so you can have a look. If they are brought up to standards, then you flip a switch in a template, and a seconder will copy it to the mainspace. Alternatively, if it seems after research that an article there can't be brought up to standards, we'll kill it humanely.
There may be more, and as soon as someone makes a way, we can standardize this kind of notification. Thanks for listening. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#What makes a review site a reliable source? in which an editor, User:Dream Focus, has proposed that WP:RS be changed to state that if a review site receives a stated number of hits, it should be considered automatically reliable and usable for both a reliable source and establishing notability. As Films is one of the main projects that uses reviews for its articles, it seemed relevant for notification. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Is a website that searches film scripts for phrases, such as subzin.com, a reliable source that something was mentioned in a film (for a popular culture section) or would a secondary source be required? Freikorp ( talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to gauge other editors' thoughts about linking in the lead sentence. There are three items that tend to be linked in the lead sentence for film articles:
We link to these three items, depending on the film, pretty intensely. I've been reconsidering the value of these links. First, per WP:OVERLINK, we want to add links that aid navigation and understanding of the article or its context. My impression is that we tend to avoid linking to countries because they are too general to add understanding to the article. The "Cinema of..." links are an effort to be more specific, but I am not sure if they still help. For example, what does Cinema of the United States really say about most American films of 2009? The point of including nationality is to tell the reader where the film came from, if it is not complicated to tell. I think that "<year> in film" has more credibility but possibly not enough for the lead sentence. What value is there in showing films of the same year, especially at that point? I think it may be a distracting link and could be better used in deeper context. For example, linking to it as you call a film one of the best of <year>. The value of the link would be to show readers what other film came out that year.
Lastly, overlinking is also an issue with genres in the lead sentence. I've been trying a different approach with some articles, which is to only link to sub-genres or genres that are not so common. For example, if we identify a film as a 2010 American comedy film, what value is there to point to comedy film? The key is in the general definition. We know what comedy means and what film means, and we know that it is a film with comedic elements. Sub-genres that have better value, in my opinion, are black comedy or screwball comedy film. I do not have a problem with links to specific people because names are more specialized than the other words we use in the lead sentence. Just my thoughts on the matter since our lead sentences have always been so blue. What do others think? Erik ( talk) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(←) I thought I've read that the lead (or lede) sentence should be the most 'wikilinked' part of the article? — Mike Allen 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Catgut ( talk · contribs) has expressed concern about inconsistencies in titling articles about Italian films. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion for more. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A new batch of overly narrow and some ORy film related categories are up for CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 8 that were created by User:Lg16spears. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything on it. For IMDb links in the External links section of film articles, which title should we put if the article title differs from the IMDb page? For example, we have an article called A Police Inspector Accuses which is known on IMDb by it's original title Un comisar acuză. Should the external link say "Un comisar acuza at the Internet Movie Database" or "A Police Inspector Accuses" at the Internet Movie Database? I have been doing it one way, but recently seen other people doing it the other way and wondered if there was any consensus about this. Cheers, -- Beloved Freak 14:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:This gets in deep territory (that can be avoided). The "deep territory" is: What is the purpose of the title? Historically, say 50 years ago, an article or book title was primarily a "hook" to get the appropriate readers interested. Now, in the age of redirects and search engines, of Wikipedia guidelines, the title is still a hook, but isn't all-important. A choice of title that is in some way weak may be insignificant; if search engines simply search the whole text, then what's important is to mention the alternate titles in the article. What *is* to be avoided is debate about what title is marginally more correct; essentially those arguments are endless. Few English readers know "Das Boot" by its English name? Well, maybe. But how many English readers won't figure out the problem in a few moments? I.e. it doesn't make much difference whether the article is "Das Boot" or "The Boat", the reader's going to figure it out pretty quickly. And, for the few that don't? It's only a few extra seconds to use Wiki search ... get directed to
The Boat (film), see that it's wrong, click the disambiguation link, hunt down the right version. (In some ways, that process is *more* useful, because it alerts readers to related subjects.) Don't sweat the titles, just make them unambiguous in Wiki. Regards,
Piano non troppo (
talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Do their figures include marketing costs? Or is that extra? I'm asking because I see film articles that say films broke even because their worldwide revenue just about equaled their listed budget. Gary King ( talk) 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the consensus of adding the year of a film next to the followed by/preceded by in the infobox for films. Like:
Thanks. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I don't know that consensus on this exists, I've seen entries with and without the year of release. My personal opinion is that the year is not necessary. The infobox is meant to display the basic information about the film without going into too much detail. Prequels and sequels to a film are basic information but any additional information about them, including the year of release, is best left handled by the infobox and the article of the prequel or sequel in question. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story#'Accuracy' subsection on whether a religion-based critical review is appropriate to be included. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it the norm or required to add US$ and US$ next to box office and production numbers, even if the film was made in the US? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have this GA on hold, but the main editor has retired. Since all that's needed is the plot section to be modified, would one of you be able to take a crack at it? Thanks, Wizardman 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I read somewhere here, and now can't find, a convincing statement that for a film to recoup all the costs it incurs it must earn twice as much as its budget. (This included the local theater costs, and other things that are apparently not generally included in the the budget or the gross.) Could people comment on how useful this concept is? Is the comparison between budget and gross meant to reflect how much the film's backers made or lost?
