This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
The film series lists are all in terrible shape. There are film series broken down into their sub-series and scattered throughout the lists. I am trying to straighten them out, but I know nothing about the Japanese films on that list. I am hoping and praying that someone here can sort through that mess (Super Sentai, Kamen Rider, and Godzilla). I am also trying to co-ordinate those lists under on the film series talk page. Please please please, come and help get these lists under control. Thank you. - LA ( T) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like some expertise from regular WikProject Films editors for an issue here:: Talk:The_Godfather#IMDb_rating
I was reviewing comments in the The Dark Knight - IMDB rating section, and decided to remove any IMDb rankings on articles, per Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Critical_reception.
A certain editor claimed that those rankings should stay on the Godfather articles. He admitted that the ranking system may be flawed, but claimed the films' longevity at the top of the list should still merit article inclusion as a "fact."
Thanks for taking a look (and helping out). -- Madchester ( talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article contains Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg, a non-free image that claims as its fair use rationale, "Used to illustrate the formative years of the fictional Indiana Jones character as a teenage Boy Scout." This is a claim not independently supported by the article, and the image's caption refers to Ebert's review of which only this brief fragment is related: "After young Indy discovers his life's mission in the early scenes..." This fragment mentions nothing of the particular shot or of any element within it. Per WP:NFC#Images, there needs to be critical commentary or discussion of the film to support the screenshot. There is no explicit commentary talking about how young Indiana Jones is holding the cross, either in terms of production design or thematic approach. The image does not seem appropriate for inclusion, and I would like other editors to review this situation. In addition, the image's so-called rationale for Scouting in popular culture may also need to be reviewed. Thanks, Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the current use of the image is fine, though it should really be reduced in size per MOS:FILM guidelines. Personally I find the other image in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade more dubious, as it merely shows the reader what the characters look like. PC78 ( talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:
Dear fellow contributors MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing discussion at: [1]. Time to get involved with your reactions and comments. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
I feel the category propaganda films and its subcategories are not being used in a consistent way, and this inconsistency gives the appearance of bias. See the discussion at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I think that clear criteria for inclusion would help editors be more consistent, so I've put up a proposal here.
-- skeptical scientist ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is the most beautifully organized project I've ever seen! Well done. One request: When creating a list of film-related topics, please use {{ inc-film}} (newly created) or {{ inc-video}} if it also involves other media. There are currently tons of film articles in the blanket {{ listdev}} category, and this will not only help diffuse that, but also give your project a central place to see the incomplete film lists. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this violate WP:NDA? Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to see if there is any interest in replacing the current film icon, label below as "Current". The current icon was implemented after a previous one was deleted. Some discussion took place back in July 2007, and we apparently ended up with this one. I think that what we have now is slightly cartoony where it seems that we have other sleeker possibilities, shown below:
These were found at Wikimedia Commons. If there are any other free options, feel free to identify them here. Do you think that the icon is worth replacing? Do you find any of the alternatives acceptable? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how each will look in practise:
User page transclusion removed.
I'm not too fussy to be honest, but for the sake of giving a useful answer I'll say #2 is my favourite, and #1 my least favourite. #3 is already used in various other film-related templates, for whatever that's worth. But any would be preferable to what we use now, IMO. PC78 ( talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also go with number 2, although I'm pretty much fine with anything (including the status quo). Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is a very strong consensus for implementing #2. I will request the change for {{ Film}} and personally make the change to {{ WPFILMS Sidebar}} as well as any other locations. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In October, Walt Disney Pictures will release a documentary adventure film called Morning Light which follows a yacht race team, headed by Roy Disney, that competed in last summer's Transpac (well-known California to Hawaii yacht race I'd never heard about before). The film has received plenty of coverage in the sailing community and there is now a teaser site and trailer available. It is also listed on AllMovie and IMDb. Yet I was surprised to find no article for the movie.
