![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have a concern about release dates. In most of these articles, the release date mentioned is the date of wide release in the United States, even though some films are released earlier in other countries. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was released on November 15, 2002 in the US, and that is reflected in the infobox and lead paragraph. But it actually had wide release in the Philippines two days earlier. [1] There's a similar situation with X-Men: The Last Stand. [2] What's the correct way to handle this? Coffee 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/ theme ride would be in order? -- SGCommand ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any consensus on how filmographies of actors are to be presented. Many are listed in reverse chronological order, while others are not. What is preferable? Personally, I like the reversed ones better... — riana_dzasta • t • c • 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
wiki | table |
---|---|
like | this |
But I am back and ready to work! For my abtance and hasty departure, I am going to help create a cool new "project" homepage. I sorta did this with my
own project that I started. So.. if anyone wants to help, I am going to be working on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sandbox Design. So any bit will help.
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you know how to program or like grunt work it would be great for all film related stuff on wiki if each article was sorted by Stub, Start, B, etc. so we could see what work needs to be done. Andman8 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This project seems rather complete, but what about film ratings? IMDB gives ratings in various countries. It would also be nice to cross reference the reasons for a particular rating as well. Could a ratings section be added? Electronic.mayhem 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the rather deep dicussion, but it appears that a straw poll favored inclusion of ratings. What gives? personally, I'm more concerned about reasons for ratings than the actual ratings themselves. Shall we begin adding ratings then?-- Electronic.mayhem 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there... I have just joined the WikiProject Films, I found about it while I was creating some articles. I'll be working on Argentine Films.
Im having a bit of a problem with the infobox images, my first article was Un Argentino en New York and the image works great... the problem is in La Fuga and El abrazo partido. Where the image is suposed to be, that transparent background with a red cross sign in the corner appears. It might be my computer that at the moment isn't getting the image; or might be a server problem? The thing is when I click on the image file, the image appears perfectly... it just doesn't works on the Infobox. Am I doing something wrong?
I would appreciate any help... Thanks! -- CROWDUDE 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the movies have all very different style "cast" sections. Now.. a lot for the FA movie pages have them in non-table format and just plain text.
I am really in conflict, but if I had to choose a style, I go with tables. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could someone confirm that this picture [3] is indeed Willem Dafoe. If so, since this is a free image, I will photoshop and add it. I put this here since the Talk:Willem Dafoe is not used so much, better chance for a fast response here. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why have we decided that spoiling the end of a film is a bad thing? If, for example, I come to wikipedia and read the article for Mulholland Drive (film), I am going to do one of three things, for one of three reasons. 1. Read the cast and director information, and the brief summary, in order to decide if it is a movie I would like to see. 2. Read the entire article, because I have already seen the movie and hope to garner a greater understanding of it. 3. Look up a particular piece of information about the film because I want to know it before I watch or I missed it in the movie.
In the case of 1, it is unrealistic and counter-intuitive to think that I would read the spoiler information and HOPE that it only reveals the parts I want to know and not the parts that would spoil the movie. In the case of 2, the parts I need a greater understanding of could very well be in the ending, especially for psychological films like Mulholland Drive, as this is often the most convoluted portion. And in the case of 3, if we are truly to be an encyclopedia, we need to include as much information as is reasonably possible. How does it reflect upon us if a reader missed the last five minutes of a film because he had to go to work or some other distraction, and tries to use wikipedia because the movie is not accessable to him. Not well. In addition to these three points, leaving out the ending of a film effectively prohibits any interpretation or analysis, even those that are well established and ARE NOT original research.
An encyclopedia must be thorough. We must have as much information availble as reasonably possible. Why are we ommitting whole sections of a film?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaergoth ( talk • contribs)
Hi who ever is reading this!. Im having a trouble with the plot of a movie that im doing, it is a 3D animated spanish movie that it have just been realesed this July. Because it is now showing on cinemas, not many websites have the plot of it, or complete. And the best synopsis that I could find is in the movie's official website, which also happens to have it translated into English. My question is... is it ok to use official synopsis found on the film's website and copy them into the article? I might be able to re-make it a bit - But is it alright? CROWDUDE 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but: Is this "Please rate the article and then leave comments here" stuff really necessary on the WikiProject-template? Leaving comments about the quality of the article is the whole point of the articles talk page, I don't see the point in creating a subpage for this. I'd really love to see that part go, so people don't create kinda useless subpages. It would also make the quite big template a bit smaller, which is a good thing, too! -- Conti| ✉ 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed that section from the template, I hope that's ok. -- Conti| ✉ 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I decided to go ahead with it. Shane's proposed project banner is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Proposed new project banner, along with a notice describing the situation, and asking people to make changes and to come here to discuss it. I have restored the old version of the banner as the template until we can somewhat agree on what we want to do with the new one. I will also put a notice at the top of the WikiProject Films mainpage asking people to join the discussion. For now, until this is all sorted out, I would ask that no one be bold and make any changes to the current project banner without consensus from the group. -- Gpollock 05:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it better than the old one. One minor thing: shouldn't it be "We are always looking for new memebers"? AdamSmithee 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the new banner design. I feel that the links to the assessment pages are helpful, in that it might attract people to look at those pages and help contribute to that end of the project. Wisekwai 11:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd like a mix of the new and old template. Or rather, the new templat without the help-the-newbie-message. Maybe some genereal guidelines on writing film-articles could be created (maybe it already is, I dunno), and a link to it could be put on the upper part of the template. This would reduce the size of the template by half and basically keep all the information. -- Conti| ✉ 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I liked the original new template with the assessments to either side. Anyways, Id like to write my own pro and con list and see if anyone agrees with me.