A related question is when are these budget and gross figures compiled? How long after a film is released before it can "truly" be said to be a financial failure? Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
At the box office the budget x 3 is seen as a success, and takes into account the cost of prints and P&A. On his commentaries Kevin Smith has stated that a $10m needs to make $30m to be considered a success, the amount of DVDs made are then calculated off the box office (usually 1 million DVDs for each $10m), and horror films tend to rent better than indie films. If you mean at the box office the truth is most films are a success or failure by Sunday night of their first weekend, as the second weekend usually has a 50-70% drop. As an example Old Dogs has a budget of $35m, as of today it has made $25m, it needs to make $115m to be a success (as the P&A will be around $10m) It's first weekend was $16m, and so it may finish with a US domestic gross of around $60m (US dom is usually first weekend x 4). I would call Old Dogs a box office failure. Of course it could make $100m on DVD sales but I doubt it. To test this theory pick a film that did OK, look it up on BOM and check out its budget, its opening weekend and its final take. If the budget is B then the formula is Bx2 for the opening weekend and Bx4 for the final figure for it to be a success. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting the finishing touches on a WP:GAN on an actress, and am having trouble finding a reliable source covering soundtracks (on which the actress appeared) to finish it up. Any suggestions? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The film Old Dogs is not doing too well with film critics' reviews:
And yet, despite this, Shicoco ( talk · contribs) has twice now added tags to the top of the article's page: [1] and [2]. I find it kind of odd that this account has no contributions to Wikipedia since August 2009 [3], but that is besides the point.
I worked very hard on researching and adding material to the Critical reception subsection of this article. It actually does include some positive reception in the article, despite the extremely low ratings at review aggregated sites. I would appreciate some input, at Talk:Old Dogs (film), especially on whether this tagging by Shicoco ( talk · contribs) is appropriate or not. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask again. So there are no limit for the amount of reviews in an article and what makes those comments so notable to be in the intro section? Ricardoread ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Some additional eyes and views could be helpful here. I was called to the attention of this article by a relatively newer editor tried to change WP:MOSFILM's guidelines to allow the article's originally 1000+ word plot summary. This was reverted and he started a discussion questioning the guidelines of 400-700 words (which could also use additional views). In responding to the discussion, I looked at the article and applied some MoS fixes and rewrote the plot summary from its then just over 700 word length to a more compact sub-500 word length, almost entirely by just cleaning up the prose. There is a discussion on the talk page over whether the first paragraph [4] should be restored at Talk:A Serious Man#Remove Notice?, and a second discussion over the apparent dispute with my removing the long cast section as the cast was already listed in the plot at Talk:A Serious Man#Cast section. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There does seem to be some sort of fairly clear sub-genre of horror movies set at Christmas time. Given that Christmas is approaching soon, and it might be nice to have a few topical DYKs for the main page on that day, this might be an interesting one to have available. Is there any sort of real notability to the "genre"? John Carter ( talk) 17:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have serious questions about this article. The username of the editor and primary contributor, as well as that editor's history, indicates a direct connection to the people who made the film, and I don't find any references to the film in google news or any other quickly obvious RS's. John Carter ( talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Some assistance is needed at this article about its Plot and Casting sections: Talk:Jennifer's Body#Plot and Casting sections. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Foluwaso ( talk · contribs) is adding en-masse in the external links section of several films a link to the films' reviews on a website called bestforfilm.com. I've never heard of this website so I hold no opinion as far as its usefulness but the amount of links that are being added, coupled with the fact that most of them are not inserted as references but rather as external links (non-conforming per WP:ELNO), makes me think this is a case of WP:LINKSPAM. Before I do anything with these links, can someone else take a look at this and let me know what you think?
Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the right thing to do when you're updating box office tables on films; and Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers have different numbers for that film. As it stands now, it seems that The-Numbers has the most accurate figures for Foreign markets, but is mostly the same for domestic compared to BOM. So on the tables I cite(ed) both the sites in the Reference cell. Just recently I removed Harry Potter (film series) and Saw (franchise) source for the The-Numbers and just left it one source (BOM) after someone (and I'll admit really doesn't seem to understand WP policy himself) said something about the "accuracy". So after thinking about it I just removed The-Numbers so it wouldn't cause any confusion/problems in the future. What is your take on this? Did I have it right the first time? Thanks per usual -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The reality is, both are reliable. Unless there is a huge difference in the figures, use whichever one you want. Chances are, it's just a matter of one updating before the other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(comment that didn;t get posted from 3 days ago) BOm calculate their figures by multiplying the ticket numbers (where they get these I don't know) by an average ticket price. Clearly since the gross is split among hundreds of organisations the only way to get accurate figures would be as part of the distribution deal. Even then, I have no idea if cinemas are honest about this stuff. But be that as it may, where sources differ we should be a little careful about choosing one. We can give a range which is what we do with other figures. $986 - $988 Million ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough ( talk • contribs) 17:22, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on about the viewing numbers of the film. The http://www.kinokultura.com/plus/prokat2.html site claims 33.3 million viewers while the number gets deleted by a fan of Sofia Rotaru and replaced by a greater number based on an oral statement by Alexander Stefanovich, the director of the film. The latter has later admitted starting rumours on Alla Pugacheva selling 100 million records which he had invented himself. Therefore Stefanovich is a highly unreliable source for such figures. See Talk:Dusha for details. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to confirm that the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" entries in the infobox are for titles of films in a related series, such as The Godfather, The Godfather I, and The Godfather II. Someone edited an article I created and add the unrelated films the director made before and after the film discussed in the article, which I think is incorrect. LargoLarry ( talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions going on regarding the naming of the Twilight film articles that could use some further views from more neutral voices. The first, looking at renaming New Moon (2009 film) to The Twilight Saga: New Moon is at Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move. The second at Talk:Eclipse (2010 film) proposes a similar move of that article to The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I left my neutral opinion on the "New Moon" talk page, hope it helps.... Ricardoread ( talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Further views could also be used regarding the formatting of the cast list of this and the other articles, which I tagged for clean up. Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#Cast Section (s). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The title of the article The Messenger is in italics. I seem to recall a discussion a while back in which the consensus was article titles should not be italicized. Is this format now acceptable? LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This won't be all of them, but I've found the following using AWB if someone wants to sort them out:
PC78 ( talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have worked very hard on this article and I nominated it for consideration for WP:GA. Concerns have been raised at the talk page for the article Inchon (film), about the size of the lede. I directly implemented the suggested wording changes to the lede given by the editor who posted to the talk page [7]. I then worked to significantly trim down the overall size of the lede, from this [8], to this [9]. I'd love to get some more input on my quality improvement efforts, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Another question - why do people keep spelling it lede when it's correctly spelled lead at [10]? 209.247.21.77 ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can't find lede in any dictionary, so it just looks like people don't know how to spell it. Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to use standard English instead of "insider jargon"? 209.247.21.77 ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just really noticed the above named category today, which was created on December 12 by User:TMC1982. Just curious, to most films get this degree of attention? John Carter ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor there is going against WP:Consensus regarding Rotten Tomatoes being a reliable and acceptable source here at Wikipedia. Some assistance in explaining to this editor that this source is perfectly fine for relaying the reception of films is needed: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Rotten Tomatoes. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The backlog at GAN is starting to get out of hand, with 50+ pending noms in the film, music, and theatre section. I doubt the ordinary reviewer body could handle such a huge backload speedily so I'm wondering if some of you guys could help bring it under control. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Could a more experienced movie article editor run their eye over this for me please? Particularly the plot section, which I found quite hard to write. I'd be most appreciative, as I want to nominate it for DYK later in the week. Stu ’Bout ye! 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring here about the use of cast/crew members in navigation boxes, including film navboxes. Comments would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at what's happening with the addition of the Variety review to the article on the recently-opened film Yesterday Was a Lie? An editor added the review here, with what was perhaps a slightly POV description ("otherwise positive" for what was, in fact, a mixed review). I expanded the section by adding more quotes from the review, provided the full text of the bolded lede paragraph of the review in a footnote for support, and moved it up in the "Response" section as the most important review the film has received. I also altered what I had added when I thought it was a bit unbalanced on the negative side by inverting the section so that the review's positive remarks came first. The other editor, after a brief talk page "conversation" with an IP editing from a mobile device (the 166.x range), removed some of the quotes and addding a positive qualifier, and then moved the review back down into the middle of the "Response" section, thus giving pride of place to periodicals such as Film Threat magazine over Variety, the newspaper of record for the film industry. Rather than "avoiding bias" these changes served to introduce bias by misrepresenting the Variety review and attempting to bury it in the article.