So, I have created a first draft of a new article, complete with a low-res version of the movie poster. (I think I got the non-free rationale correct, but if I've got it wrong, please someone let me know.) The reason I am not moving it into the mainspace myself is because Disney is a client of my employer. I've been given permission by the lead coordinator here to make simple edits on existing articles, but I wanted to play it safe with the creation of an entirely new page, even though its notability and verifiability are without question. Someone please let me know if you can move it for me, or if it needs additional work first. NMS Bill ( talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that movie trailers released between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice aren't eligible for copyright, and that that is a boon for finding libre images of many actors and actresses such as Angela Lansbury. How, though, does one know which films' trailers fall into that special and limited category? Anybody know? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Films participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why User:Erik thinks it necessary to remove every screenshot from a film article he comes across even if it identifies the main characters or is used for criticial commentary on the given film in the plot? It has become highly restrictive and in many cases I consider the removal of certain screenshots which identify key parts or charcters in the plot a negative thing rather than an "improvement" ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not for overuse of unnecessary screenshots either but I;ve seen images removed which have helped identify a key moment in a film and the main characters. Personally I think a film screenshot providing it identifies a major point in the film which is discussed in the text is far more encyclopedic than a film poster will ever be ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The way the images are used in the fight club article are cleverly done (although an excellent article, I've wondered how it reached GA without a standard cast section which even a starter article should have). However I've seen images removed which do actually help articles encyclopedically and there seems to be some belief a screenshot should only be used in any section other than the plot. For example Vanaja (film) currently up for GA had one screenshot identifying the young dancer performing in front of her mentor. This was clearly for identification purposes of a notable scene and main characters which was discussed in the text. I always thought such an image was acceptable and meeted general fair use requirements. If it isn't then we are going to lose thousands of screenshots which identify a main characters or a scene in a film because it doesn't reach the new criteria that an image must be used only for discussing cinemtatic techniques or themes of a film. IN addition to this many editors are going to be drilled repeated orphaned images from all the images being removed which have full rationales and seemingly some legitimacy for fair use. I fully support Erik removing images which are decorative but I'm sure some screenshots can be saved if a proper caption is added and it specifically improves the article in a key scene and is encyclopedic. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I had a thought... I've generally had the perspective of building up the content before finding images that work with it. Perhaps we could go the other way and think of screenshots that would certainly be useful. For example, we could find content for iconic film scenes and write up the commentary in the article and plug in the images. Another twist on this approach is to include images based on wins for Best Costume Design; surely the winners' designs get some commentary and would warrant that kind of illustration within the relevant film articles. Do the same for characters known for make-up or prosthetics or scenes with famous visual effects. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Erik: If I'm reading any of your comments correctly you said you could give some examples of featured articles where images are used in a neat way, could you show me some example? I'm just curious because I'd love to see an article like that. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to further extend this discussion, but I just want to see some clarification for my benefit and I'm sure for others as well. This was touched on a bit above and also in the recent Little Miss Sunshine A-class review. A CD cover for the soundtrack was removed from the Tropic Thunder article that I uploaded. I acknowledge that the image is very similar to the movie poster, but as I discussed with Bignole (who removed the image), I think the image represents the information concerning the soundtrack as the film poster encompasses the entire article. Rather than create a whole new article for the soundtrack which I don't see to be necessary unless there is enough information to warrant it (I've seen numerous soundtrack stubs which will likely never be expanded too much further), is it frowned upon to include a soundtrack cover on the film's article? And/or does the issue of the image being similar to the movie poster warrant the upload of the score's cover since it differs from the poster? Critical commentary on CD covers is rare concerning soundtracks (I've never seen anything myself on comments concerning the cover), and that is the only reason I could think of for possibly removing a cover from the article. Granted, there isn't too much information present in the soundtrack section as of now, but it will be expanded as more sources become available. I'm not upset over the removal, but just want to clear this up, and possibly include it in the upcoming image MOS change for future editors' guidance. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to summarize my thoughts in a way that will make sense to everybody. First of all, if we look at WP:NFC#Images, I think it is fair to say that theatrical posters are considered "cover art" of a kind. The normal kind of cover art is the kind seen with books and albums. When it comes to films, there is no kind of explicit cover art in its theatrical medium. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is unrealistic to replace theatrical posters in infoboxes with DVD covers. Unlike other kinds of posters that could fall under "Other promotional material", a theatrical poster can adequately identify the "item" (the film) as long as critical commentary exists about that item. (This may be something to apply for expanding stubs before adding images in infoboxes.) Now we can consider the use of the theatrical poster (or another cover image) in the infobox adequate for purposes for identification because "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". With this in mind, we need to recognize that this image is used to identify the entire topic of the article. After this usage, it would not be appropriate to add other cover art (soundtrack covers, home media covers, other posters) unless its significance can be demonstrated in a fashion that goes beyond identification, which has already been established by the infobox image. In conclusion, I think that as long as the soundtrack is considered part of the film article, the theatrical poster or whatever image exists in the infobox already identifies details of the soundtrack as part of the film. The same would apply for home media covers. To warrant inclusion within the film article, soundtrack and secondary cover images need to demonstrate non-identification significance. How does this line of thinking sound? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
They are Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike and Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, just to let you know. Dalejenkins | 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I only mention it here because I commented on this article earlier today, and, perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of soundtracks has arisen. Since this is pertinent to what is being discussed above, some of you might want to take a look. PC78 ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you add rumoured films to the filmography of an actor/actress? I've seen quite a few "rumored films" in several filmographies. In my opinion, "rumors" are definitely out of place in an encyclopedia but what's the consensus? ► robomod 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Could also impact on Western film actors too. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hearts and Minds (film) could use some expert film article assistance in adding and properly presenting content on the film. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This interesting article talks about a student who didn't get college credit because he used Wikipedia and possibly improperly sourced part of the plot summary of a film (it doesn't state which film). Just wanted to point it out since we don't get to much publicity concerning film articles (even though it is not in positive light). -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed that hundreds (probably a few thousand) of film articles display one of the templates in Category:American films by year navigational boxes. Each of these navboxes contains a total of ten links—one for each year in a decade—to a "List of American films of [Year]" article.
Is this useful or template clutter? Note that virtually every film article contains, or should contain, a piped link to a "[Year] in film" article (e.g. 1957 in film), and it wouldn't be difficult to add a "see also" link to a single appropriate "List of American films of [Year]" article (instead of to the lists for an entire decade). I personally would prefer to generally avoid placing a navbox in an article unless that article is actually linked in the navbox (for instance, Glory (film) should contain {{ Edward Zwick}}, since the template contains a link to the article about the film), but that's just me...
