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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussions (again), about the genre of Heat is being discussed here. Any contributions to the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about moving the article to another title. This is a GA-class article, additional opinions are welcome. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I see that casting rumors are in film articles that are already been deemed not true or true. So would this be adequate to add, " Jennifer Aniston was once rumored to be in the cast of Scream 4". [1] Since Aniston is a A-list celeb, is such verbiage acceptable (while of course sourced)? Or is there no point to add something this inconsequential? Mike Allen 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies on the color of filmography table headers. Please join in that discussion if you so wish. Chicken monkey 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok so what poster do we use for a non-English film? The poster I am talking about is from the film Dogtooth, which is a Greek film called Kynodontas. The original Greek poster has just "Kynodontas", while the new English poster has "Dogtooth". I replaced it with the English title poster, since that's the name the article uses. A user did not like that I changed the poster and cited the Template:Infobox, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox". I would think a poster that is written in the English language should be used for the English Wikipedia and for the Greek Wikipedia, the original poster. Right? Mike Allen 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)On a similar question to this, when I was working on the article for Hard Boiled, I could not find a really good quality image of the Hong Kong poster. I assume to take this into consideration when uploading posters to to use the best quality poster you can find in general first before using an original language poster. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Following repeated addition of unsourced/ OR material to City Without Baseball by User:Tai kit and anonymous IPs, I have attempted to start a discussion at Talk:City Without Baseball. Before it becomes an edit war, I would appreciate any opinions or comments from uninvolved people, at the article talkpage. It affects other film articles too, but the recent activity has been on this one. As I've gone on a bit there, the issues in a nutshell are: unsourced claims about media coverage of nudity in the film, too much detailed description of genitals, too much info about other films that doesn't seem relevant in the article and, most importantly, a WP:BLP violation with details about the actor being ashamed of the size of his penis, and then quite pleased after all because it was comparatively big - unsourced.-- Beloved Freak 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In Box Office Mojo's international section the revenues for a number of film markets are reported weekly in dollars, for example South Korea May 28–30, 2010. Above the chart the current exchange rate is shown between dollars and the local currency, which also is updated weekly and corresponds to the rate at the end of the reported week. Would it be considered original research if I multiplied the dollar numbers with the exchange rate to get the gross in the original currency? Or do I have to present the gross in dollars if I can't find any other source? Smetanahue ( talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has the entire openning credits. Is that normal or even desirable? 203.35.135.136 ( talk) 06:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move P.O.W. The Escape to Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film). Additional input would be welcome on the article's talk page. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Notability (films) page states that, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have a question about notability in regard to the popular Internet Movie Database. If a film is listed as forthcoming in the IMDB, can this source be considered reliable? I know that anyone can enroll in the IMDB for a fee and list his or her credentials and upcoming films whether these credentials or films are fantasy or not. Does the IMDB qualify as a reliable source, given that IMDB film listings and film information may have been put there by people who are not "independent of the subject"? Is the IMDB a reliable source, given that people can list information there that is in their own self-interest and not objective? Thanks in advance to the community for taking this under consideration. SCFilm29 ( talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I found a neat publicity still from the 1934 Laurel and Hardy film Babes in Toyland in a thrift store. I am trying to determine the copyright status of this, as it would add to its Wikipedia. Can someone please tell me how to research this to find out if this film and its advertising materials are public domain?
Thanks. JGKlein ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Hello, I saved this article from a sure WP:CSD and improved it significantly. As of 21 minutes ago, The Bandit Queen (1950 film) is on the frontpage as a DYK item. I've never written a film article before; so please excuse me as I probably made a lot of rookie errors. Still, the article made first base. Enjoy! ---- moreno oso ( talk) 06:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated The Empire Strikes Back for a featured article review. I feel it has lost the formatting, grammar, and sourcing required to be considered amongst the best articles of Wikipedia in the three years since it was nominated. The review is located here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am almost done with an overhaul of the Barbara Hershey acticle and plan to nominate it for GA. I need assistance with the images. I have added some that I feel certain will be deleted. I find the image uploading process on Wikipedia frustrating and unrewarding. Any help will be greatly appreciated.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Although that is good information, I still would like some help, if possible, locating at least one image that will fit the accepted criteria. -- Ishtar456 ( talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)#Table section of the MoS to get this missing section hopefully completed. Thoughts appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd be grateful for any help developing The Lazarus Effect (film) - it's a documentary, to raise awareness of AIDS in Africa. Movies aren't my thing... lots of sources now (and more each day) gnews, etc. Help please? Chzz ► 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A list of films has been added to the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles:
Please take a look. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks RJH - I've done some redirecting. What's the notability of The Scarecrow Movie Guide? IE, how does it compare to other film guides? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, just thought that I should let your project know that I've nominated Black swan story for deletion. Regards, Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Template talk:Infobox film#Writer Parameter concerning the current practice of including the author of the original work used for a film adaptations in the "writer" parameter of the film infobox. Additional participants in the discussion would be welcome. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No categories, no sources, completely unreferenced. Could use some cleanup, perhaps stub down to workable amount and then rework with adequate sourcing. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I just clarify that it is the production budget that goes here? I reverted an edit that added in the marketing budget but it was then reverted [4]. This reference [5] is being used to back up the claim that the film's budget is $280 million. The article clearly states the production budget is $150m and that the marketing budget is a further $130m. As I always understood it we only documented the production budget in the infobox. I checked the template documentation but the instructions are ambiguous,so I'd appreciate it if it could be cleared up. On most articles it seems only the production budget is entered in this field, but its usage should be consistent across all articles really. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, "The Cursed Videotape" from "The Ring"/"Ringu" has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cursed Videotape.
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see [6], followed again by [7]. It does not make sense to report one value to three digits (budget), and and the next value to seven digits (gross revenue). The infobox should have uniformity with number values, and both should maintain the same format style, namely, that of the budget, precise to three digits. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to be concise and brief. I don't see how adding the zeros makes any difference. I think it's a personal preference, and shouldn't be a cause of an edit war. Mike Allen 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
An enthusiastic editor has created the following article Fantasia (film series). To me this does not seem to contain anything that is not already mentioned in the two articles that already exist about the films. I am also not sure about its encyclopedic value. Unfortunately, I am short of time to examine it further so I am asking the members of the film project to check it out and come to a consensus as to whether it can be improved or if it should be listed for deletion. I will inform the editor about this post before I log off. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
[SOCK EDIT removed]
That User:Wildhartlivie can unilaterally declare a particular book an unreliable source? Do all active editors have this power, or only ones with their own private cabal?— Chowbok ☠ 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
For uninvolved editors who have seen the film and know the final big twist or those who have not seen it and do not care to be spoiled I am in the midst of a dispute as the the exact nature of the final twist. I have been using Sight & Sound as a reference for the twist, and have provided a link to the shooting script which also confirms the twist, however two editors do not feel that Sight & Sound and the shooting script are good enough sources; could I have as many extra pairs of eyes on this as possible. The twist seems obvious however the ambiguity built into the film, designed to hide the twist, is being interpreted as the exact opposite of the twist. Any help, etc, etc. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This press release:
list the latest membership invitations by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Below is a mechanical wikification of the list I did in order to see which invitees might have articles. I've made no attempt to deal with any disambiguation needed in some cases (e.g. for LaTanya Richardson Jackson). I would suggest that being invited to become an AMPAS member is an achievement that goes a significant way towards establishing WP:CREATIVE notability for people. 72.244.204.61 ( talk) 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
* Tobin Bell – “Saw,” “The Firm” * Vera Farmiga – “Up in the Air,” “The Departed” * Miguel Ferrer – “Traffic,” “RoboCop” * James Gandolfini – “In the Loop,” “Get Shorty” * Anna Kendrick – “Up in the Air,” “Twilight” * Mo’Nique – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Phat Girlz” * Carey Mulligan – “An Education,” “Public Enemies” * Jeremy Renner – “The Hurt Locker,” “28 Weeks Later" * Ryan Reynolds – “The Proposal,” “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” * LaTanya Richardson Jackson – “Mother and Child,” “Losing Isaiah” * Peter Riegert – “Traffic,” "Crossing Delancey" * Sam Robards – “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” “American Beauty” * Saoirse Ronan – “The Lovely Bones,” “Atonement” * Zoe Saldana – “Avatar,” “Star Trek” * Adam Sandler – “Funny People,” “Punch-Drunk Love” * Peter Sarsgaard – “An Education,” "Boys Don’t Cry" * Gabourey Sidibe – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” * Shaun Toub – “Iron Man,” “The Kite Runner” * Christoph Waltz – “Inglourious Basterds” * George Wyner – “A Serious Man,” “American Pie 2”
* Ken Bielenberg – “Monsters vs Aliens,” “Shrek” * Peter de Seve – “Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” “Ratatouille” * Steve Hickner – “Bee Movie,” "The Prince of Egypt" * Angus MacLane – “Toy Story 3,” “WALL-E” * Darragh O’Connell – “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty,” “Give Up Yer Aul Sins” * Simon Otto – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Kung Fu Panda” * Bob Pauley – “Toy Story 3,” “Monsters, Inc.” * Willem Thijssen – “The Aroma of Tea,” “A Greek Tragedy"
* Kim Sinclair – “Avatar,” “Cast Away” * Dave Warren – “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” “Bridget Jones’s Diary”
* Laura Rosenthal – “The Messenger,” “I’m Not There”
* Barry Ackroyd – “The Hurt Locker,” “United 93” * Christian Berger – “The White Ribbon,” “Cache” * Hagen Bogdanski – “The Young Victoria,” “The Lives of Others” * Shane Hurlbut – “Terminator Salvation,” “We Are Marshall” * Tom Hurwitz – “Valentino The Last Emperor,” “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib” * Dan Mindel – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Tobias Schliessler – “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” “Hancock” * Stephen Windon – “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift,” “House of Wax” * Robert Yeoman – “Get Him to the Greek,” “The Squid and the Whale”