Back to the image issue: I do mind too the images. I'm restarting the discussion as it seems to have got burried in the overlong discussion above. Needless to say, I do this because I agree that having Hollywood and Oscars in there is exagerately US centered. As already suggested, not all films target an Oscar; arguably only SOME American films do. Moreover, the Academy Awards are not necessarily the most important film awards; one could argue that Cannes is more important for instance. AdamSmithee 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO keeping the film reel image would be nice AdamSmithee 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally prefer the original film reel logo, and I am opposed to both the proposed images. As the above commentator says, both are American-film-industry biased and, without wishing to cause offence to the creator, quite ugly images as well - surely a Hollywood sign spoof should be on a mountainside? The film poster idea sounds quite good though - would it be a kind of photomontage? Bob 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I hadn't actually read all of the details! :) I think what I imagined you meant was a logo with a font evocative of film posters - i.e. really tall and thin. That said, something that encompasses all cinema would be appropriate - maybe something based on a film cell might look quite impressive, with "Wikiproject film" inside. Alternatively, we could just stick with the current film reel, which is a great picture and illustrates the subject excellently. Bob 20:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the look of the Oscar icon and would prefer the original film reel be used there instead. If we go with one image, use the film reel and retain the Hollywood spoof for a banner atop the project page. Wisekwai 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to have a film reel as our logo, it should at least be 35mm film, the format that 99% of theatrical playdates run movies from. The current picture is of a 16mm reel. Sheesh! The Photoplayer 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I realized that going through 11k "edit" pages for adding the class var is going to take a while... so I created a javascript that helps:
User:Bugs5382/monobook.js/film.js. I am still working out all the bugs. So... that's about it. Once I figure out how distribute it I will get those instructions out. Peace! :) --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I finshed all the "A" films today in
Category:Unassessed film articles, and just checking up on it I noticed new movies without the "class". The editors could have easily addded the class to "stub". I don't think many editors realize that it's very simple to do. We need to get the template updated. I am sure people will intered to know how to grade articles once we tell them how. Another show is
Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Film_articles_by_quality_log#July_19.2C_2006 @ the bottom of the date. They were added, but no graded. We will get no-where and we will still have 11k articles to grade if no one does it themselfs. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
06:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at the template and wondering why the variable was given a name. Wouldn't it be easier to type {{FilmsWikiProject|FA}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject|class=FA}}? This just doesn't make sense to me. - LA @ 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I just got this idea while watching TV..... always seems to happen. We need "groups". Ok... what are the groups.
That's about it. :) --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The existing stub types {{ drama-film-stub}} and {{ comedy-film-stub}} are both very large, so I've proposed splitting both up, in various ways (mainly by decade/year). If anyone has any input on this, or wants to help perform the split, please feel free. Alai 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I need help on an infobox on Angels in the Endzone. I am a member of this Wikiproject, and would appreciate it if the person who fixes my problem could tell me what I did wrong by sending me a message. (I need to know more how Wikiproject films work.)
-- walkingencyclopedia 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Note:I will be adding a picture to the infobox shortly (if I even receive copyright). So don't worry about it. Thanks. -- walkingencyclopedia 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved. No need to worry.-- walkingencyclopedia 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add two new optional fields to the infobox.
There might even be the rare occurance of both happening. I think there are a few out there.
This is part of the child project
Films based on books.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs
22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
For the first one, the heading should be Adapted from:. If there is enough support, I can do it, or someone else...it doesn't matter to me either way. - LA @ 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put a ratings box on it?-- D-Boy 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just checking in from Wikipedia 1.0, is the bot worklist working out OK for you? I realised too that I never got back to you here before, thank you very much for setting up the list. Walkerma 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thunderball is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it'd be cool to change the standard, to incorperate the IMDb rating into infoboxes on all films? Just like in the The Matrix and/or the The Godfather articles. I've been adding it to a few films (not many, about 4), mostly those on the IMDb's top 250, as I thought that was very notable, much more informative than "promotional poster", or worse, a repeat of the title or nothing at all. Is this a good idea? - Jack (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly against including the IMDb rating in the infobox. Besides, it was discussed and discussed and decided against. To give other reasons than the ones given above (which I agree with): 1. WP is an encyclopedia, not a film review site; if you want to and consider it notable, for a limited number of movies, comment on the rating in the text. 2. If people want to see the the IMDb rating, they can go to the IMDb site (they have the link right there). Moreover, by snatching their rating, one could argue that Wiki tries to steal traffic from IMDb. I really thin that we should really delete that field from the infobox AdamSmithee 08:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, a lot of film infoboxes have the imdb ratings already (on place of the 'caption' field), despite the fact that most people here have never wanted them there. See eg. Image:4of5.png and look at the list of file links. Would anyone mind if all of those infoboxes were cleaned up to remove the imdb rating from the infobox? - Bobet 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just made this page and added the tag on the disscussion page and I think I followed all the guidelines.