Thoughts? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well they are connected at the bottom of articles to the films of that year or decade for navigation and comprehension purposes to organize cinema. We do this for every other cinema but with America we had to be more cautious because nobody wanted "generic" templates so we had to do by decade. I fail to see how these small templates harm or clutter the articles and they ar eintended for quick navigation of American film which I believe they do well. Again, why was it only Lugnuts who had the decency to inform me of this discussion ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
Well I'm thinking in terms of newer vistors to the site. They read an article from a given year, Perhaps they'd like some list of other films in the same year or period in which they can browse. Category:American films or Category:e.g 1977 films doesn't do this rather List of American films of 1977 does. I really don't mind as long as there is some link to connect to the bank of film articles in the lists. Iwouldn't mind if there was a See also List of American films of 1977. As long as there is a link it doesn't matter. At the time, creating decade templates seemed the most logical step to improve connection between articles.Personally I think having a full list by year greatly improves our comprehension. I'm sorry if nobody here appreciates that I want to enhance connection across articles by year but I and many other users find them of use. When the cinema templates were initially nominated for deletion before, a lot of editors turned up to protest at their deletion. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd bite the bullet and list these at WP:TfD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14, for those who are interested. PC78 ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know this has been created. The Bald One White cat 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
We've now got a new edition at Category:Mexican film stubs which Lugnuts is taking the intiative to administer to the articles as we speak a smany of those articles were not even stub tagged at all. If anybody has any suggestions for other new stub templates that it has missed please mention them and we can stub propose them together. Its a pretty useful project category I think for our to-do list. To expand these stubs!!! Cheers The Bald One White cat 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No probs. Most of the films were tagged with {{Mexico-stub}}, or just not tagged full stop. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while since I tried to rework Letters from Iwo Jima from its long sysnoposis, to a shorter one (though it's still, as noted blow by blow). It seems that more small, insignificant details are slipping in. Though this may sound obnoxious, could somebody try to rework it? I'd do it myself, except I'm retiring from wikipedia. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know a reliable website we can find data on the top 10 grossing U.S movies of each year? I thought adding a top ten to all of the years like List of American films of 1998 would be a good move forward The Bald One White cat 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Films participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I run a website FamousLocations.com and we list 233,000 movies and 4,600,000 locations around the world. We list movie locations for the movies. We are a free site and offer great movie/film location info and are interested to get listed on the movie pages at Wikipedia for the pages.
Please have a look and see what you think.
What do you think? Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.21.68 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, August 4, 2008
From FamousLocations - I have changed my user name to flocations.
FamousLocations is a wiki site and we rely on people in the business sending us information such as actors/directors and film makers, which is first hand information. We do vet/monitor the information and cross reference with many sources including books. We do get notified of wrong info and have an active community within the filming industry/business and they do help keep the information as accurate as possible. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocations ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We have been developing other projects in the past few years but in the last 12 months we have attracted one of the founders of Amazon Europe to the company. The site has just finished a major revamp. We have not done any PR since the revamp but in 2002 we got Yahoo Award, we were featured on many radio shows and 1000’s of websites. We are now set fare to regain that position. The problem we had is we were received so much information the only way forward was to rebuild the site as a wiki base to let users in to give it to us. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Flocations (
talk •
contribs) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We source most of the information from User input due to the scale of the subject but we vet the information using books/IMDB/etc and we also use moderators similar to wikipedia. Most of the information is public domain I.E. what actors/directors related to the movie/film and the film locations. So it pretty accurate, our main focus is on a niche market of Locations used in the movies, TV shows, etc. No other website on the Internet presents the information in the way that we present the locations using Google Mash ups. We also link the actors to the famous locations. The website is also very useful for travelling. If you wish to go to a famous location or destination and want to know other famous locations near we present this information for users. We have 233,000 movies and growing and could have a link to each of the pages on wikipedia for the locations made in the movies. We also are a very usful source for travel and to find out why the locations are famous. Any other questions please let me know. Thanks David (from Famous Locations.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Any progress on deciding whether to include FamousLocations as part of the wikipedia either the content or the links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does it not comply with the WP:EL? Please explain as to why it does not comply. We have more unique information that Rotten tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is only a review site. We present other information which like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and does not show. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read The Jane Austen Book Club and was amazed at how different the film is from the book. When a film adaptation departs dramatically from its source, is it appropriate to cite the differences in the film article? If it is, would the details go in the plot synopsis, the production section, or a different section completely? Thank you for your input. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this may not be the most correct forum to start this discussion but I couldn’t really find a more appropriate one.
I’ve been going through film titles in the list of requested articles in order to create some of them and I find the scope of the current list overwhelmingly broad and the length of the page excessive. Has there been a discussion anywhere about separating the film related requested material from the rest of the Culture and fine arts from that list and creating a separate sub page? The current page takes a while to load and can get choppy while scrolling through it not to mention the possibility of an edit conflict on such a large page. Does anyone know of a better forum for this or could we do something about it from here? SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NCF says that titles should be "film" rather than "movie", and IIRC, there was a mass move some time ago from article titles that were "Name of film (movie)" to "Name of Film (film)". I've just come across film star, but that is redirected to movie star. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The template/box "Christopher Nolan Batman film series" was just placed under External links on the Cillian Murphy article. The placement of these kinds of boxes has always confused me. They seem most often to be placed under External links, but they are most definitely internal links to other Wikipedia articles, links related to one narrow aspect of a film actor's work. And usually, the most relevant of these links to the home article are already there in the article's text. Is there any guideline on the proper placement of these boxes? Should they have their own heading? Should they go at the bottom of an actor's filmography section? What's the deal? Thanks, Melty girl 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can some of the project people take a look at this discussion? The discussion needs additional input. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's that time again...