I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look and do whatever is necessary to present the judgment of the Variety article in a NPOV fashion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. I realise that it might be a little presumptuous of me to include it right away as a subpage of the project's Manual of Style, but there isn't anything in the guide that conflicts with or adds to the MoS. Feel free to disagree. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a small question regarding the use of flags in film infoboxes. A while ago, I noticed a lot of film articles have flags in the infobox, but they almost always used the present flag, even on old films before that flag was used, something I found a bit confusing and annoying. I started editing several film articles to add the flag used when the film was made instead. After doing this on quite a few, however, I was told by User:Lugnuts that flags should not be used in infoboxes and referred me to this and this. Although after reading both of them, I haven´t found anything written there that says anything against the use of flags in the described way in particular. The Film Manual of Style says that flags should not be used instead of country names, nothing about using them together with the country name (which I did). The Icon Manual of Style is very unclear about the question too; also saying that they should not be used instead of country names (but nothing about using them together) and not be used to indicate a person’s place of birth.
Am I missing something here? I would really like to get a definite answer as this issue has made me a bit confused. Lugnuts seems to be a respected editor of Wikipedia and I trust his/her word, but the manual of style seems to have no definite answer on this and there are a lot of film articles at present that use flags, so it does not seem to be a prioritized issue. It may be a trivial matter, but I would really like to get this question resolved, and perhaps it can be put in the Manual of Style more clearly. I don´t want any other users to repeat my mistake, and I also would like to see it resolved so we can have consistent film articles instead of some having flags, some haven´t. Either way is fine by me. Hope to hear from you! Ding Chavez ( talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the debate we had about flag usage on the Snooker Project. We came to the conclusion that flags shouldn't be used unless you can demonstrate the real-life usage of the flag in that particular context. Most of the problems derived from the Ulster banner, and I'm sure there are many inflammatory flags - for instance, do you use the Nazi Swastika on films made by Germany under the Nazi regime? A real life context that would justify flag usage in this context would be if a production company regularly used its national flag on distribution literature about the film, because then you could demonstrate a real-life usage. As for the country of origin, I imagine this runs along similar lines to people's nationalities, and historic geography is always used. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic about if the word "mainstream" should be used in the passage about the consensus as report by Metacritic. Erik ( talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) 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. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
...to move Sideways (movie) back to Sideways after it was erroneously moved. See User_talk:Entertainer91#Problems with your page moves for a full rationale. Viriditas ( talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The article was moved back to Sideways, but the talk page was never fixed; It's still over at Talk:Sideways (film). Could someone move it back to Talk:Sideways? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, a discussion has started at Talk:The Lion King#Merge proposal to discuss merging the character articles into a recreation of the already removed character list (removed by consensus from a not too old discussion about the same thing). Additional views would be useful -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do regarding The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel matter at the Avatar (2009 film) article. The brothers' stories are not related to the film in any way, other than as similarities/comparisons, since James Cameron has not commented on using any of them as themes or inspirations for his film Avatar. Despite that, mention of them is currently in the Themes and inspirations section of this article...as if Cameron did use them as themes or inspirations. I ask should this stuff really be in that section? I say no, as did other editors in their removals of this information from that section, but additional opinions are needed about this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Could we receive some opinions here about some fishy reviews supporting a biased review? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean ( talk || contribs) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! And sorry if I'm treading the ground of old arguments, not being a member of the project. I noticed there's a argument over whether the critical reception for The Twilight Saga: New Moon should be called "mostly negative" or "mixed." The film's scored a 28% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a "weighted average score" of 4.7/10. The argument has been going on for about a week, with lots of reverting, but has happily been civil. So, are there some sort of practices or do members of the project just wing it? If it's the latter, could you please bring enough manpower on that article to bring the matter to a conclusion? Thanks, Kiz o r 19:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