I'm about to create a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction books, Category:Books about film, which would include reference works, history of film, Leonard Maltin, etc. Any thoughts? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added an infobox and a general "film page look" to the page to follow the project's guidelines. Could someone rate it and add an assessment as per the assessment scale. Thanks! Caf3623 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a B-Class after I added the pics, finsihed the infobox, checked the plot, and fixed the spoiler. Caf3623 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why it is that the infobox does not contain the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings in the box. For those of you who are wondering, the MPAA are the ones who give films a G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ratings.
I know you guys have already been informed of the spoiler tag RfC, noted above on this talk page, but I thought I'd give you guys an update.
I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines and WikiProjects is welcome and encouraged.
In addition, it was proposed on the RfC talk page that it might be a good idea to have some WikiProjects discuss this issue themselves and also present a "group answer". It might be a good way to get a fresh take on the issue and avoid groupthink. Basically, start a discussion on how your project uses spoiler tags and notices, and what you think could be improved about the process and the WP:SPOILER guidelines. Individuals are still free to comment with their own personal ideas and comments as well. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I see this category has been created and is being poopulated. What do we think of it? Could be useful? The JPS talk to me 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone here willing to be a liason with WP Biography? We've reorganized and are re-energized and we'd like to collaborate more with related Projects. Thought it might be good to have some one from here a member with us too so that we can collaborate on film biographies... Also wanted to invite you guys over to where we are currently voting on implementation of task forces, one of which is Arts and Entertainment. If you'd like to see it get its own task force, vote now :-) plange 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
See discussion of actors-by-nationality categories at Articles for deletion/List of British Actors. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As we're talking about cats, what about Category:English-language films? It's been around for a while and is so underpopulated that it's not doing the job that its advocate (on its talk page) thinks it should. The JPS talk to me 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated two rationgs templates for deletion: {{ Infobox Film rating}} and {{ Infobox movie certificates}}. I'm struggling to tag the latter correctly, though, so could someone please complete it? Cheers. The JPS talk to me 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The film Went the Day Well has a cast member, Valerie Taylor, whose name is now linking to the article about Valerie Taylor, lesbian romance novelist (b1913, d1997.) There's also a Valerie Taylor, Australian Shark Hunter and a Valerie Taylor, Romance Novelist (b.1959) to contend with. Valereee 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize I have probably done something bone header in breaking the style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. Head over there to tell me how bad an idea it was. – Isogolem 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the list of participants, I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I'm moving the list to here to the talk page. I don't know how most projects manage their member list, but this is obviously not the way to do it. I'm going for WP:BRD here, so if you disagree or have good way to do it, let's talk. Isogolem 07:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, somebody named Michael Barnhart has been credited by a contributor as starring in a major Broadway production of this show, as well as in several operas and other stage musicals. I was flabbergasted by this, since I am a major opera and musical fan, and have never heard of him. I have searched the web up and down, and can find no authentication of this, nor of the fact that Barnhart is a noted bass-baritone who has appeared in many stage musicals and operas. He has a biography on Wikipedia, where he is dubiously (IMHO) being touted as a major actor and singer. He is not even listed on the Internet Broadway Database, where he would logically be found, and a completely different Michael Barnhart is listed on the Internet Movie Database. There are other Michael Barnharts that I can find when I do a web search, but not the bass-baritone. I wonder if someone has their facts straight, or if this Barnhart even exists. AlbertSM
The infobox link featured here links to a non-existant anchor on the WikiProject Films. Can anyone fix this for others? -- Thorpe | talk 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends: Recently I looked at Monkey Business (1931 film), and I notice that there are no sources for the facts there. Any of the facts. But let me choose just one and perhaps you can explain why this "fact" is allowed to be included within the article, considering the idea that all of the info in WikiP must be "verifiable." When Groucho and Chico hide under the table in the chart room (before their encounter with the Captain) Chico has a cigarette in his right hand. He didn't have it before diving under the table. Who said? Do we have a source?
Just trying to understand how this and similar material is handled within the WikiProject Films, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
<<That also means that I had to remove it from the article.>> Not at all, Bobet. You could have left it there (in quote marks or as an indented quotation) and cited your source.
And understand I am not quarreling with the way the series of articles is developing; I am sure they are valuable to readers. I am only pointing our here (as in other discussion pages) that WikiP is rife with original research (as well it should be) and that it is folly to pretend otherwise.
Sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This project seems to be exclusively for articles on specific films. What project(s) do film-related articles (e.g., Sven Nykvist, Cinematography, Cinéma vérité, Italian neorealism, etc.) fall under, if any? Jun-Dai 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone on the
Wikipedia:Drawing board
has come up with an article idea that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Please see the
Wikipedia:Drawing board#List of biggest opening weekends section.
Hello all,
I'd like to ask what the scope of WikiProject Films specifically is. I was under the general impression from previous discussion that the project solely concerns itself with film titles, with the exception of a few umbrella articles which mainly encompass these titles - such as genres. Certainly this alone amounts to a gargantuan task already. A separate project was even proposed, with support, to cover the articles of cast and/or crew. I notice also from the discussion just above that this isn't entirely clearly defined, to the point that some confusion may occur.