So election-time is fast approaching, and the current coordinators already begun some initial discussions about the details, which we wanted to bring to the community's attention and hopefully approval. At the moment, here's the gist:
We're still hammering some smaller issues out, but these are the larger ideas with the biggest project-wide impact. All of your thoughts on these are most welcome! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm not getting the idea of this task force, it makes no sense to create a task force based on a country that existed 20 years ago. If that's a pattern, should there be a task force "post-colonial British cinema" that would include cinema of India? Cinema should be categorized by different languages/cultures and in that sense it should include movies made in Russian only, meaning the task force should be renamed: Russian cinema!-- Termer ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take the rest of it to
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Soviet_and_post-Soviet_cinema_task_force and only address Dividing up the task force to please current political interests ignores the cultural and historical conditions which (willingly or not) has bound these countries' cinematic traditions together.
From where the idea of 'has bound these countries cinematic traditions together' comes from, I do not know? It has no basis, factual of anything. The only bound there was, films made in Soviet Republics were financed and censored by Moscow. To suggest that this created a cultural bound, would be good to know at least according to whom? Even the three Baltic states have different cultural traditions, 2 upper Estonia-Latvia are protestant like Northern Germany, Scandinavia and Finland and Lithuania is a Catholic country, culturally most closely tied to Poland if anything. To suggest that there is cultural bond between lest say the Baltic states and former central Asian Soviet republics, I just don't know what to say. The cultural bond between the Baltic states and Russia, well, that's just like between any other either Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christian country.
The second regarding: to please current political interests. The best would be to avoid politics out of such a task force, from it's name and insignia. You guys, in case you're not aware of it: in Baltic stats Soviet symbols are considered equal to Nazi Symbols
[2] therefore making up such a task force and posting it on the Baltic states notice board , even though most likely done in good faith, is a very bad idea. Therefore in case you'd like to tie together these countries, politically more neutral name and insignia should be used!--
Termer (
talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Please do not remove dubious tag until the issues are solved! thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Post-Soviet" is an anachronism that implies a common cinematic theme and connection with Soviet cinema of the past. But for contemporary cinema this is confusing. Using "Post-Soviet" for simply a regional grouping does not make sense, since the Soviet Union extended to the Pacific. If you are concerned about taskforces of sufficient size and regional scope, then the Baltic states should really be grouped under " Northern European Cinema" so that Finland, and the Scandinavian countries can come under a taskforce. Currently these other northern European countries are not yet covered by any taskforce. Then there should be taskforce for Commonwealth of Independent States to cover the other countries in the so-called "Post-Soviet" space. Martintg ( talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
After reaching A-class a few weeks ago, I have nominated Little Miss Sunshine at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments in further improving the article at the nomination page which can be found here. Thanks and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for The Boys from Baghdad High is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Kiki's Delivery Service is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Rang De Basanti; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for The Five Heartbeats is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I note there is no coverage of Northern European countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc. This is quite a significant gap than needs to be filled. The scope should include all of Northern Europe, with the obvious exception of the UK, which already has its own taskforce. I would be a member of this taskforce if it were to be created. Martintg ( talk) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A Northern European Task Force is simply far too broad a category to be useful or manageable -- dozens of countries related only by geography. In the same way, there is also very little shared cinematic history between the Baltic and Nordic countries for all of them to be categorized together. A proposal for a Scandinavian task force might make sense since there has been direct cooperation in film making between Denmark, Sweden and Norway from the late 1800's through today. Plus, there is a lot of coverage here already -- over 500 films and more than 1000 film bios on the english WP from these three countries alone -- more if Iceland, Greenland and Faroe Islands are included. However, the need for developing another big task force is questionable. Cinema of Denmark and Cinema of Sweden -- both significant players in international film history and arguably deserving of their own task forces -- have been developing consistently already. Of course, my feeling is that rather than spending lots of time developing and writing material for a new task force, it is always better to have editors who are interested in a particular country simply leap in, pound out a few dozen film articles, and fill the gaps that way. CactusWriter 10:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Eyes Without a Face is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As some people have noticed, I've started to clean up the lists in {{ Academy Award for Best Foreign Film submissions}}, and have managed to get quite a few FLs from it. As it stands, however, a lot of the lists needs cleanup, and we are particularly hampered by the fact that finding sourcing for the submissions is near-impossible for older lists (the lists were added by a user who contacted the Academy in order to get the lists. As such, I'm sure the information is correct, but we simply do not have a tangible source to use in the article). That said, my main point is that several of the submission lists by country ( List of Japanese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film as an example) are in pretty poor shape. Some lists have barely any entries ( List of Tajik submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, List of Albanian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, etc.). The current minimum number of items permissable for at WP:FLC is ten items (subject to exceptions, but not for traditional table lists like the submission lists), and many of these lists will never reach that number for years to come. I've submitted one of these lists ( List of Macedonian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film) for A-class review, so it's a nice in-between since it can't get FL status yet. However, for the lists with barely any items, they're probably better off merged as of now (no point in having a two-item list, and I wouldn't want such a thing to be considered A-class). As such, I would like to propose that all the country submission lists with two or fewer items be merged into the relevant cinema page, films list, or whatever is appropriate. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no problem with having an article "List of countries with less than x submissions to the Academy Awards." If some of those countries pass the x threshold, I am pretty sure it is going to be very easy to move that country into a separate article. Nergaal ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The leads is the main issue I see. It's just a long list of sequels that came out. When I compared it to other "... in film" articles, it's at least double or more in size. The question is: which to remove? Or perhaps just a rewrite to make it look better? There is also: 2008_in_film#Unscheduled_2008_releases, which should be checked and updated. Some movies could be bumped to 2009 or later. Considering it's almost September, that's not much time for all the ones officially announced plus the ones in that section. RobJ1981 ( talk) 08:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Just found some unconventional claims regarding this guy, sourced to a community website, that have actually spread all over film related articles and would need to be cleaned up in accordance with published sources. I noticed the problem at last on History of film and Film. I've started a discussion at Talk:Louis_Le_Prince, there's more about it. Feel free to step in help out and/or fix the problem. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't see how could be true "world's earliest film" from 1888 since film itself was invented next year in 1889. Le Prince used photosensitive paper that he shot his image sequence with. Or do they refer to it as "paper-film"? the 'paper roll film' was invented by Arthur James Melhuish already in 1854. Also Albert Londe designed a single camera to shoot image sequences in 1884, 3-4 years earlier than Le Prince. The bottom line, Le Prince shot possibly, and for certain the worlds first surviving "moving picture sequence with a single lens camera", not "the world's earliest film" . These should be the facts and the articles should be cleaned up accordingly I think. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it seems has spread all over and it might be difficult to track it down. So anybody noticing this "first film" by Le Prince, please help to set things straight.-- Termer ( talk) 07:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The point I guess is more that the statements regarding Louis Le Prince for making the "first film" or the "first moving picture" and "generally regarded" etc are misleading. I mean Muybridge did show off his image sequences he shot in 1878, he also had means for viewing them in motion, so one could claim the same way that he was the guy with the "earliest surviving motion picture". As long as these statements about Le Prince would be sourced to exact books and made clear in context, it would make more sense I think. -- Termer ( talk) 10:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm covering old ground, but would Category: Films based on a true story be a worthwhile category? I'm thinking it would apply to dramatic features where this can be verified with reliable sources, of course. But would the category simply be too big? 70.55.150.229 ( talk) 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently changed the musical numbers section of the Hairspray (2007 film) article from the format found here to this format, adding bits of information about the song's placement in the film or trivia about the scene after each song title. I'll admit that my impulse was to revert the edits, but I feel I've grown a bit too close to the article over the last year, and I can see where something like this could potentially be beneficial, so I thought it might be best to ask here first. Is there any sort of precedent for formatting an article like this, or would the information be better off removed or mentioned elsewhere? I know it probably needs some work if it is going to be kept (removing trivia/information adequately covered elsewhere, sourcing some of the info, removing WP:OR-ish details, etc.), but I thought I'd ask here before doing anything and see what a few other editors with a bit more experience in the film article field thought. — MearsMan talk 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the renaming and/or splitting of the task force has been ongoing for several weeks now. I've created a new proposal on how this might be handled - comments are cordially welcomed. This may also impact the structure of a Nordic cinema task force as well, so any editors interested in that region may also want to have a look. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we may need your input on, more likely. It's been proposed that we merge Category:Films that portray the future to Category:Films set in the future, but we, and by we I mean I, didn't know if you had a reason for having the two categories as separate. Appreciate it if you could chuck your two pennyworth in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_1#Category:Films_that_portray_the_future. Ta, Hiding T 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am quite confused as to the origins of the Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures and the article that has sprouted up? I cannot find anything about it other than "pipe" articles that rotate right back to Wikipedia. Hoax or not, it seems very questionable. FWiW, I invite others to comment. Bzuk ( talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
Following discussions on the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force, a Baltic cinema task force has been suggested. We'd like to gauge the number of interested editors and solicit any comments. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Baltic taskforce include Poland? The Bald One White cat 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah thats a shame as I would have out my name down if it included Poland as there is a HUGE amount of work to do on it which exceeds the total for the Baltic countries put together The Bald One White cat 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Passed - I will create the task force shortly. As for the other task force participant numbers, several of them were grandfathered in through old WikiProjects before we had task forces, so it's not necessarily a fair comparison. And on the subject of studies available, I have found a fair amount of material on Google Books alone when searching for basic terms such as "Baltic cinema", "Estonian cinema", etc. And that's just in English, without the benefit of a proper research library. In any case, I assume that the editors are sufficiently familiar with NOR and NPOV that this will not cause problems down the line. Enjoy the task force and good luck - we all look forward to seeing the articles on Baltic cinema develop! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Girolamo Savonarola for creating the task force. Regarding using the basic terms such as "Baltic cinema", "Estonian cinema" etc. on Google Books. I've been through all of them while creating expanding the Cinema of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania If you'd look at the google books returns more closely, the only book in English that has a chapter on the subject, is the Culture of the Baltic states. The rest of the books just mention the terms or give very brief overviews.-- Termer ( talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussions can be found here and here. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks tables for cast looks really ugly? Its just I've seen them appearing in numerous articles e.g 1776 (film). I rather like the Casino Royale (2006 film) cast section with the bold for the cast and characters. I know this exmaple has been used in many other articles butwhat should be do about these tables? The Bald One White cat 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the See also section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:
{{Portal|Film|Video-x-generic.svg}} |
This displays as: |
(I updated it with the new icon.) Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If we are listing multiple release countries in the template (e.g. US, UK, Australia), why are we not including the rating for these countries? -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The list of ratings to any given film is going to be a mile long. therefore, in case felt necessary, please start up The List of ratings (name of the film) for each article covering a film. thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Traffic (2000 film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick currently contains several dozen "citation needed" tags. I will not be working on this article myself. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion taken to Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help-- Termer ( talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Several images which have been nominated for deletion may be of interest to the members here, since they are all of cast members in film articles which have been nominated as being "decorative". The notifications of the nominations can be found here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If these images can be deleted, then any fair-use image of cast members of a film can be deleted at any time as being "decorative". Given that it might be worthwhile to express an opinion about this, so that a precedent is not set, and image policy becomes even more restrictive than it already is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Not sure if this is the best place to ask for advice, but I've just come across something that seems ridiculous and wanted some third-party input. Yesterday I removed the sentence "Then the credits roll" from the end of the plot summary of
this article. I removed them because... well, it seems pretty obvious and isn't notable at all. I reasoned that if the film didn't have credits then it would be worthy of mention. I reworded the final statement to make it clear that this was the ending scene and then removed the offending sentence.