* Catherine Leterrier – “Coco before Chanel,” “Avenue Montaigne” * Janet Patterson – “Bright Star,” “The Piano”
* Jacques Audiard – “A Prophet,” “The Beat That My Heart Skipped” * Juan Jose Campanella – “The Secret in Their Eyes,” "Son of the Bride" * Lee Daniels – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Shadowboxer” * Claudia Llosa – “The Milk of Sorrow,” “Madeinusa” * Lone Scherfig – “An Education,” “Italian for Beginners” * Adam Shankman – “Bedtime Stories,” “Hairspray”
* Nancy Baker – “Rehearsing a Dream,” “Born into Brothels” * Rick Goldsmith – “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” “Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press” * Davis Guggenheim – “It Might Get Loud,” “An Inconvenient Truth” * Tia Lessin – “Capitalism: A Love Story,” “Trouble the Water” * Cara Mertes – “The Betrayal,” “My Country, My Country” * Frazer Pennebaker – “Al Franken: God Spoke,” “The War Room” * Julia Reichert – “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant,” “Seeing Red” * Morgan Spurlock – “Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?,” “Super Size Me”
* Christopher W. Aronson * Jim Berk * Philippe Dauman * Sheila DeLoach * Donald Peter Granger * Nathan Kahane * Andrew Karpen * Ryan Kavanaugh * David Kosse * David Andrew Spitz * Emma Watts
* Robert Frazen – “Synecdoche, New York,” “Smart People” * Dana E. Glauberman – “Up in the Air,” “Thank You for Smoking” * Joe Klotz – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Grace Is Gone” * Bob Murawski – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man” * John Refoua – “Avatar,” “Reno 911!: Miami”
* Joachim Back – “The New Tenants” * Gregg Helvey – “Kavi,” “The Knife Grinder’s Tale”
* Kris Evans – “X-Men The Last Stand," “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” * Jane Galli – “Knight and Day,” “3:10 to Yuma” * Mindy Hall – “Star Trek,” “World Trade Center” * Joel Harlow – “Star Trek,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” * Jenny Shircore – “The Young Victoria,” “Elizabeth”
* Christophe Beck – “The Hangover,” “Bring It On” * Bono – “Gangs of New York,” “In the Name of the Father” * T Bone Burnett – “Crazy Heart,” “Cold Mountain” * The Edge – “Gangs of New York,” "GoldenEye" * Brian Tyler – “Fast & Furious,” “Aliens vs. Predator Requiem”
* Stephanie Allain – “Black Snake Moan,” “Hustle & Flow” * Gregory Jacobs – “The Informant!,” “The Good German” * Jon Landau – “Avatar,” “Titanic” * Marc Turtletaub – “Away We Go,” “Little Miss Sunshine” * Glenn Williamson – “Sunshine Cleaning,” “Hollywoodland”
* Kirk M. Pertruccelli – “The Incredible Hulk,” “The Patriot” * Edward S. Verreaux – “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra,” “Jurassic Park III”
* Dwight Caines * Suzanne M. Cole * Tommy Gargotta * Sophie Gluck * Josh Greenstein * Pamela Levine * Wendy Lightbourn * Michele Robertson * Tony Sella
* Maggie Gray – “The Young Victoria,” “Ella Enchanted” * Douglas A. Mowat – “Role Models,” “The Sixth Sense” * Caroline Smith – “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” “Match Point”
* Frank Eulner – “Iron Man 2,” “Hellboy” * Adam Jenkins – “I Love You, Man,” “Crash” * Tony Lamberti – "Inglourious Basterds," “Sideways” * Dennis Leonard – “Disney’s A Christmas Carol,” “The Polar Express” * Tom Myers – “Up,” “WALL-E” * Paul N.J. Ottosson – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man 3” * Resul Pookutty – “Ghajini,” “Slumdog Millionaire” * Gary A. Rizzo – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “The Dark Knight” * Michael Silvers – “Up,” “Ratatouille” * Gwendolyn Yates Whittle – “Avatar,” "The Simpsons Movie"
* Matt Aitken – “District 9,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” * Karen Ansel – “Angels & Demons,” “Men in Black II” * Richard Baneham – “Avatar,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” * Eric Barba – “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Zodiac” * Paul Debevec – “Avatar,” “King Kong” * Russell Earl – “Star Trek,” “Transformers” * Steve Galich – “Date Night,” "Transformers" * Andrew R. Jones – “Avatar,” “I, Robot” * Dan Kaufman – “District 9,” “Ocean’s Thirteen” * Derek Spears – “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor,” “Superman Returns” * Steve Sullivan – “Avatar,” “Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith” * Michael J. Wassel – “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” “The Bourne Identity”
* Neill Blomkamp – “District 9” * Mark Boal – “The Hurt Locker,” “In the Valley of Elah” * Geoffrey Fletcher – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” * Nick Hornby – “An Education,” “Fever Pitch” * Alex Kurtzman – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Tom McCarthy – “Up,” “The Visitor” * Roberto Orci – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Terri Tatchell – “District 9”
* Darcy Antonellis * John Lowry
So.. I've discovered that IMDb has a "Box office and Business" page for films which lists the budget and filming dates. From what I've seen the filming dates seem accurate (for articles I work on), but maybe they got the dates from the Wikipedia articles... who knows. ;-) The budget is what I'm wondering... is it "reliable", especially since they own Box Office Mojo? The Resident Evil: Afterlife page says the budget is an estaimated (of course) $56 million. It doesn't seem so implausible considering the previous film in the series' budget was $45 million. Note that Resident Evil: Afterlife was shot in 3D which would explain one of the many possible reasons the budget is more this go-around. So the question I have is--where does this number come from? Anyone that edits IMDb? Thanks. Mike Allen 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::@Nehrams: Well, IMDb was and is not my first pick. Someone added it to the RE page and I thought it seem ok. The budgets usually aren't released until it's closer to the film's release. The LA Times Company Town page adds budget for films in their "Movie Projector" the Friday the films are released. That's where I snatch film budgets; been doing that for a while actually. @Betty: In all honestly, most production companies don't publish the "real" budget anyhow so who really knows. They are just simply estimates, but it's the best and all we got. I'll axe that IMDb source, the film is being released in September. It can wait. @Bignole; good point. However, BOM also don't release budgets until it's close to the films release. I just wasn't sure if the "Business" part was edited by just anyone on IMDb or reliable people associated with that film. Thanks for the replies and that interview. Mike Allen 07:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The naming conventions for disambiguating films by their year of release defines the year as the first cinematic release, excluding film festival showings. I've started a discussion on whether this is the right decision at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Disambiguation by release year. Fences& Windows 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an link to an Wikipedia article that said it doesn't exist yet it's still visible if you go in the article The Last Airbender there's an link to it in the template below and there it is. Even if you try to edit on it Wikipedia says it doesn't exists. Is this on purpose or an big error? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Typhoon966 ( talk · contribs) has been adding the film distributor to "production companies" in the infoboxe, separating the film and video distributors, and generally making changes which don't seem to be accurate or sourced. If those changes are generally inaccurate, he should be blocked. If this project believes them accurate, I'll keep out, but some of the changes (and the vast majority of those I've checked) seem not to match the actual information. 76.174.188.251 ( talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
U2 3D is currently a good article and I feel as if it's ready for FA-status. But last year I nominated it for A-Class and the nomination sat dormant for about 3 months until it "failed". No reason was given for its failing, it just failed the nomination because no one commented on it for so long. I really want to nominate it for FA-status but I don't want the same thing to happen again. Since I'm not that active with WP:FILM, I was hoping to get some feedback here on what step I should take next. I don't think a peer review is necessary, but I'm willing to do another one if uses on here suggest so. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion regarding the use of multiple non-free images in The High and the Mighty on the article's talk page. Other comments would be helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As dscussed here: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 7#Start date template, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 10#Release dates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 19#Release date problems, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 4#Release date. It appears that the only release dates that should be noted is the: Premiere, a festivle or public gathering, the country it was produced in, and the first date it was released. In the Twilight articles, ( Twilight (2008 film), The Twilight Saga: New Moon, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse) there seems to be some disbute on whether this applies to the articles. I don't see any reason why [ [9]] cant be used. Is there any opinions out there? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
The 2010 in film has been protected due to a content dispute. I bring the question here for the broadest attention. The dispute is over the death of Elżbieta Czyżewska should be included in the article. I personally support it as she has been in several films, both American and Polish, many that meet Wikipedia's notability guideline to have an article. However, some editors have consistently removed her entry, with these explanations in the notes: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Comments are requested please. BOVINEBOY 2008 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
A new user, Giordano Adams, has made edits going against this consensus. I have started an ANI thread here. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, since she's causing this many problems that lead to an edit war and three accounts blocked, wouldn't it be wise to remove her from the list so it woun't cause this much hassle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.24.103 ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Does someone knows who decided to remove the needs-prod/cast/plot/synopsis parameters and why? I don't think it was a good idea. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
B-Class-2=no
to the Film banner template will add the article to
Category:Film articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy and display the criteria as "not met" in the banner's B-Class checklist. An {{
Expand}} template might also be added to inform others on missing content. Basically, I think the parameters were removed because they do not translate into real results and hence, tagging articles with them was a waste of time. ...I mean, the parameters have been gone for over 7 months and I think you're the first person who complain about it. -
Kollision (
talk)
10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Please see here I have no idea what Category:Videos and DVDs even is and it seems like a perfect candidate for deletion; can someone (preferably multiple persons) give some input there? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some discrepencies in regards to this company. Our own article on it says as a brand it was retired off as a theatrical distributor in 2007 and that Walt Disney Pictures now directly distributes its own films. In the case of Burton's Alice in Wonderland both Allmovie and Box Office Mojo say it was released by Buena Vista, while IMDB states it was released through Walt Disney Pictures. Is this a case of reliable source Allmovie being wrong and unreliable source IMDB being correct, or is Buena Vista still the legal name? Can anyone clarify this? Betty Logan ( talk) 01:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that there is some disagreement over how to present budget and revenue facts. If something is budgeted at $160 million, logically it should be presented in the infobox as $160,000,000, in order to line up with the revenue which would be presented in 9 (or less) digets. However, if it is presented as $160 million in the infobox, the gross should relfect this. For example, Avatar (2009 film), which grossed 2,730,850,547 would then have to be rounded to $2.7 billion and then I could see some editor in the future arguing the gross is closer to 2.6 or 2.8 million, though I don't exactly know how, and then we have another issue which could have been prevented. And though some argue that the budget is not "an exact number" and is just an estimate, wouldn't the gross be the same? How do we know Avatar grossed exactly 2,730,850,547? It could be $50, $100, $1000 off. ChaosMaster Chat 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an RFC over at the talk page for the documentary Happy Endings? and was hoping to get more opinions of people who have so far not been involved with editing the article. The initial RFC that I put on the RFC requests page has so far not brought anybody in from outside the existing discussion, but perhaps some here will be interested. The disagreement concerns the appropriateness of mentioning the film (and linking to the article) from the bio pages of a number of public figures who appeared in the doc. The RFC can be found here: Talk:Happy Endings?#RFC: Links to/Mention of this film in other articles. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If Nehrams doesn't want to add the few parameters needed then we should indeed create a new Template:Infobox Indian film. Personally I see the argument against adding Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers paramters to the infobox a weak one. It will hardly make any difference to infobox size. You want a bloated infobox look at infobox settlement. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film)#Genre to discuss the identified genre for the film. I'm tired of looking at edit wars back and forth with this article over the specific "genre". I'd like some more opinions so that a clear consensus can be made. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I know the film has not been confirmed, but i feel there should be a sub-section on the Toy Story 3 page of a possible sequel. Winchester Admiral (Contact me) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussions related to our project are currently under way:
Additional input would be beneficial and appreciated. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is IMDB okay as an WP:RS source for main-body-text section on BLPs, or just filmography tables? Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_appropriate_to_add_unsourced_information_to_articles_on_BLPs_.3F. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious because I know I saw it before. Where in the guidelines does it say IMDb is not an reliable source. I need to know this so I can explain to somebody that it isn't an reliable source. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently saw Kisses and enjoyed it quite a it so I created the article (still a stub, any help appreciated). I used imdb initially as the information source for the film's awards, which I am now attempting to source more specifically with each award organization's official listing, and it appears that imdb got it very wrong. This is apparently IFTA's official list, which does not jibe with what I listed from imdb in the article for Kisses' IFTA nominations. Am I missing something or should I just not trust imdb on such matters?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussions on two lists nominated for deletion can be found here and here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion started here that could use a few more eyes and opinions. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we talked about Zombie433 ( talk · contribs) here in the past, and I noticed today that he is continuing to spam dreadcentral.com, such as here and here. Did we do something about this before or not? If not, what is the proper action here? Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. - Kollision ( talk) 08:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We're having a discussion over at La strada on how it and other foreign films should be capitalized. I'd like to get a consensus and WP:MOSFILM updated. Ciou. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm having the article Saw VI that I have been working on since—well since I've began editing here—peer viewed. It's already been reviewed by two editors but if there are any comments from the Film Project, it would be appreciated (mainly someone that copyedits, since that is a big concern). And if not, I understand. Thanks. Mike Allen 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At the talk page of The Green Hornet (2011 film), there is a request to move the article to The Green Hornet (film). It appears that the 2011 disambiguation exists because there is a 2006 short film titled The Green Hornet. I researched the 2006 film, which is French in origin, but I sense that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I used Google News Search in French but only found this. The 2006 film's article also has this, but that appears unreliable per a domain whois. Since the 2006 film's article presence is muddying the discussion to move the 2011 film's article, I was wondering if others thought the 2006 film should be posted for AfD or if there can be significant coverage found for it. The requested move for the 2011 film can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I added an "Accolades" section to the WikiProject Films guidelines (see here) and have provided comments on the guidelines' talk page. If you have anything to add, I invite you to do so. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An AfD for the article is now open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film).-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Was wondering if these sources were reliable with regards to award nominations and wins. movies yahoo and the oscar site Thanks for any help Monkeymanman ( talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions going on about the writer field in the infobox: One on splitting off the original work the film was based on (novel etc.), and one on how the tasks in the writers field should be grouped (screenplay, screen story, characters, etc.). Some input would be appreciated. Prime Blue ( talk) 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So this film was marketed as remake and the director makes a passing comment on the DVD commentary to thinking of it as a prequel to the 1975 film of the same name. Consequently, there is an editor who insists on labeling the film a prequel (for months on end, seriously) but without engaging in much discussion about it. A brief discussion has occurred on the talk page on the issue, however prequel editor has not chimed in at all. Erik and I are the only folks who have engaged on the talk page and I'm inclined to go with his assessment; this amounts to mention prequel per DVD commentary but describe film as remake. Could anyone interested take a look at the page itself, and the relevant section on the talk page and add their two cents? I'd love to either find a way to describe the issue in the article and stop this endless reverting or get a better sense of consensus. It feels a little silly to revert per consensus when only two people are actually talking. I dropped a note to the editor in question to bring the issue to the talk page (months ago) and continue to ask that he does so in my revert summaries. SO far, nothing. Millahnna (mouse) talk 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As individuals involved in development and improvement of film articles, many of us have been able to research and add sources to film articles when their authors did not. We have also been able to gauge the volume of coverage for such articles so as to see if they might meet WP:NF or, if unreleased, WP:NFF. However, I feel that in some cases the guideline NFF is in occasional conflict with policy, and so I would appreciate input (both pro or con) at a discussion I have opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP attracted my attention to the {{ Bfidb title}} template with this, and a brief investigation makes me question the value of having this external link (or the template itself) in film articles. While the British Film Institute is excellent (especially with its Film Index International), I am not sure of the value of the set of web pages being linked to here. Here are some examples of links from the template.
Per WP:EL, external links should be included when they can serve as unique resources. In reviewing the above sample of links, I cannot find their value as external links. (The only relatively unique detail from there is the production start and end date, which should be included in the article anyway.) I'd like to do without what I perceive as link creep, but I wanted to find out others' opinions. Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I know it is not project-related, but I've got some really sad news to tell everyone here at this WikiProject: AnmaFinotera, our coordinator for nearly the past year, has just announced her resignation earlier today due to her permanent retirement from Wikipedia. The link announcing her resignation can be found here. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please add your thoughts on the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
All four pages related to the Transformers movies are plagued by some serious source issues to varying degrees (with the franchise page and the 3rd film having the biggest issues). Most of their sources are coming from www.tfw2005.com, a fan site (a few of these are okay as they are actually interviews with cast and crew, but very few). Other fansites being used include a blogspot blog run by no one of any consequence. I'm not sure what tags to put on. Editors way more experienced than me advised that these refs should be pulled a few weeks back. I did this on the upcoming film and now all of those fansite refs are back in place (predominantly in the casting section). Frankly, trying to clean up these refs is entirely too overwhelming for me, as I don't play with refs too terribly often and typically break the page a few times in the process of fixing it. I can has help? I was thinking I could just tag the pages but I'm 1) sure that the tags will get removed and 2) not sure what tags would be appropriate. Millahnna (mouse) talk 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it normally acceptable to add an album infobox in a soundtrack section of an article? [See here] I'm still working this sucker to a FAC, and am worried about that non-free album cover. Just adding a non-free rationale for Saw VI would satisfy non-free criteria? Mike Allen 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is ongoing discussion about making the writing credits more granular in the film infobox, I was thinking of a way to keep the main infobox from being overpopulated with so many parameters. I've considered the cinematographer and the editor parameters to be the least important, relatively speaking. With music, the parameter can vary in importance a lot. In addition, there has been infobox discussion about "missing" production credits, especially those where people can win awards, such as for costume design or art direction. I've attempted an experiment where I use a second infobox in a film article's "Production" section that lists the additional production credits. I used Fight Club (film) as my example, as seen here. (Please tolerate this presentation as a very rough draft.) The credits I included in this second infobox are music, cinematography, editing, production design, art direction, set decoration, and costume design. I went out of my way to create Chris Gorak (per WP:CREATIVE) as a result. I think such an infobox would help highlight these secondary credits, and this kind of infobox could help improve blue-link navigation at the very least for award-winning (and thus notable) crew in the film industry. We at WikiProject Films do try to avoid indiscriminately listing all cast and crew members, but I do not think that credits where awards can be won are indiscriminate. I'm not looking to implement this right away; I'm pitching this idea to see what others think. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I may be late on the bandwagon in using this, but hopefully there are others like me that are unaware and could benefit. To help prevent link rot for citations that are being used in articles, I have normally been using Wayback Machine (if links are available) or linking to sites that sell old articles. However, I just stumbled upon WebCite, a free site that creates an archive of a page. To use it, you just need to give an e-mail address so they can tell you the link name once it is done processing. When you find an article you want to archive, you click on a link they provide and it automatically converts it and sends the url to your e-mail. After that, the link can be added to a manually entered citation/citation template and there will always be a useful link for the reader, even if the original goes dead. I'm planning on going through each of the GA/FAs I've worked on, and would recommend others do the same to prevent having to constantly check each link and searching for an archived page elsewhere. WP:WEBCITE provides some guidance as does the actual website, and it's pretty straightforward. Again, if this is already common knowledge, I must apologize for having my head always buried in a book—er, film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a minor controversy at Talk:Rope and Breasts. Would appreciate input. Dekkappai ( talk) 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is some work going on by User:Nihonjo, User:*Kat* and me, to improve a series of lists, most of which contain war films based on books. The lists have had a number of issues for a long time, relating to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OWN, to name a few. The original author of the lists, User:Varlaam has long been reluctant to allow others to make improvements, although changes are finally being made. I would like to get others involved if possible, as three editors does not necessarily make "consensus". More info can be found at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, as well as at various article talkpages including Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) and Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926). (Also, check out the article histories of any of the relevant articles.)