The main reason I bring this all up is that, though a great supporter of this WikiProject, I happen to spend most of my energy now on WikiProject Filmmaking, which has a scope solely on the technology and concepts in the process of filmmaking. Clearly there are some articles which may overlap between the two projects, such as, well, film. In these instances, I believe that this is a good thing, as it brings in more editors to eyeball the articles and develop them fully to (hopefully) featured status, which is what every project aspires to. And certainly, in the case of film, for example, there is no way to get the article to featured status without in-depth discussion both of the art (the films) and the science (the filmmaking) of film. However, I'm not certain that it is appropriate, for example, for Talk:Cinematography to have a WikiProject Films template/assessment tag, as I just discovered. For one thing, it would appear (to me) to be clearly a topic for WP Filmmaking, not Films. Furthermore, if our overlap becomes too excessive, it has the potential to create article assessment conflicts en masse in numerical calculation. It would be nice to sort this out before WP Filmmaking begins the assessment phase in the near future.
Therefore, for the sake of making less work for everyone, I'd like to know where the scope of the project ends, and I'd like to request a formal definition on the project page which is less ambiguous than "film articles". (Understandably, most of the WP Films project page was written before the start of WP Filmmaking, and thus did not take the project into account.) Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed the remarkable effectiveness that WP:MUSIC has had at stabilizing and generally clarifying the notability criteria specifically for musicians. Might it be worth putting together a proposal for similar standards for film articles? I feel that this is only going to become a larger problem with the recent proliferation of prosumer cameras and no-budget cinema, to say nothing of YouTube, fan films, and the like. Obviously some films within those fields will be notable, but perhaps it's better to clearly define the standards before the problem becomes worse. While the general notability guidelines are okay, they also suffer from the problem of having to cover widely disparate fields without being too specific regarding the differences in these fields. Surely a finer-grained set of criteria for certain articles is a good thing. And surely this project is the best-positioned to assess what these criteria should be. Would this be of interest? Girolamo Savonarola 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A discussion which might impact other films is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cast of Saving Private Ryan. Basically, the question is whether an extended cast list belongs to Wikipedia or not. Follow the link to express your opinion. Thanks. olivier 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on the Community Portal that a new wikiproject council had been developed to help provide guidance and suggestions for the running of wikiprojects. Particularly among the first fruits of this labor is a guide which suggests that for certain WikiProjects, it may be more effective and beneficial to restructure as a task force within the central project (in this case, WikiProject Films). I think this may be germane to both the Iranian and Indian cinema projects, because the general goals between the projects are no different - merely their geographic scopes are differently limited. I'd like to also note that this was written by Kirill Lokshin, who is the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military history (one of Wikipedia's most successful WikiProjects). WikiProject Military history also is one of the most notable projects which features task forces, many of which focus on a particular time period or country within the large topic of military history.
The benefits of being a task force would include higher exposure as an explicit subunit of the central WikiProject Films page, as well as a high degree of autonomy to continue to use specific talk page banner tags, stub templates, and open tasks, and for the members of the task force to define the task force's priorities and structure. Furthermore, a highly productive task force would also likely be well-noted among the WikiProject Films community and thus be able to command considerable respect and weight in the setting of overall film project discussions and guidelines.
I'd like to also note that I'm not a member of the Films project, although I do follow its discussions; my main interest is in filmmaking, which is where I generally work ( WikiProject Filmmaking) on Wikipedia. However, I would like to see all the film-related projects succeed, and it seems (from the success of Military history's work) that combining the two projects' editorial teams while maintaining each project's identity would only benefit both parties, and thus make everyone look good.
There is nothing more I'd like to see than a good discussion. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
PS - I've also brought this up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iranian cinema, largely so that no one feels that the discussion is isolated to one project's "turf", given the issues.
I've been busy assessing tons of film articles, and it's not too uncommon to find that there is a wikilink to the English language in the film infobox. This strikes me as truly unnecessary seeing as this is the English Wikipedia. Would it be alright if I removed this link whenever I came across it? -- Supernumerary 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure how best to disambiguate this, so I've made it into a double stub for now, with both definitions attached. What should we do? Adam Cuerden 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done a number of atubby articles on 1920s films over the last couple of years, but am looking for some guidance on setting "importance" flag for the project in the project template. Can we assume that all Academy Award-nominated films merit (maybe only in certain categories?) at least a "Med" and a winning film merits a "High"? Or is that too artificial a way to do article importance? (That would make "Broadway Musical" a "High" for example, when perhaps it shouldn't be...) Thoughts? JRP 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been on a bit of a tidy-up mission recently which is ongoing. The mission being to ensure that articles do not appear in a category, and the sub-category, and the sub-sub-category and so on. Largely to make the cats manageable. I'm working on genres and have worked broadly on war, thriller and teen films. I did not realise until today that there is a wikiproject for films. I do not want to tread on anyone's toes so if anyone has any opinions about what I have been doing I would be happy to receive feedback. Thanks. Mallanox 21:24, 31 August 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have a concern about release dates. In most of these articles, the release date mentioned is the date of wide release in the United States, even though some films are released earlier in other countries. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was released on November 15, 2002 in the US, and that is reflected in the infobox and lead paragraph. But it actually had wide release in the Philippines two days earlier. [1] There's a similar situation with X-Men: The Last Stand. [2] What's the correct way to handle this? Coffee 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/ theme ride would be in order? -- SGCommand ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any consensus on how filmographies of actors are to be presented. Many are listed in reverse chronological order, while others are not. What is preferable? Personally, I like the reversed ones better... — riana_dzasta • t • c • 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
wiki | table |
---|---|
like | this |
But I am back and ready to work! For my abtance and hasty departure, I am going to help create a cool new "project" homepage. I sorta did this with my
own project that I started. So.. if anyone wants to help, I am going to be working on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sandbox Design. So any bit will help.