I've just noticed that it's been restored with the reasoning "(I)t's (an) important notice after the end of the film (that) there was a closing credits". I've added a note to the (IP) editor's talk page to ask why they did that, but in the meantime I wondered what your thoughts were on having statements such as that. I have noticed it on other film articles, too.
As I said, this strikes me as rather strange but I thought I double-check myself rather than remove the statement again and (possibly) end up in conflict.
Cheers,
OBM |
blah blah blah 08:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion @ CfD can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Our project has finished reviewing all of the B-class articles needing review, which was initially at 1,000 articles. With the expansion of the standards within our project concerning sourcing, broadness, and reliability of sources, the total number of B-class articles has been reduced to about 250 articles (the vast majority were reduced to Start class). The majority of these articles are very close to GA status, and just need some minor to significant changes to get there. If interested, consider adopting an article or two from this category and advancing to GA. Some of these are Core articles within our project, which we should try to improve as much as possible. Working on these articles will really help to expand the number of GAs in our project, and I do invite you to seriously consider working on one. If I lowered the status of one of the articles you worked on and you disagree, please leave a message at requests for assessment stating why you think it should be B-class and I or another editor will take another look at it. Good work to everyone on improving our articles, and let's keep it up as we advance to 300 GAs. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Felix the Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the subcategories of Category:Films by technology have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 06:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. Based on recent investigations and edits by Ed Fitzgerald (at Pandora's Box (film)) and PhilipC (at Grand Illusion (film)) it looks like the Criterion Collection website no longer has the essays that accompany their DVDs posted on it. I don't know if they moved them to a different part of their site or if they just removed them completely, but, when you click on the link now it just goes to their page for the film. We may need to remove all of the links that we have which is a shame really since a year or so ago we worked so hard to defend keeping them. I haven't investigated this too deeply so I am posting this here so that the community can be aware of the situation and make whatever changes are needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)We had to remove the essays temporarily due to technical problems, but we do plan to restore them as soon as we are able, so please keep checking back. I hope this helps, and thanks for your email!
There's an ongoing discussion regarding use of Hulu.com as external link in Film related articles. Those interested are requested to contribute their thoughts on the issue. LeaveSleaves ( talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI for everyone who hasn't seen the notice everywhere, voting for the film coordinator elections is now open. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I put in a request at WP:BOTREQ regarding swapping out the film image icons per consensus. I outlined the request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Replacing_a_film_image_icon. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor Barton Foley is literally going through the list of films alphabetically and tagging a ton of them with notability and prod tags. Among ones he's tagged has been several with multiple reliable sources, those that pass films by being released nationally in theaters (such as Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid), etc. Now some of them likely are proddable as they do probably fail the film notability guidelines, however from his talk page it seems like this guy is mostly attempting to be WP:POINTY and I'm concerned that notable films that just need article clean up and/or expansion are going to get lost in this mass prodding, particularly the stubs. Can some other film project members check his contribs to see which articles he's tagged and deprod any that are actual notable. I've already removed the tags from the two Anaconda film articles he hit. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that someone had put prod notices on a bunch of horror movies. I edited them off the articles so that people would have a chance to improve them but I got a lot of grief for that (even though I wasn't doing anything wrong). I think Barton Foley is going through some list of horror movies and trying to delete all of them!!! Can someone help me stop this??? Please?? miniluv ( talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy for the order in which writing credits are listed? Is it:
Screenplay
Story
Based on something by
or something else? Does the WGA have a policy on this? Thanks! -
Richfife (
talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
bear in mind, these are encyclopedia articles, not advertisements, where the prominence of a star name is important. We should provide the reader with clear information on how that movie was written, so starting at the beginning (the source) and progressing through the final result makes most sense. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
But, as I said, that's a different question entirely from whether the source should be presented first in the writers field. In a lot of cases (especially with writer/directors), there's no problem at all, in others maybe it seems weird -- why should Peter George be listed first when Dr. Strangelove is so obviously Kubrick's film? Or is it Terry Southern's? Disentangling "prominence" or "importance" or "primacy" just seems like a fools game, which is why I prefer a straight-forward chronological presentation: this person started the ball rolling (source), this person help make the transition to another medium (adaptation), and this person wrote the script that the director worked from (screenplay). There's no subjective judgments to be made, arguments as to who's the most important get shut down... boom, boom, boom, there it is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be taking the positon that listing the writer of the screenplay last is somehow downgrading his contribution to the finished product, but I don't see that at all. It's just chronology, that's all, what happened first, what happened next. If I see Hans Christian Anderson's name listed first for The Red Shoes, that doesn't mean I assume he wrote the movie, and it doesn't take away from the achievement of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger in making that wonderful film that their names are listed after Anderson's. The order is not about primacy or importance (which, as I said, can be very subjective and therefore subject to debate, edit wars, etc.), it's just about what came first, something no one can argue about.