It would be a great help if other editors could join in, either to help out, or just to say they agree with changes being made, or they don't agree, or they have better ideas, or that perceived problems aren't really problems... or whatever! One of the problems we'll be tackling next is trying to remove films that aren't really about the topic of the list (ie. not really a war film, not really a sports film etc.), so if anyone wants to run their eyes over the list and remove films that they know shouldn't be there, that would be great too.-- Beloved Freak 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Editor182 has been repeatedly posting the image File:Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula.jpg on the following articles despite the objections of myself and some other editors:
The image is Editor182's personal fan art of Richard Roxburgh as Dracula in the film Van Helsing (that big CGI crapfest with Hugh Jackman fighting all the Universal Monsters). Although I have to assume good faith, I think that Editor182 wants to show off their art--because nowhere in the article does it call for an image of Roxburgh as Dracula. It's not even like it's a real person with no free image available, so a drawing is the only substitute. Nor does it add anything of note to the article--it is purely decorative. Editor182 has even gone far as to replace an image of a wax figure of Bela Lugosi as Dracula with Roxburgh.
But if this was a drawing of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, that would be another matter entirely. But Richard Roxburgh from Van Helsing? Count Chocula or the Count from Sesame Street are more notable than he is when it comes to portraying Count Dracula. Roxburgh is simply not a notable interpretation of Dracula. To put a drawing of him on articles that discuss Dracula from the novel is nothing short of absurd. If you take a look at Count Dracula, you'll see there are already images of Lugosi, Lee, Max Shreck (Nosferatu) and the real Vlad Tepes. Think for a moment and ask if anything from Van Helsing should be with them.-- 24.147.231.200 ( talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I call BS. I have nothing to gain from the image being in the articles, I think it's a contribution. Editor182 ( talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll also add that I never replaced any image to include this image, it was purely contribution, not a substitution, but you on the other hand did replace the image, but I have no issues with other images in the article. Good try, though. I already noted in the noticeboards that if the decision from there is to remove them, then I'll request the complete removal from commons. I don't gain anything from the image being here. You have some psychotic agenda. Editor182 ( talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, whatever, you win, congratulations, sleep better tonight, okay? Editor182 ( talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated Dustbin Baby (film), which falls under the remit of this project, for featured article status. Thoughts/comments would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but does a film's "budget" mean the same as what it cost to make? Or does it refer to the amount that the film's supposed to cost, or the planned cost of the film, which could then theoretically be different from the final cost? To put it simply, I've found a reliable source mention that a film cost $x to make - can I use that as the "budget"?-- Beloved Freak 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What made me bring this up (for the umteenth time) is an edit war I was involved in over at Inception (2010 film)'s page. The budget should be presented in the same way the gross is presented, and the gross is going to be presented as a whole number, and therefore the budget should be presented in the same way. ChaosMaster Chat 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Could use some input on how to handle the list of examples in MacGuffin, which tends to grow and become populated with non-notable or unsourced examples. Just keep eliminating the unsourced ones, or add citation neededs, prosify, get rid of the section? As I noted on the talk page, a MacGuffin can be just about anything, so examples aren't that instructive IMO, and it's problematic perhaps when there's competing contradictory definitions (Hitchcock's versus Spielberg's).
Possibly all the articles in the category Film and video terminology could use some attention. Some seem to be just dicdefs and might be better handled in a glossary here or moved to Wiktionary (e.g. Quote whore, Blackout gag). Some possibly aren't widely used terminology at all, like Spinning newspaper, which is maybe more of a cliched device than terminology anyway. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions to streamline the charts on the List of highest-grossing films at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Superfluous_information. The changes would radically alter the article and we've only had two opinions so far. I would welcome a few more to provide a clearer picture of what we want in the charts and what we don't. I would prefer it if the charts were consistent because at the moment it looks ad hoc, so either we need to add data to some charts or remove it from others. If we could agree a standard box office chart for all the articles that would be great. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated November (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. JJ98 ( talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
All, the
film infobox has two new parameters available to use: screenplay=
and story=
. This is the result of discussion at
Template talk:Infobox film and allows a more aesthetic breakdown of writing credits. The writer=
parameter is still available for use, but I encourage everyone to instead use the two new parameters where they apply. For example,
Black Swan (film) identifies one person for the story and three people for the screenplay. In addition, there is discussion at the template talk page about additional parameters related to writing and source material. You can see the discussion
here. Erik (
talk |
contribs)
01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Last I heard, we were determining a film's nationality by the nationality of the production companies. What do we do if there are several from different countries, or several with a majority of them from one company? Simply list the nationalities? Reason I ask is this edit. Removal of Fox Atomic looks legit, as they were the distributors (according to some googling), and the addition of Spain also seem fine as there is a Spanish production company listed, with the rest of them being British (couldn't hunt down Koan). Geoff B ( talk) 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There was an ongoing discussion here Template talk:Infobox actor#Merge with Infobox person that has been moved here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor. I feel that there should be more input before a final decision is made. Please feel free to add your thoughts and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been throwing around a collab idea in my head between you guys and the baseball project, and I thought I'd note it here to see if it's worth the time. I was thinking of having us combine to work on some of the baseball film articles. Upon looking at baseball's most popular pages, a lot of films show up, so they're definitely ones people read, so it would be beneficial. You guys could handle the format/structure aspects while we could handle the, well, baseball aspects. I figure this would be a November/December thing to do, since the baseball season will be over. It got some mild support when I asked over there, so it's tough to say how well it would work. If you guys are up for it, let me know; if you think this is a stupid idea, that's fine too. I only see a couple baseball films in your top 1k popular pages, so it's not all that pressing for you. Just a thought I'm throwing out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_website_.22The_Numbers.22_an_appropriate_source_for_film_info.3F. Would appreciate some input there. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to see what you all thought of the subcategorization of categories such as Category:Films set in the 1980s to Category:Films set in 1985, Category:Films set in 1986, etc. The "by decade" seems sufficient to me so this seems a bit much, but I thought I'd bring it to the attention to the subject matter experts here before a possible CFD. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Where a director has filmed multiple works, the films typically share a director template. Lately, I've noticed that director templates have gone beyond listing a director's works. There are director templates that also list that person's credits as producer and screenwriter. An example is Template:Matthew Vaughn. These templates are then proliferated to these films' articles. For example, the Matt Vaughn template appears in The Debt and Swept Away (2002 film) right below these films' own director templates. This is scope creep in director templates, where we are supposed to keep use of such templates limited per WP:CLN. This is why we avoid actor templates across all actors' films, but the same argument ought to apply to crew members beyond the director himself. I ask for a review of director templates to ensure that the proper scope is maintained. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Drizzle (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Today I've seen a couple of articles with sentences: "Fred (actor's name) starts attending the fictional university..." or "Detective Jones is sent to the fiction town of X to investigate..." now I get that the university and the town are fictional and we have to show that. And I get that we have to be clearly not in-universe. I don't quite get why Detective Jone or Fred are denoted as fictional, but that's not my problem. To me these sentences read like the stories are post modern... Someone entering a book and going to a inuniverse fiction university or the detective entering a film and investigating crimes in a fictional town... Is there better phrasing that can clarify what needs to be said (these places don't exist in the real world) without what I see as an ambiguous phrasing? 203.35.82.136 ( talk) 09:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I edit and publish the website Movie Review Intelligence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_Review_Intelligence). Throughout Wikipedia, in articles that cover individual movies, there is a section called "Reception," which has information about movie reviews. Usually there are citations from several movie review aggregators. Movie Review Intelligence is a professional movie review aggregator that is regularly quoted in the press and relied on by movie industry professionals because it is based on objective, statistical methodologies that minimize biases ( http://iurl.us/bcj) Is it possible for Movie Review Intelligence to be considered as a source of movie review information on the movie pages on Wikipedia? If you require additional information or explanation, I can provide it. Thank you. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla ( talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Eric, thank you for your note. Mistakes posting information by Movie Review Intelligence were made which resulted in the site being blacklisted. It will not happen again. If I knew how to request being white-listed, I would do so. Movie Review Intelligence is not looking to gain a foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry. I would ask that the editors take a minute to understand each site's methodology and results. If the goal of Wikipedia is to include the two most popular movie review sites, that goal appears to have been met. However, if the goal is to present a film's reception as measured objectively according to what the body of U.S. film critics are saying, not what the aggregator is saying, then I hope the editors will consider including Movie Review Intelligence. The list of critics and publications covered by each website, the grading scales, the weighting, the analysis -- each site is very different in its approach, yielding significantly different results. Movie Review Intelligence is dedicated to an objective analysis of film criticism. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia. David A. Gross Dagrossla ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