All of the above is cited; none is editor interpretation. Of course, the problem you might have is that seemingly equally reliable sources might label the reception everything from "negative" to "mixed" to "alright" :-) But at least that narrows the focus of the dispute down to what the sources say, rather than what we think they imply. All the best, Steve T • C 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)New Moon received mixed reviews from film critics. [1] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 199, with an average score of 4.7 out of 10. [2] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 44 based on 32 reviews. [1]
Are Yahoo! Movies critics aggregate scores considered reliable and appropriate for inclusion, like RT's and MetaCritics? According to their site "Yahoo! Movies converts each critic's published rating into a letter grade. If the critic's review does not include a rating, Yahoo! Movies assigns a grade based on an assessment of the review." It then averages those grades into a Critics assessment. This generally seems to be from 10-15 critics that they link to. Some examples [14] [15] Previously, consensus seemed to be that Yahoo! Movies should not be included. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I brought it up on the film's talk page, but not sure it'll get many responses. But shouldn't the article be renamed to the official title (what most notable sources call it and it's on the film poster) to Disney's A Christmas Carol? I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and this is the same thing that happened with The Twilight Saga: New Moon and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. How do we get this looked into? Thanks. -- Mike Allen 06:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
According to IMDB it has two titles for its US release. For its normal release it was released as "Disney's A Christmas Carol" but for the IMAX version it was released as "A Christmas Carol". Amazon on the otherhand has its theatrical release down just as "A Christmas Carol" [17].ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1261940911&sr=1-1]. I'd say both titles are legitimate, but if one is taken why not go with the other? Betty Logan ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This film's wiki page has some errors. I fixed them, but then Collectonian would put those errors back in the page; I don't know why? Firstly, this film's UK release date is June 26 2009, but Collectonian keep stating that it is June 18, 2009 and put the date in this film's wiki page. Secondly, East Wing Holdings only produced this film, but didn't release it. But Collectonian keep stating this error info and put the error info in the infobox of this film's wiki page. On the other hand, Collectonian states that a infobox of a film's wiki page should only include the distributor in that film's original countries. It is ridiculous. United States is the most important film market in the world, especially for English-language films like Blood: The Last Vampire (2009 film). It is the reason why its United States theatrical distributor should be included in the infobox of this film's wiki page. (Of course, Collectonian keeps delete it) In fact, many infoboxs of many non-US films' wiki pages have listed their United States theatrical distributors. For instance, based on what Collectonian said, maybe we should delete Sony Pictures Classics from the infobox of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus wiki page? Maybe we should also delete 20th Century Fox from the infobox of Taken wiki page? - Marychan41 ( talk • contrib) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I humbly suggest members of this WikiProject have a trawl through articles about films and fix usage of the term "domestic" box office to reflect which countries are actually meant by this? Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This ham-fisted search hit 388 uses on en:, but not all of them are film-related. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Toruk Makto!!! Cirt ( talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion on Sherlock Holmes talk page on whether to include the Motion picture ratings into the article or not, would be appreciated. Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello to the films project! Im Mark, and a member of the WP:Musical Theatre/Theatre. Was wondering if anyone on this project would mine giving a look over Legally Blonde (musical) because im really at a loss who to ask and I really want to get working on the article. Its based on the movie Legally Blonde so thought this might be a good place to ask :). Hope you can help :) Mark E ( talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an editor experienced with image policies to look at The Lovely Bones (film)? There is a string of individual photos of cast members in a row at the end of the cast section and I would like to know if it is acceptable. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been in use for a while now and seems to be the adopted standard for films, regarding writing credits and more than one relevant country of release. It was even in the MOS for film, before Bovineboy2008 went and changed it by his own apparent "consnesus". I think it is necessary for the writing credits, because written by and screenplay by are different things according to the WGA, so you know encyclopedia and accuracy and all. Plus it's aesthetically better than crunched up little writing to the side, for release dates, I don't know whatever I can concede that, but I feel screenplay and story credits are important, so I don't see why having that information bold is so horrible.