Besides, this is an infobox we're talking about, a pre-formatted, pre-designed summary of important information. The place where you want to present primacy or importance of creation is in the lede. I've written or revised a whole lot of lede paragraphs for film articles, and I always try to start with what's most important or notable about that particular fim. I can start with the director, the star, the writer, the source writer, the studio depending on what the film is known for, who seems the most important, and what the reader is looking for. It's there where debates about who should come first need to be settled; the infobox is just a list. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, since the article is about a film the screenwriter should be listed before the author of the source material in the infobox. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
The film series lists are all in terrible shape. There are film series broken down into their sub-series and scattered throughout the lists. I am trying to straighten them out, but I know nothing about the Japanese films on that list. I am hoping and praying that someone here can sort through that mess (Super Sentai, Kamen Rider, and Godzilla). I am also trying to co-ordinate those lists under on the film series talk page. Please please please, come and help get these lists under control. Thank you. - LA ( T) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like some expertise from regular WikProject Films editors for an issue here:: Talk:The_Godfather#IMDb_rating
I was reviewing comments in the The Dark Knight - IMDB rating section, and decided to remove any IMDb rankings on articles, per Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Critical_reception.
A certain editor claimed that those rankings should stay on the Godfather articles. He admitted that the ranking system may be flawed, but claimed the films' longevity at the top of the list should still merit article inclusion as a "fact."
Thanks for taking a look (and helping out). -- Madchester ( talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article contains Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg, a non-free image that claims as its fair use rationale, "Used to illustrate the formative years of the fictional Indiana Jones character as a teenage Boy Scout." This is a claim not independently supported by the article, and the image's caption refers to Ebert's review of which only this brief fragment is related: "After young Indy discovers his life's mission in the early scenes..." This fragment mentions nothing of the particular shot or of any element within it. Per WP:NFC#Images, there needs to be critical commentary or discussion of the film to support the screenshot. There is no explicit commentary talking about how young Indiana Jones is holding the cross, either in terms of production design or thematic approach. The image does not seem appropriate for inclusion, and I would like other editors to review this situation. In addition, the image's so-called rationale for Scouting in popular culture may also need to be reviewed. Thanks, Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the current use of the image is fine, though it should really be reduced in size per MOS:FILM guidelines. Personally I find the other image in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade more dubious, as it merely shows the reader what the characters look like. PC78 ( talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:
Dear fellow contributors MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing discussion at: [1]. Time to get involved with your reactions and comments. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
I feel the category propaganda films and its subcategories are not being used in a consistent way, and this inconsistency gives the appearance of bias. See the discussion at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I think that clear criteria for inclusion would help editors be more consistent, so I've put up a proposal here.
-- skeptical scientist ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is the most beautifully organized project I've ever seen! Well done. One request: When creating a list of film-related topics, please use {{ inc-film}} (newly created) or {{ inc-video}} if it also involves other media. There are currently tons of film articles in the blanket {{ listdev}} category, and this will not only help diffuse that, but also give your project a central place to see the incomplete film lists. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this violate WP:NDA? Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to see if there is any interest in replacing the current film icon, label below as "Current". The current icon was implemented after a previous one was deleted. Some discussion took place back in July 2007, and we apparently ended up with this one. I think that what we have now is slightly cartoony where it seems that we have other sleeker possibilities, shown below:
These were found at Wikimedia Commons. If there are any other free options, feel free to identify them here. Do you think that the icon is worth replacing? Do you find any of the alternatives acceptable? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how each will look in practise:
User page transclusion removed.
I'm not too fussy to be honest, but for the sake of giving a useful answer I'll say #2 is my favourite, and #1 my least favourite. #3 is already used in various other film-related templates, for whatever that's worth. But any would be preferable to what we use now, IMO. PC78 ( talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also go with number 2, although I'm pretty much fine with anything (including the status quo). Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is a very strong consensus for implementing #2. I will request the change for {{ Film}} and personally make the change to {{ WPFILMS Sidebar}} as well as any other locations. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In October, Walt Disney Pictures will release a documentary adventure film called Morning Light which follows a yacht race team, headed by Roy Disney, that competed in last summer's Transpac (well-known California to Hawaii yacht race I'd never heard about before). The film has received plenty of coverage in the sailing community and there is now a teaser site and trailer available. It is also listed on AllMovie and IMDb. Yet I was surprised to find no article for the movie.