Eric, thank you for your explanation. It is helpful and much appreciated. Wikipedia's effort to "reflect the consensus" of critical opinion that you speak of -- my hope is that the Wikipedia editors will take the time to consider the methodologies used by the sources it quotes so that they can know to what degree they are unbiased or biased, objective or subjective, statistically accurate or distorted. It is a complicated and important issue that deserves consideration. Again, thank you. David A. Gross Dagrossla ( talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A request was made for Movie Review Intelligence to be removed from the blacklist. The request was denied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2011#MovieReviewIntelligence.com_.28removal_request.29 David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla ( talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussions (again), about the genre of Heat is being discussed here. Any contributions to the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about moving the article to another title. This is a GA-class article, additional opinions are welcome. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I see that casting rumors are in film articles that are already been deemed not true or true. So would this be adequate to add, " Jennifer Aniston was once rumored to be in the cast of Scream 4". [1] Since Aniston is a A-list celeb, is such verbiage acceptable (while of course sourced)? Or is there no point to add something this inconsequential? Mike Allen 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies on the color of filmography table headers. Please join in that discussion if you so wish. Chicken monkey 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok so what poster do we use for a non-English film? The poster I am talking about is from the film Dogtooth, which is a Greek film called Kynodontas. The original Greek poster has just "Kynodontas", while the new English poster has "Dogtooth". I replaced it with the English title poster, since that's the name the article uses. A user did not like that I changed the poster and cited the Template:Infobox, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox". I would think a poster that is written in the English language should be used for the English Wikipedia and for the Greek Wikipedia, the original poster. Right? Mike Allen 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)On a similar question to this, when I was working on the article for Hard Boiled, I could not find a really good quality image of the Hong Kong poster. I assume to take this into consideration when uploading posters to to use the best quality poster you can find in general first before using an original language poster. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Following repeated addition of unsourced/ OR material to City Without Baseball by User:Tai kit and anonymous IPs, I have attempted to start a discussion at Talk:City Without Baseball. Before it becomes an edit war, I would appreciate any opinions or comments from uninvolved people, at the article talkpage. It affects other film articles too, but the recent activity has been on this one. As I've gone on a bit there, the issues in a nutshell are: unsourced claims about media coverage of nudity in the film, too much detailed description of genitals, too much info about other films that doesn't seem relevant in the article and, most importantly, a WP:BLP violation with details about the actor being ashamed of the size of his penis, and then quite pleased after all because it was comparatively big - unsourced.-- Beloved Freak 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In Box Office Mojo's international section the revenues for a number of film markets are reported weekly in dollars, for example South Korea May 28–30, 2010. Above the chart the current exchange rate is shown between dollars and the local currency, which also is updated weekly and corresponds to the rate at the end of the reported week. Would it be considered original research if I multiplied the dollar numbers with the exchange rate to get the gross in the original currency? Or do I have to present the gross in dollars if I can't find any other source? Smetanahue ( talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has the entire openning credits. Is that normal or even desirable? 203.35.135.136 ( talk) 06:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move P.O.W. The Escape to Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film). Additional input would be welcome on the article's talk page. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Notability (films) page states that, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have a question about notability in regard to the popular Internet Movie Database. If a film is listed as forthcoming in the IMDB, can this source be considered reliable? I know that anyone can enroll in the IMDB for a fee and list his or her credentials and upcoming films whether these credentials or films are fantasy or not. Does the IMDB qualify as a reliable source, given that IMDB film listings and film information may have been put there by people who are not "independent of the subject"? Is the IMDB a reliable source, given that people can list information there that is in their own self-interest and not objective? Thanks in advance to the community for taking this under consideration. SCFilm29 ( talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I found a neat publicity still from the 1934 Laurel and Hardy film Babes in Toyland in a thrift store. I am trying to determine the copyright status of this, as it would add to its Wikipedia. Can someone please tell me how to research this to find out if this film and its advertising materials are public domain?
Thanks. JGKlein ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Hello, I saved this article from a sure WP:CSD and improved it significantly. As of 21 minutes ago, The Bandit Queen (1950 film) is on the frontpage as a DYK item. I've never written a film article before; so please excuse me as I probably made a lot of rookie errors. Still, the article made first base. Enjoy! ---- moreno oso ( talk) 06:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated The Empire Strikes Back for a featured article review. I feel it has lost the formatting, grammar, and sourcing required to be considered amongst the best articles of Wikipedia in the three years since it was nominated. The review is located here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am almost done with an overhaul of the Barbara Hershey acticle and plan to nominate it for GA. I need assistance with the images. I have added some that I feel certain will be deleted. I find the image uploading process on Wikipedia frustrating and unrewarding. Any help will be greatly appreciated.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Although that is good information, I still would like some help, if possible, locating at least one image that will fit the accepted criteria. -- Ishtar456 ( talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)#Table section of the MoS to get this missing section hopefully completed. Thoughts appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd be grateful for any help developing The Lazarus Effect (film) - it's a documentary, to raise awareness of AIDS in Africa. Movies aren't my thing... lots of sources now (and more each day) gnews, etc. Help please? Chzz ► 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A list of films has been added to the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles:
Please take a look. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks RJH - I've done some redirecting. What's the notability of The Scarecrow Movie Guide? IE, how does it compare to other film guides? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, just thought that I should let your project know that I've nominated Black swan story for deletion. Regards, Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Template talk:Infobox film#Writer Parameter concerning the current practice of including the author of the original work used for a film adaptations in the "writer" parameter of the film infobox. Additional participants in the discussion would be welcome. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No categories, no sources, completely unreferenced. Could use some cleanup, perhaps stub down to workable amount and then rework with adequate sourcing. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I just clarify that it is the production budget that goes here? I reverted an edit that added in the marketing budget but it was then reverted [4]. This reference [5] is being used to back up the claim that the film's budget is $280 million. The article clearly states the production budget is $150m and that the marketing budget is a further $130m. As I always understood it we only documented the production budget in the infobox. I checked the template documentation but the instructions are ambiguous,so I'd appreciate it if it could be cleared up. On most articles it seems only the production budget is entered in this field, but its usage should be consistent across all articles really. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, "The Cursed Videotape" from "The Ring"/"Ringu" has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cursed Videotape.
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see [6], followed again by [7]. It does not make sense to report one value to three digits (budget), and and the next value to seven digits (gross revenue). The infobox should have uniformity with number values, and both should maintain the same format style, namely, that of the budget, precise to three digits. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to be concise and brief. I don't see how adding the zeros makes any difference. I think it's a personal preference, and shouldn't be a cause of an edit war. Mike Allen 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
An enthusiastic editor has created the following article Fantasia (film series). To me this does not seem to contain anything that is not already mentioned in the two articles that already exist about the films. I am also not sure about its encyclopedic value. Unfortunately, I am short of time to examine it further so I am asking the members of the film project to check it out and come to a consensus as to whether it can be improved or if it should be listed for deletion. I will inform the editor about this post before I log off. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
[SOCK EDIT removed]
That User:Wildhartlivie can unilaterally declare a particular book an unreliable source? Do all active editors have this power, or only ones with their own private cabal?— Chowbok ☠ 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
For uninvolved editors who have seen the film and know the final big twist or those who have not seen it and do not care to be spoiled I am in the midst of a dispute as the the exact nature of the final twist. I have been using Sight & Sound as a reference for the twist, and have provided a link to the shooting script which also confirms the twist, however two editors do not feel that Sight & Sound and the shooting script are good enough sources; could I have as many extra pairs of eyes on this as possible. The twist seems obvious however the ambiguity built into the film, designed to hide the twist, is being interpreted as the exact opposite of the twist. Any help, etc, etc. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This press release:
list the latest membership invitations by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Below is a mechanical wikification of the list I did in order to see which invitees might have articles. I've made no attempt to deal with any disambiguation needed in some cases (e.g. for LaTanya Richardson Jackson). I would suggest that being invited to become an AMPAS member is an achievement that goes a significant way towards establishing WP:CREATIVE notability for people. 72.244.204.61 ( talk) 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
* Tobin Bell – “Saw,” “The Firm” * Vera Farmiga – “Up in the Air,” “The Departed” * Miguel Ferrer – “Traffic,” “RoboCop” * James Gandolfini – “In the Loop,” “Get Shorty” * Anna Kendrick – “Up in the Air,” “Twilight” * Mo’Nique – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Phat Girlz” * Carey Mulligan – “An Education,” “Public Enemies” * Jeremy Renner – “The Hurt Locker,” “28 Weeks Later" * Ryan Reynolds – “The Proposal,” “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” * LaTanya Richardson Jackson – “Mother and Child,” “Losing Isaiah” * Peter Riegert – “Traffic,” "Crossing Delancey" * Sam Robards – “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” “American Beauty” * Saoirse Ronan – “The Lovely Bones,” “Atonement” * Zoe Saldana – “Avatar,” “Star Trek” * Adam Sandler – “Funny People,” “Punch-Drunk Love” * Peter Sarsgaard – “An Education,” "Boys Don’t Cry" * Gabourey Sidibe – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” * Shaun Toub – “Iron Man,” “The Kite Runner” * Christoph Waltz – “Inglourious Basterds” * George Wyner – “A Serious Man,” “American Pie 2”
* Ken Bielenberg – “Monsters vs Aliens,” “Shrek” * Peter de Seve – “Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” “Ratatouille” * Steve Hickner – “Bee Movie,” "The Prince of Egypt" * Angus MacLane – “Toy Story 3,” “WALL-E” * Darragh O’Connell – “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty,” “Give Up Yer Aul Sins” * Simon Otto – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Kung Fu Panda” * Bob Pauley – “Toy Story 3,” “Monsters, Inc.” * Willem Thijssen – “The Aroma of Tea,” “A Greek Tragedy"
* Kim Sinclair – “Avatar,” “Cast Away” * Dave Warren – “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” “Bridget Jones’s Diary”
* Laura Rosenthal – “The Messenger,” “I’m Not There”
* Barry Ackroyd – “The Hurt Locker,” “United 93” * Christian Berger – “The White Ribbon,” “Cache” * Hagen Bogdanski – “The Young Victoria,” “The Lives of Others” * Shane Hurlbut – “Terminator Salvation,” “We Are Marshall” * Tom Hurwitz – “Valentino The Last Emperor,” “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib” * Dan Mindel – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Tobias Schliessler – “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” “Hancock” * Stephen Windon – “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift,” “House of Wax” * Robert Yeoman – “Get Him to the Greek,” “The Squid and the Whale”