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you know how to program or like grunt work it would be great for all film related stuff on wiki if each article was sorted by Stub, Start, B, etc. so we could see what work needs to be done. Andman8 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This project seems rather complete, but what about film ratings? IMDB gives ratings in various countries. It would also be nice to cross reference the reasons for a particular rating as well. Could a ratings section be added? Electronic.mayhem 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the rather deep dicussion, but it appears that a straw poll favored inclusion of ratings. What gives? personally, I'm more concerned about reasons for ratings than the actual ratings themselves. Shall we begin adding ratings then?-- Electronic.mayhem 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there... I have just joined the WikiProject Films, I found about it while I was creating some articles. I'll be working on Argentine Films.
Im having a bit of a problem with the infobox images, my first article was Un Argentino en New York and the image works great... the problem is in La Fuga and El abrazo partido. Where the image is suposed to be, that transparent background with a red cross sign in the corner appears. It might be my computer that at the moment isn't getting the image; or might be a server problem? The thing is when I click on the image file, the image appears perfectly... it just doesn't works on the Infobox. Am I doing something wrong?
I would appreciate any help... Thanks! -- CROWDUDE 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the movies have all very different style "cast" sections. Now.. a lot for the FA movie pages have them in non-table format and just plain text.
I am really in conflict, but if I had to choose a style, I go with tables. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could someone confirm that this picture [3] is indeed Willem Dafoe. If so, since this is a free image, I will photoshop and add it. I put this here since the Talk:Willem Dafoe is not used so much, better chance for a fast response here. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why have we decided that spoiling the end of a film is a bad thing? If, for example, I come to wikipedia and read the article for Mulholland Drive (film), I am going to do one of three things, for one of three reasons. 1. Read the cast and director information, and the brief summary, in order to decide if it is a movie I would like to see. 2. Read the entire article, because I have already seen the movie and hope to garner a greater understanding of it. 3. Look up a particular piece of information about the film because I want to know it before I watch or I missed it in the movie.
In the case of 1, it is unrealistic and counter-intuitive to think that I would read the spoiler information and HOPE that it only reveals the parts I want to know and not the parts that would spoil the movie. In the case of 2, the parts I need a greater understanding of could very well be in the ending, especially for psychological films like Mulholland Drive, as this is often the most convoluted portion. And in the case of 3, if we are truly to be an encyclopedia, we need to include as much information as is reasonably possible. How does it reflect upon us if a reader missed the last five minutes of a film because he had to go to work or some other distraction, and tries to use wikipedia because the movie is not accessable to him. Not well. In addition to these three points, leaving out the ending of a film effectively prohibits any interpretation or analysis, even those that are well established and ARE NOT original research.
An encyclopedia must be thorough. We must have as much information availble as reasonably possible. Why are we ommitting whole sections of a film?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaergoth ( talk • contribs)
Hi who ever is reading this!. Im having a trouble with the plot of a movie that im doing, it is a 3D animated spanish movie that it have just been realesed this July. Because it is now showing on cinemas, not many websites have the plot of it, or complete. And the best synopsis that I could find is in the movie's official website, which also happens to have it translated into English. My question is... is it ok to use official synopsis found on the film's website and copy them into the article? I might be able to re-make it a bit - But is it alright? CROWDUDE 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but: Is this "Please rate the article and then leave comments here" stuff really necessary on the WikiProject-template? Leaving comments about the quality of the article is the whole point of the articles talk page, I don't see the point in creating a subpage for this. I'd really love to see that part go, so people don't create kinda useless subpages. It would also make the quite big template a bit smaller, which is a good thing, too! -- Conti| ✉ 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed that section from the template, I hope that's ok. -- Conti| ✉ 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I decided to go ahead with it. Shane's proposed project banner is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Proposed new project banner, along with a notice describing the situation, and asking people to make changes and to come here to discuss it. I have restored the old version of the banner as the template until we can somewhat agree on what we want to do with the new one. I will also put a notice at the top of the WikiProject Films mainpage asking people to join the discussion. For now, until this is all sorted out, I would ask that no one be bold and make any changes to the current project banner without consensus from the group. -- Gpollock 05:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it better than the old one. One minor thing: shouldn't it be "We are always looking for new memebers"? AdamSmithee 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the new banner design. I feel that the links to the assessment pages are helpful, in that it might attract people to look at those pages and help contribute to that end of the project. Wisekwai 11:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd like a mix of the new and old template. Or rather, the new templat without the help-the-newbie-message. Maybe some genereal guidelines on writing film-articles could be created (maybe it already is, I dunno), and a link to it could be put on the upper part of the template. This would reduce the size of the template by half and basically keep all the information. -- Conti| ✉ 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I liked the original new template with the assessments to either side. Anyways, Id like to write my own pro and con list and see if anyone agrees with me.