Also feel free to chime in over in the Watchmen_(film) article about this, if I'm wrong about this then... hell, it'll be good/better getting more than one persons apparent personal "consensus" that he's right and I'm wrong. Thank you. 173.88.129.35 ( talk) 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I had suggested creating this previously - it is interestingly applied at the article Avatar (2009 film).
What do editors think of this new template? Cirt ( talk) 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
One idea here, could the "cast" info include character/roles? Kind of annoying seeing names of actors but not who plays what part. I know the films do it that way, but seems like wiki could do better at getting info out there.
Richmondian ( talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
After a short discussion at WT:ANIME, which concluded that Firefox News is a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source, I have started a general discussion about the reliability of Firefox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firefox.org/news/. I'm placing this notice here as a number of film articles also reference Firefox News for information. — Farix ( t | c) 14:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a request to move Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film). Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
On a similar note to the above. There is a request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film). Discussion can be found here. kollision ( talk) 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I prodded this film as non-notable, but one of the usual ARS members deprodded it and tried to expand it using non-reliable sources. After others in RSN confirmed what I'd already explained, that this random review on some random website is not a reliable source, he is continuing to try to shove a link to it in the external links section, claiming it meets WP:ELMAYBE, despite there being no evidence this random person who reviewed the article is any sort of film critic or professional. As he and I have butted heads multiple times over his "rescue" of articles using very dubious sourcing, it would be useful if some others could take a look and see if the link is appropriate for adding or not. The discussion is at Talk:King Cobra (film)#Apollo Movie Guide and another ARS member is engaging in tag-teaming to try to get around 3RR and force the addition of this and another invalid link to the article. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Characters and wildlife in Avatar, a sub-article of Avatar (2009 film), underwent AFD as seen here; the outcome was to keep the article. I have worked on the article to ensure real-world context because its initial incarnation violated WP:WAF. I believe that the sub-article will benefit from a move to adjust the scope to be more encompassing; see my comments here, particularly my most recent comment. Erik ( talk) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
See where this begin on this page, this page, and this page.
Since the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is not a US film (it's a UK film), should we add the GBP currency (with the appropriate USD after it) next to the budget/gross within the infobox and within the Box office section? That's the way I have it in the infobox now, but wondered if I should be consistent and use only GBP within the article or GBP along with USD? -- Mike Allen 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's on the actual film's article the home currency should take precedence, after all the currency of the UK is GBP. Listing it in dollars is as diabolical as listing the grosses of US films in GBP - it violates NPOV. There is one exception I can think of: if the worldwide gross is not available in pounds but it is available in dollars, then the dollar currency should take precedence. I am against DIY dollar/pound conversions because the exchange rate fluctuates on a day-to-day basis so the conversion will always be inaccurate. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Unrelated to the above discussion,
Chris Cunningham will make an editprotected request to include genre=
in the {{
Infobox film}} template based on a discussion from October 2009. If anyone has anything to add, please do so
here.
Erik (
talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Many of the B movies of the 1950s and early 1960s were produced and released as part of a double bill or double feature; shouldn't the double bill "partner" be part of the history of such films? E.g. "Attack of the Puppet People was released as part of a double bill with War of the Colossal Beast." Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (Before I posted this I did a search of the archive for "double bill" and "double feature" but suspect this question may have been raised and answered already. Still, am curious.)