* Catherine Leterrier – “Coco before Chanel,” “Avenue Montaigne” * Janet Patterson – “Bright Star,” “The Piano”
* Jacques Audiard – “A Prophet,” “The Beat That My Heart Skipped” * Juan Jose Campanella – “The Secret in Their Eyes,” "Son of the Bride" * Lee Daniels – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Shadowboxer” * Claudia Llosa – “The Milk of Sorrow,” “Madeinusa” * Lone Scherfig – “An Education,” “Italian for Beginners” * Adam Shankman – “Bedtime Stories,” “Hairspray”
* Nancy Baker – “Rehearsing a Dream,” “Born into Brothels” * Rick Goldsmith – “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” “Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press” * Davis Guggenheim – “It Might Get Loud,” “An Inconvenient Truth” * Tia Lessin – “Capitalism: A Love Story,” “Trouble the Water” * Cara Mertes – “The Betrayal,” “My Country, My Country” * Frazer Pennebaker – “Al Franken: God Spoke,” “The War Room” * Julia Reichert – “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant,” “Seeing Red” * Morgan Spurlock – “Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?,” “Super Size Me”
* Christopher W. Aronson * Jim Berk * Philippe Dauman * Sheila DeLoach * Donald Peter Granger * Nathan Kahane * Andrew Karpen * Ryan Kavanaugh * David Kosse * David Andrew Spitz * Emma Watts
* Robert Frazen – “Synecdoche, New York,” “Smart People” * Dana E. Glauberman – “Up in the Air,” “Thank You for Smoking” * Joe Klotz – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Grace Is Gone” * Bob Murawski – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man” * John Refoua – “Avatar,” “Reno 911!: Miami”
* Joachim Back – “The New Tenants” * Gregg Helvey – “Kavi,” “The Knife Grinder’s Tale”
* Kris Evans – “X-Men The Last Stand," “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” * Jane Galli – “Knight and Day,” “3:10 to Yuma” * Mindy Hall – “Star Trek,” “World Trade Center” * Joel Harlow – “Star Trek,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” * Jenny Shircore – “The Young Victoria,” “Elizabeth”
* Christophe Beck – “The Hangover,” “Bring It On” * Bono – “Gangs of New York,” “In the Name of the Father” * T Bone Burnett – “Crazy Heart,” “Cold Mountain” * The Edge – “Gangs of New York,” "GoldenEye" * Brian Tyler – “Fast & Furious,” “Aliens vs. Predator Requiem”
* Stephanie Allain – “Black Snake Moan,” “Hustle & Flow” * Gregory Jacobs – “The Informant!,” “The Good German” * Jon Landau – “Avatar,” “Titanic” * Marc Turtletaub – “Away We Go,” “Little Miss Sunshine” * Glenn Williamson – “Sunshine Cleaning,” “Hollywoodland”
* Kirk M. Pertruccelli – “The Incredible Hulk,” “The Patriot” * Edward S. Verreaux – “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra,” “Jurassic Park III”
* Dwight Caines * Suzanne M. Cole * Tommy Gargotta * Sophie Gluck * Josh Greenstein * Pamela Levine * Wendy Lightbourn * Michele Robertson * Tony Sella
* Maggie Gray – “The Young Victoria,” “Ella Enchanted” * Douglas A. Mowat – “Role Models,” “The Sixth Sense” * Caroline Smith – “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” “Match Point”
* Frank Eulner – “Iron Man 2,” “Hellboy” * Adam Jenkins – “I Love You, Man,” “Crash” * Tony Lamberti – "Inglourious Basterds," “Sideways” * Dennis Leonard – “Disney’s A Christmas Carol,” “The Polar Express” * Tom Myers – “Up,” “WALL-E” * Paul N.J. Ottosson – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man 3” * Resul Pookutty – “Ghajini,” “Slumdog Millionaire” * Gary A. Rizzo – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “The Dark Knight” * Michael Silvers – “Up,” “Ratatouille” * Gwendolyn Yates Whittle – “Avatar,” "The Simpsons Movie"
* Matt Aitken – “District 9,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” * Karen Ansel – “Angels & Demons,” “Men in Black II” * Richard Baneham – “Avatar,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” * Eric Barba – “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Zodiac” * Paul Debevec – “Avatar,” “King Kong” * Russell Earl – “Star Trek,” “Transformers” * Steve Galich – “Date Night,” "Transformers" * Andrew R. Jones – “Avatar,” “I, Robot” * Dan Kaufman – “District 9,” “Ocean’s Thirteen” * Derek Spears – “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor,” “Superman Returns” * Steve Sullivan – “Avatar,” “Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith” * Michael J. Wassel – “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” “The Bourne Identity”
* Neill Blomkamp – “District 9” * Mark Boal – “The Hurt Locker,” “In the Valley of Elah” * Geoffrey Fletcher – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” * Nick Hornby – “An Education,” “Fever Pitch” * Alex Kurtzman – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Tom McCarthy – “Up,” “The Visitor” * Roberto Orci – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III” * Terri Tatchell – “District 9”
* Darcy Antonellis * John Lowry
So.. I've discovered that IMDb has a "Box office and Business" page for films which lists the budget and filming dates. From what I've seen the filming dates seem accurate (for articles I work on), but maybe they got the dates from the Wikipedia articles... who knows. ;-) The budget is what I'm wondering... is it "reliable", especially since they own Box Office Mojo? The Resident Evil: Afterlife page says the budget is an estaimated (of course) $56 million. It doesn't seem so implausible considering the previous film in the series' budget was $45 million. Note that Resident Evil: Afterlife was shot in 3D which would explain one of the many possible reasons the budget is more this go-around. So the question I have is--where does this number come from? Anyone that edits IMDb? Thanks. Mike Allen 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::@Nehrams: Well, IMDb was and is not my first pick. Someone added it to the RE page and I thought it seem ok. The budgets usually aren't released until it's closer to the film's release. The LA Times Company Town page adds budget for films in their "Movie Projector" the Friday the films are released. That's where I snatch film budgets; been doing that for a while actually. @Betty: In all honestly, most production companies don't publish the "real" budget anyhow so who really knows. They are just simply estimates, but it's the best and all we got. I'll axe that IMDb source, the film is being released in September. It can wait. @Bignole; good point. However, BOM also don't release budgets until it's close to the films release. I just wasn't sure if the "Business" part was edited by just anyone on IMDb or reliable people associated with that film. Thanks for the replies and that interview. Mike Allen 07:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The naming conventions for disambiguating films by their year of release defines the year as the first cinematic release, excluding film festival showings. I've started a discussion on whether this is the right decision at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Disambiguation by release year. Fences& Windows 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an link to an Wikipedia article that said it doesn't exist yet it's still visible if you go in the article The Last Airbender there's an link to it in the template below and there it is. Even if you try to edit on it Wikipedia says it doesn't exists. Is this on purpose or an big error? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Typhoon966 ( talk · contribs) has been adding the film distributor to "production companies" in the infoboxe, separating the film and video distributors, and generally making changes which don't seem to be accurate or sourced. If those changes are generally inaccurate, he should be blocked. If this project believes them accurate, I'll keep out, but some of the changes (and the vast majority of those I've checked) seem not to match the actual information. 76.174.188.251 ( talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
U2 3D is currently a good article and I feel as if it's ready for FA-status. But last year I nominated it for A-Class and the nomination sat dormant for about 3 months until it "failed". No reason was given for its failing, it just failed the nomination because no one commented on it for so long. I really want to nominate it for FA-status but I don't want the same thing to happen again. Since I'm not that active with WP:FILM, I was hoping to get some feedback here on what step I should take next. I don't think a peer review is necessary, but I'm willing to do another one if uses on here suggest so. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion regarding the use of multiple non-free images in The High and the Mighty on the article's talk page. Other comments would be helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As dscussed here: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 7#Start date template, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 10#Release dates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 19#Release date problems, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 4#Release date. It appears that the only release dates that should be noted is the: Premiere, a festivle or public gathering, the country it was produced in, and the first date it was released. In the Twilight articles, ( Twilight (2008 film), The Twilight Saga: New Moon, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse) there seems to be some disbute on whether this applies to the articles. I don't see any reason why [ [9]] cant be used. Is there any opinions out there? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
The 2010 in film has been protected due to a content dispute. I bring the question here for the broadest attention. The dispute is over the death of Elżbieta Czyżewska should be included in the article. I personally support it as she has been in several films, both American and Polish, many that meet Wikipedia's notability guideline to have an article. However, some editors have consistently removed her entry, with these explanations in the notes: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Comments are requested please. BOVINEBOY 2008 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
A new user, Giordano Adams, has made edits going against this consensus. I have started an ANI thread here. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, since she's causing this many problems that lead to an edit war and three accounts blocked, wouldn't it be wise to remove her from the list so it woun't cause this much hassle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.24.103 ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Does someone knows who decided to remove the needs-prod/cast/plot/synopsis parameters and why? I don't think it was a good idea. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
B-Class-2=no
to the Film banner template will add the article to
Category:Film articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy and display the criteria as "not met" in the banner's B-Class checklist. An {{
Expand}} template might also be added to inform others on missing content. Basically, I think the parameters were removed because they do not translate into real results and hence, tagging articles with them was a waste of time. ...I mean, the parameters have been gone for over 7 months and I think you're the first person who complain about it. -
Kollision (
talk)
10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Please see here I have no idea what Category:Videos and DVDs even is and it seems like a perfect candidate for deletion; can someone (preferably multiple persons) give some input there? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some discrepencies in regards to this company. Our own article on it says as a brand it was retired off as a theatrical distributor in 2007 and that Walt Disney Pictures now directly distributes its own films. In the case of Burton's Alice in Wonderland both Allmovie and Box Office Mojo say it was released by Buena Vista, while IMDB states it was released through Walt Disney Pictures. Is this a case of reliable source Allmovie being wrong and unreliable source IMDB being correct, or is Buena Vista still the legal name? Can anyone clarify this? Betty Logan ( talk) 01:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that there is some disagreement over how to present budget and revenue facts. If something is budgeted at $160 million, logically it should be presented in the infobox as $160,000,000, in order to line up with the revenue which would be presented in 9 (or less) digets. However, if it is presented as $160 million in the infobox, the gross should relfect this. For example, Avatar (2009 film), which grossed 2,730,850,547 would then have to be rounded to $2.7 billion and then I could see some editor in the future arguing the gross is closer to 2.6 or 2.8 million, though I don't exactly know how, and then we have another issue which could have been prevented. And though some argue that the budget is not "an exact number" and is just an estimate, wouldn't the gross be the same? How do we know Avatar grossed exactly 2,730,850,547? It could be $50, $100, $1000 off. ChaosMaster Chat 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an RFC over at the talk page for the documentary Happy Endings? and was hoping to get more opinions of people who have so far not been involved with editing the article. The initial RFC that I put on the RFC requests page has so far not brought anybody in from outside the existing discussion, but perhaps some here will be interested. The disagreement concerns the appropriateness of mentioning the film (and linking to the article) from the bio pages of a number of public figures who appeared in the doc. The RFC can be found here: Talk:Happy Endings?#RFC: Links to/Mention of this film in other articles. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If Nehrams doesn't want to add the few parameters needed then we should indeed create a new Template:Infobox Indian film. Personally I see the argument against adding Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers paramters to the infobox a weak one. It will hardly make any difference to infobox size. You want a bloated infobox look at infobox settlement. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film)#Genre to discuss the identified genre for the film. I'm tired of looking at edit wars back and forth with this article over the specific "genre". I'd like some more opinions so that a clear consensus can be made. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I know the film has not been confirmed, but i feel there should be a sub-section on the Toy Story 3 page of a possible sequel. Winchester Admiral (Contact me) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussions related to our project are currently under way:
Additional input would be beneficial and appreciated. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is IMDB okay as an WP:RS source for main-body-text section on BLPs, or just filmography tables? Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_appropriate_to_add_unsourced_information_to_articles_on_BLPs_.3F. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious because I know I saw it before. Where in the guidelines does it say IMDb is not an reliable source. I need to know this so I can explain to somebody that it isn't an reliable source. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I recently saw Kisses and enjoyed it quite a it so I created the article (still a stub, any help appreciated). I used imdb initially as the information source for the film's awards, which I am now attempting to source more specifically with each award organization's official listing, and it appears that imdb got it very wrong. This is apparently IFTA's official list, which does not jibe with what I listed from imdb in the article for Kisses' IFTA nominations. Am I missing something or should I just not trust imdb on such matters?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussions on two lists nominated for deletion can be found here and here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion started here that could use a few more eyes and opinions. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we talked about Zombie433 ( talk · contribs) here in the past, and I noticed today that he is continuing to spam dreadcentral.com, such as here and here. Did we do something about this before or not? If not, what is the proper action here? Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. - Kollision ( talk) 08:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We're having a discussion over at La strada on how it and other foreign films should be capitalized. I'd like to get a consensus and WP:MOSFILM updated. Ciou. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm having the article Saw VI that I have been working on since—well since I've began editing here—peer viewed. It's already been reviewed by two editors but if there are any comments from the Film Project, it would be appreciated (mainly someone that copyedits, since that is a big concern). And if not, I understand. Thanks. Mike Allen 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At the talk page of The Green Hornet (2011 film), there is a request to move the article to The Green Hornet (film). It appears that the 2011 disambiguation exists because there is a 2006 short film titled The Green Hornet. I researched the 2006 film, which is French in origin, but I sense that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I used Google News Search in French but only found this. The 2006 film's article also has this, but that appears unreliable per a domain whois. Since the 2006 film's article presence is muddying the discussion to move the 2011 film's article, I was wondering if others thought the 2006 film should be posted for AfD or if there can be significant coverage found for it. The requested move for the 2011 film can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I added an "Accolades" section to the WikiProject Films guidelines (see here) and have provided comments on the guidelines' talk page. If you have anything to add, I invite you to do so. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An AfD for the article is now open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film).-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Was wondering if these sources were reliable with regards to award nominations and wins. movies yahoo and the oscar site Thanks for any help Monkeymanman ( talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions going on about the writer field in the infobox: One on splitting off the original work the film was based on (novel etc.), and one on how the tasks in the writers field should be grouped (screenplay, screen story, characters, etc.). Some input would be appreciated. Prime Blue ( talk) 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So this film was marketed as remake and the director makes a passing comment on the DVD commentary to thinking of it as a prequel to the 1975 film of the same name. Consequently, there is an editor who insists on labeling the film a prequel (for months on end, seriously) but without engaging in much discussion about it. A brief discussion has occurred on the talk page on the issue, however prequel editor has not chimed in at all. Erik and I are the only folks who have engaged on the talk page and I'm inclined to go with his assessment; this amounts to mention prequel per DVD commentary but describe film as remake. Could anyone interested take a look at the page itself, and the relevant section on the talk page and add their two cents? I'd love to either find a way to describe the issue in the article and stop this endless reverting or get a better sense of consensus. It feels a little silly to revert per consensus when only two people are actually talking. I dropped a note to the editor in question to bring the issue to the talk page (months ago) and continue to ask that he does so in my revert summaries. SO far, nothing. Millahnna (mouse) talk 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As individuals involved in development and improvement of film articles, many of us have been able to research and add sources to film articles when their authors did not. We have also been able to gauge the volume of coverage for such articles so as to see if they might meet WP:NF or, if unreleased, WP:NFF. However, I feel that in some cases the guideline NFF is in occasional conflict with policy, and so I would appreciate input (both pro or con) at a discussion I have opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP attracted my attention to the {{ Bfidb title}} template with this, and a brief investigation makes me question the value of having this external link (or the template itself) in film articles. While the British Film Institute is excellent (especially with its Film Index International), I am not sure of the value of the set of web pages being linked to here. Here are some examples of links from the template.
Per WP:EL, external links should be included when they can serve as unique resources. In reviewing the above sample of links, I cannot find their value as external links. (The only relatively unique detail from there is the production start and end date, which should be included in the article anyway.) I'd like to do without what I perceive as link creep, but I wanted to find out others' opinions. Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I know it is not project-related, but I've got some really sad news to tell everyone here at this WikiProject: AnmaFinotera, our coordinator for nearly the past year, has just announced her resignation earlier today due to her permanent retirement from Wikipedia. The link announcing her resignation can be found here. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please add your thoughts on the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
All four pages related to the Transformers movies are plagued by some serious source issues to varying degrees (with the franchise page and the 3rd film having the biggest issues). Most of their sources are coming from www.tfw2005.com, a fan site (a few of these are okay as they are actually interviews with cast and crew, but very few). Other fansites being used include a blogspot blog run by no one of any consequence. I'm not sure what tags to put on. Editors way more experienced than me advised that these refs should be pulled a few weeks back. I did this on the upcoming film and now all of those fansite refs are back in place (predominantly in the casting section). Frankly, trying to clean up these refs is entirely too overwhelming for me, as I don't play with refs too terribly often and typically break the page a few times in the process of fixing it. I can has help? I was thinking I could just tag the pages but I'm 1) sure that the tags will get removed and 2) not sure what tags would be appropriate. Millahnna (mouse) talk 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it normally acceptable to add an album infobox in a soundtrack section of an article? [See here] I'm still working this sucker to a FAC, and am worried about that non-free album cover. Just adding a non-free rationale for Saw VI would satisfy non-free criteria? Mike Allen 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is ongoing discussion about making the writing credits more granular in the film infobox, I was thinking of a way to keep the main infobox from being overpopulated with so many parameters. I've considered the cinematographer and the editor parameters to be the least important, relatively speaking. With music, the parameter can vary in importance a lot. In addition, there has been infobox discussion about "missing" production credits, especially those where people can win awards, such as for costume design or art direction. I've attempted an experiment where I use a second infobox in a film article's "Production" section that lists the additional production credits. I used Fight Club (film) as my example, as seen here. (Please tolerate this presentation as a very rough draft.) The credits I included in this second infobox are music, cinematography, editing, production design, art direction, set decoration, and costume design. I went out of my way to create Chris Gorak (per WP:CREATIVE) as a result. I think such an infobox would help highlight these secondary credits, and this kind of infobox could help improve blue-link navigation at the very least for award-winning (and thus notable) crew in the film industry. We at WikiProject Films do try to avoid indiscriminately listing all cast and crew members, but I do not think that credits where awards can be won are indiscriminate. I'm not looking to implement this right away; I'm pitching this idea to see what others think. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I may be late on the bandwagon in using this, but hopefully there are others like me that are unaware and could benefit. To help prevent link rot for citations that are being used in articles, I have normally been using Wayback Machine (if links are available) or linking to sites that sell old articles. However, I just stumbled upon WebCite, a free site that creates an archive of a page. To use it, you just need to give an e-mail address so they can tell you the link name once it is done processing. When you find an article you want to archive, you click on a link they provide and it automatically converts it and sends the url to your e-mail. After that, the link can be added to a manually entered citation/citation template and there will always be a useful link for the reader, even if the original goes dead. I'm planning on going through each of the GA/FAs I've worked on, and would recommend others do the same to prevent having to constantly check each link and searching for an archived page elsewhere. WP:WEBCITE provides some guidance as does the actual website, and it's pretty straightforward. Again, if this is already common knowledge, I must apologize for having my head always buried in a book—er, film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a minor controversy at Talk:Rope and Breasts. Would appreciate input. Dekkappai ( talk) 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is some work going on by User:Nihonjo, User:*Kat* and me, to improve a series of lists, most of which contain war films based on books. The lists have had a number of issues for a long time, relating to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OWN, to name a few. The original author of the lists, User:Varlaam has long been reluctant to allow others to make improvements, although changes are finally being made. I would like to get others involved if possible, as three editors does not necessarily make "consensus". More info can be found at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, as well as at various article talkpages including Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) and Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926). (Also, check out the article histories of any of the relevant articles.)