Back to the image issue: I do mind too the images. I'm restarting the discussion as it seems to have got burried in the overlong discussion above. Needless to say, I do this because I agree that having Hollywood and Oscars in there is exagerately US centered. As already suggested, not all films target an Oscar; arguably only SOME American films do. Moreover, the Academy Awards are not necessarily the most important film awards; one could argue that Cannes is more important for instance. AdamSmithee 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO keeping the film reel image would be nice AdamSmithee 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally prefer the original film reel logo, and I am opposed to both the proposed images. As the above commentator says, both are American-film-industry biased and, without wishing to cause offence to the creator, quite ugly images as well - surely a Hollywood sign spoof should be on a mountainside? The film poster idea sounds quite good though - would it be a kind of photomontage? Bob 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I hadn't actually read all of the details! :) I think what I imagined you meant was a logo with a font evocative of film posters - i.e. really tall and thin. That said, something that encompasses all cinema would be appropriate - maybe something based on a film cell might look quite impressive, with "Wikiproject film" inside. Alternatively, we could just stick with the current film reel, which is a great picture and illustrates the subject excellently. Bob 20:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the look of the Oscar icon and would prefer the original film reel be used there instead. If we go with one image, use the film reel and retain the Hollywood spoof for a banner atop the project page. Wisekwai 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to have a film reel as our logo, it should at least be 35mm film, the format that 99% of theatrical playdates run movies from. The current picture is of a 16mm reel. Sheesh! The Photoplayer 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I realized that going through 11k "edit" pages for adding the class var is going to take a while... so I created a javascript that helps:
User:Bugs5382/monobook.js/film.js. I am still working out all the bugs. So... that's about it. Once I figure out how distribute it I will get those instructions out. Peace! :) --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I finshed all the "A" films today in
Category:Unassessed film articles, and just checking up on it I noticed new movies without the "class". The editors could have easily addded the class to "stub". I don't think many editors realize that it's very simple to do. We need to get the template updated. I am sure people will intered to know how to grade articles once we tell them how. Another show is
Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Film_articles_by_quality_log#July_19.2C_2006 @ the bottom of the date. They were added, but no graded. We will get no-where and we will still have 11k articles to grade if no one does it themselfs. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
06:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at the template and wondering why the variable was given a name. Wouldn't it be easier to type {{FilmsWikiProject|FA}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject|class=FA}}? This just doesn't make sense to me. - LA @ 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I just got this idea while watching TV..... always seems to happen. We need "groups". Ok... what are the groups.
That's about it. :) --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The existing stub types {{ drama-film-stub}} and {{ comedy-film-stub}} are both very large, so I've proposed splitting both up, in various ways (mainly by decade/year). If anyone has any input on this, or wants to help perform the split, please feel free. Alai 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I need help on an infobox on Angels in the Endzone. I am a member of this Wikiproject, and would appreciate it if the person who fixes my problem could tell me what I did wrong by sending me a message. (I need to know more how Wikiproject films work.)
-- walkingencyclopedia 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Note:I will be adding a picture to the infobox shortly (if I even receive copyright). So don't worry about it. Thanks. -- walkingencyclopedia 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Problem solved. No need to worry.-- walkingencyclopedia 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add two new optional fields to the infobox.
There might even be the rare occurance of both happening. I think there are a few out there.
This is part of the child project
Films based on books.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs
22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
For the first one, the heading should be Adapted from:. If there is enough support, I can do it, or someone else...it doesn't matter to me either way. - LA @ 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put a ratings box on it?-- D-Boy 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just checking in from Wikipedia 1.0, is the bot worklist working out OK for you? I realised too that I never got back to you here before, thank you very much for setting up the list. Walkerma 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thunderball is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it'd be cool to change the standard, to incorperate the IMDb rating into infoboxes on all films? Just like in the The Matrix and/or the The Godfather articles. I've been adding it to a few films (not many, about 4), mostly those on the IMDb's top 250, as I thought that was very notable, much more informative than "promotional poster", or worse, a repeat of the title or nothing at all. Is this a good idea? - Jack (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly against including the IMDb rating in the infobox. Besides, it was discussed and discussed and decided against. To give other reasons than the ones given above (which I agree with): 1. WP is an encyclopedia, not a film review site; if you want to and consider it notable, for a limited number of movies, comment on the rating in the text. 2. If people want to see the the IMDb rating, they can go to the IMDb site (they have the link right there). Moreover, by snatching their rating, one could argue that Wiki tries to steal traffic from IMDb. I really thin that we should really delete that field from the infobox AdamSmithee 08:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, a lot of film infoboxes have the imdb ratings already (on place of the 'caption' field), despite the fact that most people here have never wanted them there. See eg. Image:4of5.png and look at the list of file links. Would anyone mind if all of those infoboxes were cleaned up to remove the imdb rating from the infobox? - Bobet 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just made this page and added the tag on the disscussion page and I think I followed all the guidelines.