There was a recent discussion about how the list of distributors should be restricted to the countries that produced the film. Can I clarify if the list should just be restricted to theatrical distributors or if home video distributors should also be included? It doesn't specify in the infobox guidelines but since some films have separate distributors for cinema and video it would be useful to know. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed several quotes on my creation, Todd Field because I felt they violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE for an article like this. Today, Tellusmore ( talk · contribs) (who I think is a sock) added three reviews (with sources), according to a hidden message I added about a year and a half ago, with the edit summary: (As requested by SchfiftyThree, have added back three reviews only to properly represent scope: Magazine (Newsweek), Newspaper (NY Times), Foreign Press (The Independent)). Are short film reviews acceptable for an article on a celebrity? I'm slowly trying to upgrade this page to a class B, but there are things that need to get settled first. Schfifty 3 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Just thought that I would alert the members of the film project that User:Nicholsy2 has, once again, created a page for this upcoming film. The page is now entitled Thor (movie) which I know is not following the naming conventions for a film. Also, in looking at the editors talk page this seems to be an ongoing thing. I am not quite sure how to proceed so I thought that would let those of you who have dealt with this before do whatever is necessary. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do to clear this up. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments on a proper redirect are requested here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice Allmovie is being mass-removed from film articles. Is this the result of "consensus" here? Or is this a case of individual zealotry which has not infected the group yet? In either case, just to soothe my own conscience, I'd like to remind the project: There are people who use Wikipedia as a reference source, rather than an online game in which one shoots down information instead of aliens. The removal of this external link in no way benefits them, and actually causes much harm. Not that the "less is more, nothing is perfect" crowd cares, of course... But maybe someone does. Dekkappai ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
External links are supposed to provide information that supplements the Wikipedia article about the film. Allmovie is acceptable as a reliable source, so it should be used in the article. I was not targeting Allmovie specifically; there were other websites that I was removing from the "External links" sections. I provide a breakdown of Allmovie at Template talk:Amg movie#Discussion for deprecation if anyone is interested. The problem is that Allmovie's proliferation has been taken for granted, and it proliferates because it has been proliferated. If you want, I can go back and put Allmovie on the film articles' talk pages as a reference to use. From what I can tell, though, people want to overlook WP:EL and treat the "External links" section as a repository for possible references (which it clearly should not be). People at TFD argued that each Allmovie EL should be assessed on its own, which is an insurmountable task, and I guarantee you that people blindly added Allmovie 99% of the time. I know because I did that, too. Please see my link above to see why Allmovie does not qualify as an EL. That's all I will say about Allmovie here; please let me know if you want these links placed on the talk pages instead. Erik ( talk) 12:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Allmovie was discussed back in September and consensus was clear. That the same people are putting forth the same arguments for its indiscriminate removal changes nothing. This was a rather blatant and underhanded attempt to ignore consensus. There's nothing more to say about it. Dekkappai ( talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The template discussion was in regards to deleting the template so Erik's actions aren't against "consensus" so to speak. What I would like to know from Erik is what criteria he is using? If he's indiscriminately removing the template from every article then that is a backdoor way of deleting the template which is against consensus, but if there is a prevailing criteria for including the template and he's just removing it from articles where that criteria isn't met then he isn't doing anything wrong. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Is moviezen.com a reliable source for information on cast and producers lists (or anything else for that matter)? And is it appropriate for external links? Freikorp ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it is unhelpful to readers to have multiple external links providing unique information otherwise inappropriate for inclusion in a film's article, better to default to IMDB for that unique information. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please semi-protect Fictional universe in Avatar? There are IPs trying to copy information directly from the James Cameron's Avatar Wikia. I've had to undo this four times so far. Erik ( talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has raised the question at the Village Pump as to whether the use of Ebert's reviews in many film articles is an overuse, and if his opinion is being given undue weight. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk · contribs) has started a discussion about primary topics in relation to titling film articles. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose an update to the guidelines to standardize the naming of sub-articles that list various recognitions received by a film. In the past, we have used the title "List of awards and nominations received by <film>". The problem with this title is that nominations fall under the class of awards, for which a film can be nominated or can win. Effort has been made to instead name these lists "List of awards and honors received by <film>". The "awards" part encompasses nominations and wins, where the "honors" part encompasses critical recognition, such as AFI's Top 100. It appears that this renaming effort was undone by an admin because he perceived "List of awards and nominations..." as the standard naming. Thus, I would like to make it clear in the guidelines to give lists a more accurate title. There is a similar pattern with articles under WP:ACTOR where "awards and honors" have been pushed back to "awards and nominations", so I have notified editors there as well. What does everyone think of standardizing this titling for such lists? Erik ( talk) 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that we're looking for a one-size-fits-all title. If that's not possible, why try to fudge it when we can perhaps put together some baggier recommendations based on the circumstances? For a straight list of awards wins, List of awards received by xxxx should be perfectly acceptable, as should something more specific if editors want to include nominations or other accolades, such as appearances on AFI lists. I dunno, List of awards and accolades received by xxxx or something (maybe even just List of accolades received by xxxx). I don't think it's necessary to be too prescriptive, as long as the title gives an adequate description of the content; sensible editors can work it out on a case-by-case basis. Steve T • C 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm here from a new project that you may have heard of: Wikipedia:Article incubator. It's kind of a centralized and monitored version of userfication, for articles that have been or are about to be deleted or userfied. When someone expresses an interest in "saving" such an article, but needs more time, the incubator is a place where it can receive patient attention without the threat of imminent deletion. You can read all about it at the link.