It would be a great help if other editors could join in, either to help out, or just to say they agree with changes being made, or they don't agree, or they have better ideas, or that perceived problems aren't really problems... or whatever! One of the problems we'll be tackling next is trying to remove films that aren't really about the topic of the list (ie. not really a war film, not really a sports film etc.), so if anyone wants to run their eyes over the list and remove films that they know shouldn't be there, that would be great too.-- Beloved Freak 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Editor182 has been repeatedly posting the image File:Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula.jpg on the following articles despite the objections of myself and some other editors:
The image is Editor182's personal fan art of Richard Roxburgh as Dracula in the film Van Helsing (that big CGI crapfest with Hugh Jackman fighting all the Universal Monsters). Although I have to assume good faith, I think that Editor182 wants to show off their art--because nowhere in the article does it call for an image of Roxburgh as Dracula. It's not even like it's a real person with no free image available, so a drawing is the only substitute. Nor does it add anything of note to the article--it is purely decorative. Editor182 has even gone far as to replace an image of a wax figure of Bela Lugosi as Dracula with Roxburgh.
But if this was a drawing of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, that would be another matter entirely. But Richard Roxburgh from Van Helsing? Count Chocula or the Count from Sesame Street are more notable than he is when it comes to portraying Count Dracula. Roxburgh is simply not a notable interpretation of Dracula. To put a drawing of him on articles that discuss Dracula from the novel is nothing short of absurd. If you take a look at Count Dracula, you'll see there are already images of Lugosi, Lee, Max Shreck (Nosferatu) and the real Vlad Tepes. Think for a moment and ask if anything from Van Helsing should be with them.-- 24.147.231.200 ( talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I call BS. I have nothing to gain from the image being in the articles, I think it's a contribution. Editor182 ( talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll also add that I never replaced any image to include this image, it was purely contribution, not a substitution, but you on the other hand did replace the image, but I have no issues with other images in the article. Good try, though. I already noted in the noticeboards that if the decision from there is to remove them, then I'll request the complete removal from commons. I don't gain anything from the image being here. You have some psychotic agenda. Editor182 ( talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, whatever, you win, congratulations, sleep better tonight, okay? Editor182 ( talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated Dustbin Baby (film), which falls under the remit of this project, for featured article status. Thoughts/comments would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but does a film's "budget" mean the same as what it cost to make? Or does it refer to the amount that the film's supposed to cost, or the planned cost of the film, which could then theoretically be different from the final cost? To put it simply, I've found a reliable source mention that a film cost $x to make - can I use that as the "budget"?-- Beloved Freak 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What made me bring this up (for the umteenth time) is an edit war I was involved in over at Inception (2010 film)'s page. The budget should be presented in the same way the gross is presented, and the gross is going to be presented as a whole number, and therefore the budget should be presented in the same way. ChaosMaster Chat 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Could use some input on how to handle the list of examples in MacGuffin, which tends to grow and become populated with non-notable or unsourced examples. Just keep eliminating the unsourced ones, or add citation neededs, prosify, get rid of the section? As I noted on the talk page, a MacGuffin can be just about anything, so examples aren't that instructive IMO, and it's problematic perhaps when there's competing contradictory definitions (Hitchcock's versus Spielberg's).
Possibly all the articles in the category Film and video terminology could use some attention. Some seem to be just dicdefs and might be better handled in a glossary here or moved to Wiktionary (e.g. Quote whore, Blackout gag). Some possibly aren't widely used terminology at all, like Spinning newspaper, which is maybe more of a cliched device than terminology anyway. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions to streamline the charts on the List of highest-grossing films at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Superfluous_information. The changes would radically alter the article and we've only had two opinions so far. I would welcome a few more to provide a clearer picture of what we want in the charts and what we don't. I would prefer it if the charts were consistent because at the moment it looks ad hoc, so either we need to add data to some charts or remove it from others. If we could agree a standard box office chart for all the articles that would be great. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated November (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. JJ98 ( talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
All, the
film infobox has two new parameters available to use: screenplay=
and story=
. This is the result of discussion at
Template talk:Infobox film and allows a more aesthetic breakdown of writing credits. The writer=
parameter is still available for use, but I encourage everyone to instead use the two new parameters where they apply. For example,
Black Swan (film) identifies one person for the story and three people for the screenplay. In addition, there is discussion at the template talk page about additional parameters related to writing and source material. You can see the discussion
here. Erik (
talk |
contribs)
01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Last I heard, we were determining a film's nationality by the nationality of the production companies. What do we do if there are several from different countries, or several with a majority of them from one company? Simply list the nationalities? Reason I ask is this edit. Removal of Fox Atomic looks legit, as they were the distributors (according to some googling), and the addition of Spain also seem fine as there is a Spanish production company listed, with the rest of them being British (couldn't hunt down Koan). Geoff B ( talk) 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There was an ongoing discussion here Template talk:Infobox actor#Merge with Infobox person that has been moved here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor. I feel that there should be more input before a final decision is made. Please feel free to add your thoughts and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been throwing around a collab idea in my head between you guys and the baseball project, and I thought I'd note it here to see if it's worth the time. I was thinking of having us combine to work on some of the baseball film articles. Upon looking at baseball's most popular pages, a lot of films show up, so they're definitely ones people read, so it would be beneficial. You guys could handle the format/structure aspects while we could handle the, well, baseball aspects. I figure this would be a November/December thing to do, since the baseball season will be over. It got some mild support when I asked over there, so it's tough to say how well it would work. If you guys are up for it, let me know; if you think this is a stupid idea, that's fine too. I only see a couple baseball films in your top 1k popular pages, so it's not all that pressing for you. Just a thought I'm throwing out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_website_.22The_Numbers.22_an_appropriate_source_for_film_info.3F. Would appreciate some input there. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to see what you all thought of the subcategorization of categories such as Category:Films set in the 1980s to Category:Films set in 1985, Category:Films set in 1986, etc. The "by decade" seems sufficient to me so this seems a bit much, but I thought I'd bring it to the attention to the subject matter experts here before a possible CFD. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Where a director has filmed multiple works, the films typically share a director template. Lately, I've noticed that director templates have gone beyond listing a director's works. There are director templates that also list that person's credits as producer and screenwriter. An example is Template:Matthew Vaughn. These templates are then proliferated to these films' articles. For example, the Matt Vaughn template appears in The Debt and Swept Away (2002 film) right below these films' own director templates. This is scope creep in director templates, where we are supposed to keep use of such templates limited per WP:CLN. This is why we avoid actor templates across all actors' films, but the same argument ought to apply to crew members beyond the director himself. I ask for a review of director templates to ensure that the proper scope is maintained. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Drizzle (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Today I've seen a couple of articles with sentences: "Fred (actor's name) starts attending the fictional university..." or "Detective Jones is sent to the fiction town of X to investigate..." now I get that the university and the town are fictional and we have to show that. And I get that we have to be clearly not in-universe. I don't quite get why Detective Jone or Fred are denoted as fictional, but that's not my problem. To me these sentences read like the stories are post modern... Someone entering a book and going to a inuniverse fiction university or the detective entering a film and investigating crimes in a fictional town... Is there better phrasing that can clarify what needs to be said (these places don't exist in the real world) without what I see as an ambiguous phrasing? 203.35.82.136 ( talk) 09:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I edit and publish the website Movie Review Intelligence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_Review_Intelligence). Throughout Wikipedia, in articles that cover individual movies, there is a section called "Reception," which has information about movie reviews. Usually there are citations from several movie review aggregators. Movie Review Intelligence is a professional movie review aggregator that is regularly quoted in the press and relied on by movie industry professionals because it is based on objective, statistical methodologies that minimize biases ( http://iurl.us/bcj) Is it possible for Movie Review Intelligence to be considered as a source of movie review information on the movie pages on Wikipedia? If you require additional information or explanation, I can provide it. Thank you. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla ( talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Eric, thank you for your note. Mistakes posting information by Movie Review Intelligence were made which resulted in the site being blacklisted. It will not happen again. If I knew how to request being white-listed, I would do so. Movie Review Intelligence is not looking to gain a foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry. I would ask that the editors take a minute to understand each site's methodology and results. If the goal of Wikipedia is to include the two most popular movie review sites, that goal appears to have been met. However, if the goal is to present a film's reception as measured objectively according to what the body of U.S. film critics are saying, not what the aggregator is saying, then I hope the editors will consider including Movie Review Intelligence. The list of critics and publications covered by each website, the grading scales, the weighting, the analysis -- each site is very different in its approach, yielding significantly different results. Movie Review Intelligence is dedicated to an objective analysis of film criticism. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia. David A. Gross Dagrossla ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
Eric, thank you for your explanation. It is helpful and much appreciated. Wikipedia's effort to "reflect the consensus" of critical opinion that you speak of -- my hope is that the Wikipedia editors will take the time to consider the methodologies used by the sources it quotes so that they can know to what degree they are unbiased or biased, objective or subjective, statistically accurate or distorted. It is a complicated and important issue that deserves consideration. Again, thank you. David A. Gross Dagrossla ( talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A request was made for Movie Review Intelligence to be removed from the blacklist. The request was denied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2011#MovieReviewIntelligence.com_.28removal_request.29 David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla ( talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)