I'm about to create a sub-cat of Category:Non-fiction books, Category:Books about film, which would include reference works, history of film, Leonard Maltin, etc. Any thoughts? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added an infobox and a general "film page look" to the page to follow the project's guidelines. Could someone rate it and add an assessment as per the assessment scale. Thanks! Caf3623 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a B-Class after I added the pics, finsihed the infobox, checked the plot, and fixed the spoiler. Caf3623 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why it is that the infobox does not contain the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings in the box. For those of you who are wondering, the MPAA are the ones who give films a G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ratings.
I know you guys have already been informed of the spoiler tag RfC, noted above on this talk page, but I thought I'd give you guys an update.
I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines and WikiProjects is welcome and encouraged.
In addition, it was proposed on the RfC talk page that it might be a good idea to have some WikiProjects discuss this issue themselves and also present a "group answer". It might be a good way to get a fresh take on the issue and avoid groupthink. Basically, start a discussion on how your project uses spoiler tags and notices, and what you think could be improved about the process and the WP:SPOILER guidelines. Individuals are still free to comment with their own personal ideas and comments as well. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I see this category has been created and is being poopulated. What do we think of it? Could be useful? The JPS talk to me 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone here willing to be a liason with WP Biography? We've reorganized and are re-energized and we'd like to collaborate more with related Projects. Thought it might be good to have some one from here a member with us too so that we can collaborate on film biographies... Also wanted to invite you guys over to where we are currently voting on implementation of task forces, one of which is Arts and Entertainment. If you'd like to see it get its own task force, vote now :-) plange 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
See discussion of actors-by-nationality categories at Articles for deletion/List of British Actors. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As we're talking about cats, what about Category:English-language films? It's been around for a while and is so underpopulated that it's not doing the job that its advocate (on its talk page) thinks it should. The JPS talk to me 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated two rationgs templates for deletion: {{ Infobox Film rating}} and {{ Infobox movie certificates}}. I'm struggling to tag the latter correctly, though, so could someone please complete it? Cheers. The JPS talk to me 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The film Went the Day Well has a cast member, Valerie Taylor, whose name is now linking to the article about Valerie Taylor, lesbian romance novelist (b1913, d1997.) There's also a Valerie Taylor, Australian Shark Hunter and a Valerie Taylor, Romance Novelist (b.1959) to contend with. Valereee 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize I have probably done something bone header in breaking the style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. Head over there to tell me how bad an idea it was. – Isogolem 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the list of participants, I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I'm moving the list to here to the talk page. I don't know how most projects manage their member list, but this is obviously not the way to do it. I'm going for WP:BRD here, so if you disagree or have good way to do it, let's talk. Isogolem 07:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, somebody named Michael Barnhart has been credited by a contributor as starring in a major Broadway production of this show, as well as in several operas and other stage musicals. I was flabbergasted by this, since I am a major opera and musical fan, and have never heard of him. I have searched the web up and down, and can find no authentication of this, nor of the fact that Barnhart is a noted bass-baritone who has appeared in many stage musicals and operas. He has a biography on Wikipedia, where he is dubiously (IMHO) being touted as a major actor and singer. He is not even listed on the Internet Broadway Database, where he would logically be found, and a completely different Michael Barnhart is listed on the Internet Movie Database. There are other Michael Barnharts that I can find when I do a web search, but not the bass-baritone. I wonder if someone has their facts straight, or if this Barnhart even exists. AlbertSM
The infobox link featured here links to a non-existant anchor on the WikiProject Films. Can anyone fix this for others? -- Thorpe | talk 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends: Recently I looked at Monkey Business (1931 film), and I notice that there are no sources for the facts there. Any of the facts. But let me choose just one and perhaps you can explain why this "fact" is allowed to be included within the article, considering the idea that all of the info in WikiP must be "verifiable." When Groucho and Chico hide under the table in the chart room (before their encounter with the Captain) Chico has a cigarette in his right hand. He didn't have it before diving under the table. Who said? Do we have a source?
Just trying to understand how this and similar material is handled within the WikiProject Films, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
<<That also means that I had to remove it from the article.>> Not at all, Bobet. You could have left it there (in quote marks or as an indented quotation) and cited your source.
And understand I am not quarreling with the way the series of articles is developing; I am sure they are valuable to readers. I am only pointing our here (as in other discussion pages) that WikiP is rife with original research (as well it should be) and that it is folly to pretend otherwise.
Sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This project seems to be exclusively for articles on specific films. What project(s) do film-related articles (e.g., Sven Nykvist, Cinematography, Cinéma vérité, Italian neorealism, etc.) fall under, if any? Jun-Dai 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone on the
Wikipedia:Drawing board
has come up with an article idea that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Please see the
Wikipedia:Drawing board#List of biggest opening weekends section.