Anyway, someone suggested adding the incubator to Wikipedia:Article alerts, but their feature requests page seems inactive. So, I'm doing this manually.
We've got a few film articles, and I'm notifying this project of their existence, so you can have a look. If they are brought up to standards, then you flip a switch in a template, and a seconder will copy it to the mainspace. Alternatively, if it seems after research that an article there can't be brought up to standards, we'll kill it humanely.
There may be more, and as soon as someone makes a way, we can standardize this kind of notification. Thanks for listening. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#What makes a review site a reliable source? in which an editor, User:Dream Focus, has proposed that WP:RS be changed to state that if a review site receives a stated number of hits, it should be considered automatically reliable and usable for both a reliable source and establishing notability. As Films is one of the main projects that uses reviews for its articles, it seemed relevant for notification. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Is a website that searches film scripts for phrases, such as subzin.com, a reliable source that something was mentioned in a film (for a popular culture section) or would a secondary source be required? Freikorp ( talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to gauge other editors' thoughts about linking in the lead sentence. There are three items that tend to be linked in the lead sentence for film articles:
We link to these three items, depending on the film, pretty intensely. I've been reconsidering the value of these links. First, per WP:OVERLINK, we want to add links that aid navigation and understanding of the article or its context. My impression is that we tend to avoid linking to countries because they are too general to add understanding to the article. The "Cinema of..." links are an effort to be more specific, but I am not sure if they still help. For example, what does Cinema of the United States really say about most American films of 2009? The point of including nationality is to tell the reader where the film came from, if it is not complicated to tell. I think that "<year> in film" has more credibility but possibly not enough for the lead sentence. What value is there in showing films of the same year, especially at that point? I think it may be a distracting link and could be better used in deeper context. For example, linking to it as you call a film one of the best of <year>. The value of the link would be to show readers what other film came out that year.
Lastly, overlinking is also an issue with genres in the lead sentence. I've been trying a different approach with some articles, which is to only link to sub-genres or genres that are not so common. For example, if we identify a film as a 2010 American comedy film, what value is there to point to comedy film? The key is in the general definition. We know what comedy means and what film means, and we know that it is a film with comedic elements. Sub-genres that have better value, in my opinion, are black comedy or screwball comedy film. I do not have a problem with links to specific people because names are more specialized than the other words we use in the lead sentence. Just my thoughts on the matter since our lead sentences have always been so blue. What do others think? Erik ( talk) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(←) I thought I've read that the lead (or lede) sentence should be the most 'wikilinked' part of the article? — Mike Allen 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Catgut ( talk · contribs) has expressed concern about inconsistencies in titling articles about Italian films. Discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion for more. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A new batch of overly narrow and some ORy film related categories are up for CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 8 that were created by User:Lg16spears. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything on it. For IMDb links in the External links section of film articles, which title should we put if the article title differs from the IMDb page? For example, we have an article called A Police Inspector Accuses which is known on IMDb by it's original title Un comisar acuză. Should the external link say "Un comisar acuza at the Internet Movie Database" or "A Police Inspector Accuses" at the Internet Movie Database? I have been doing it one way, but recently seen other people doing it the other way and wondered if there was any consensus about this. Cheers, -- Beloved Freak 14:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:This gets in deep territory (that can be avoided). The "deep territory" is: What is the purpose of the title? Historically, say 50 years ago, an article or book title was primarily a "hook" to get the appropriate readers interested. Now, in the age of redirects and search engines, of Wikipedia guidelines, the title is still a hook, but isn't all-important. A choice of title that is in some way weak may be insignificant; if search engines simply search the whole text, then what's important is to mention the alternate titles in the article. What *is* to be avoided is debate about what title is marginally more correct; essentially those arguments are endless. Few English readers know "Das Boot" by its English name? Well, maybe. But how many English readers won't figure out the problem in a few moments? I.e. it doesn't make much difference whether the article is "Das Boot" or "The Boat", the reader's going to figure it out pretty quickly. And, for the few that don't? It's only a few extra seconds to use Wiki search ... get directed to
The Boat (film), see that it's wrong, click the disambiguation link, hunt down the right version. (In some ways, that process is *more* useful, because it alerts readers to related subjects.) Don't sweat the titles, just make them unambiguous in Wiki. Regards,
Piano non troppo (
talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)