Hello all,
I'd like to ask what the scope of WikiProject Films specifically is. I was under the general impression from previous discussion that the project solely concerns itself with film titles, with the exception of a few umbrella articles which mainly encompass these titles - such as genres. Certainly this alone amounts to a gargantuan task already. A separate project was even proposed, with support, to cover the articles of cast and/or crew. I notice also from the discussion just above that this isn't entirely clearly defined, to the point that some confusion may occur.
The main reason I bring this all up is that, though a great supporter of this WikiProject, I happen to spend most of my energy now on WikiProject Filmmaking, which has a scope solely on the technology and concepts in the process of filmmaking. Clearly there are some articles which may overlap between the two projects, such as, well, film. In these instances, I believe that this is a good thing, as it brings in more editors to eyeball the articles and develop them fully to (hopefully) featured status, which is what every project aspires to. And certainly, in the case of film, for example, there is no way to get the article to featured status without in-depth discussion both of the art (the films) and the science (the filmmaking) of film. However, I'm not certain that it is appropriate, for example, for Talk:Cinematography to have a WikiProject Films template/assessment tag, as I just discovered. For one thing, it would appear (to me) to be clearly a topic for WP Filmmaking, not Films. Furthermore, if our overlap becomes too excessive, it has the potential to create article assessment conflicts en masse in numerical calculation. It would be nice to sort this out before WP Filmmaking begins the assessment phase in the near future.
Therefore, for the sake of making less work for everyone, I'd like to know where the scope of the project ends, and I'd like to request a formal definition on the project page which is less ambiguous than "film articles". (Understandably, most of the WP Films project page was written before the start of WP Filmmaking, and thus did not take the project into account.) Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed the remarkable effectiveness that WP:MUSIC has had at stabilizing and generally clarifying the notability criteria specifically for musicians. Might it be worth putting together a proposal for similar standards for film articles? I feel that this is only going to become a larger problem with the recent proliferation of prosumer cameras and no-budget cinema, to say nothing of YouTube, fan films, and the like. Obviously some films within those fields will be notable, but perhaps it's better to clearly define the standards before the problem becomes worse. While the general notability guidelines are okay, they also suffer from the problem of having to cover widely disparate fields without being too specific regarding the differences in these fields. Surely a finer-grained set of criteria for certain articles is a good thing. And surely this project is the best-positioned to assess what these criteria should be. Would this be of interest? Girolamo Savonarola 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A discussion which might impact other films is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cast of Saving Private Ryan. Basically, the question is whether an extended cast list belongs to Wikipedia or not. Follow the link to express your opinion. Thanks. olivier 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on the Community Portal that a new wikiproject council had been developed to help provide guidance and suggestions for the running of wikiprojects. Particularly among the first fruits of this labor is a guide which suggests that for certain WikiProjects, it may be more effective and beneficial to restructure as a task force within the central project (in this case, WikiProject Films). I think this may be germane to both the Iranian and Indian cinema projects, because the general goals between the projects are no different - merely their geographic scopes are differently limited. I'd like to also note that this was written by Kirill Lokshin, who is the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military history (one of Wikipedia's most successful WikiProjects). WikiProject Military history also is one of the most notable projects which features task forces, many of which focus on a particular time period or country within the large topic of military history.
The benefits of being a task force would include higher exposure as an explicit subunit of the central WikiProject Films page, as well as a high degree of autonomy to continue to use specific talk page banner tags, stub templates, and open tasks, and for the members of the task force to define the task force's priorities and structure. Furthermore, a highly productive task force would also likely be well-noted among the WikiProject Films community and thus be able to command considerable respect and weight in the setting of overall film project discussions and guidelines.
I'd like to also note that I'm not a member of the Films project, although I do follow its discussions; my main interest is in filmmaking, which is where I generally work ( WikiProject Filmmaking) on Wikipedia. However, I would like to see all the film-related projects succeed, and it seems (from the success of Military history's work) that combining the two projects' editorial teams while maintaining each project's identity would only benefit both parties, and thus make everyone look good.
There is nothing more I'd like to see than a good discussion. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
PS - I've also brought this up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iranian cinema, largely so that no one feels that the discussion is isolated to one project's "turf", given the issues.
I've been busy assessing tons of film articles, and it's not too uncommon to find that there is a wikilink to the English language in the film infobox. This strikes me as truly unnecessary seeing as this is the English Wikipedia. Would it be alright if I removed this link whenever I came across it? -- Supernumerary 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure how best to disambiguate this, so I've made it into a double stub for now, with both definitions attached. What should we do? Adam Cuerden 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done a number of atubby articles on 1920s films over the last couple of years, but am looking for some guidance on setting "importance" flag for the project in the project template. Can we assume that all Academy Award-nominated films merit (maybe only in certain categories?) at least a "Med" and a winning film merits a "High"? Or is that too artificial a way to do article importance? (That would make "Broadway Musical" a "High" for example, when perhaps it shouldn't be...) Thoughts? JRP 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been on a bit of a tidy-up mission recently which is ongoing. The mission being to ensure that articles do not appear in a category, and the sub-category, and the sub-sub-category and so on. Largely to make the cats manageable. I'm working on genres and have worked broadly on war, thriller and teen films. I did not realise until today that there is a wikiproject for films. I do not want to tread on anyone's toes so if anyone has any opinions about what I have been doing I would be happy to receive feedback. Thanks. Mallanox 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)