So, I have created a first draft of a new article, complete with a low-res version of the movie poster. (I think I got the non-free rationale correct, but if I've got it wrong, please someone let me know.) The reason I am not moving it into the mainspace myself is because Disney is a client of my employer. I've been given permission by the lead coordinator here to make simple edits on existing articles, but I wanted to play it safe with the creation of an entirely new page, even though its notability and verifiability are without question. Someone please let me know if you can move it for me, or if it needs additional work first. NMS Bill ( talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that movie trailers released between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice aren't eligible for copyright, and that that is a boon for finding libre images of many actors and actresses such as Angela Lansbury. How, though, does one know which films' trailers fall into that special and limited category? Anybody know? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Films participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why User:Erik thinks it necessary to remove every screenshot from a film article he comes across even if it identifies the main characters or is used for criticial commentary on the given film in the plot? It has become highly restrictive and in many cases I consider the removal of certain screenshots which identify key parts or charcters in the plot a negative thing rather than an "improvement" ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not for overuse of unnecessary screenshots either but I;ve seen images removed which have helped identify a key moment in a film and the main characters. Personally I think a film screenshot providing it identifies a major point in the film which is discussed in the text is far more encyclopedic than a film poster will ever be ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The way the images are used in the fight club article are cleverly done (although an excellent article, I've wondered how it reached GA without a standard cast section which even a starter article should have). However I've seen images removed which do actually help articles encyclopedically and there seems to be some belief a screenshot should only be used in any section other than the plot. For example Vanaja (film) currently up for GA had one screenshot identifying the young dancer performing in front of her mentor. This was clearly for identification purposes of a notable scene and main characters which was discussed in the text. I always thought such an image was acceptable and meeted general fair use requirements. If it isn't then we are going to lose thousands of screenshots which identify a main characters or a scene in a film because it doesn't reach the new criteria that an image must be used only for discussing cinemtatic techniques or themes of a film. IN addition to this many editors are going to be drilled repeated orphaned images from all the images being removed which have full rationales and seemingly some legitimacy for fair use. I fully support Erik removing images which are decorative but I'm sure some screenshots can be saved if a proper caption is added and it specifically improves the article in a key scene and is encyclopedic. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I had a thought... I've generally had the perspective of building up the content before finding images that work with it. Perhaps we could go the other way and think of screenshots that would certainly be useful. For example, we could find content for iconic film scenes and write up the commentary in the article and plug in the images. Another twist on this approach is to include images based on wins for Best Costume Design; surely the winners' designs get some commentary and would warrant that kind of illustration within the relevant film articles. Do the same for characters known for make-up or prosthetics or scenes with famous visual effects. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Erik: If I'm reading any of your comments correctly you said you could give some examples of featured articles where images are used in a neat way, could you show me some example? I'm just curious because I'd love to see an article like that. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to further extend this discussion, but I just want to see some clarification for my benefit and I'm sure for others as well. This was touched on a bit above and also in the recent Little Miss Sunshine A-class review. A CD cover for the soundtrack was removed from the Tropic Thunder article that I uploaded. I acknowledge that the image is very similar to the movie poster, but as I discussed with Bignole (who removed the image), I think the image represents the information concerning the soundtrack as the film poster encompasses the entire article. Rather than create a whole new article for the soundtrack which I don't see to be necessary unless there is enough information to warrant it (I've seen numerous soundtrack stubs which will likely never be expanded too much further), is it frowned upon to include a soundtrack cover on the film's article? And/or does the issue of the image being similar to the movie poster warrant the upload of the score's cover since it differs from the poster? Critical commentary on CD covers is rare concerning soundtracks (I've never seen anything myself on comments concerning the cover), and that is the only reason I could think of for possibly removing a cover from the article. Granted, there isn't too much information present in the soundtrack section as of now, but it will be expanded as more sources become available. I'm not upset over the removal, but just want to clear this up, and possibly include it in the upcoming image MOS change for future editors' guidance. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to summarize my thoughts in a way that will make sense to everybody. First of all, if we look at WP:NFC#Images, I think it is fair to say that theatrical posters are considered "cover art" of a kind. The normal kind of cover art is the kind seen with books and albums. When it comes to films, there is no kind of explicit cover art in its theatrical medium. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is unrealistic to replace theatrical posters in infoboxes with DVD covers. Unlike other kinds of posters that could fall under "Other promotional material", a theatrical poster can adequately identify the "item" (the film) as long as critical commentary exists about that item. (This may be something to apply for expanding stubs before adding images in infoboxes.) Now we can consider the use of the theatrical poster (or another cover image) in the infobox adequate for purposes for identification because "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". With this in mind, we need to recognize that this image is used to identify the entire topic of the article. After this usage, it would not be appropriate to add other cover art (soundtrack covers, home media covers, other posters) unless its significance can be demonstrated in a fashion that goes beyond identification, which has already been established by the infobox image. In conclusion, I think that as long as the soundtrack is considered part of the film article, the theatrical poster or whatever image exists in the infobox already identifies details of the soundtrack as part of the film. The same would apply for home media covers. To warrant inclusion within the film article, soundtrack and secondary cover images need to demonstrate non-identification significance. How does this line of thinking sound? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
They are Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike and Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, just to let you know. Dalejenkins | 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I only mention it here because I commented on this article earlier today, and, perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of soundtracks has arisen. Since this is pertinent to what is being discussed above, some of you might want to take a look. PC78 ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you add rumoured films to the filmography of an actor/actress? I've seen quite a few "rumored films" in several filmographies. In my opinion, "rumors" are definitely out of place in an encyclopedia but what's the consensus? ► robomod 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Could also impact on Western film actors too. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hearts and Minds (film) could use some expert film article assistance in adding and properly presenting content on the film. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This interesting article talks about a student who didn't get college credit because he used Wikipedia and possibly improperly sourced part of the plot summary of a film (it doesn't state which film). Just wanted to point it out since we don't get to much publicity concerning film articles (even though it is not in positive light). -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed that hundreds (probably a few thousand) of film articles display one of the templates in Category:American films by year navigational boxes. Each of these navboxes contains a total of ten links—one for each year in a decade—to a "List of American films of [Year]" article.
Is this useful or template clutter? Note that virtually every film article contains, or should contain, a piped link to a "[Year] in film" article (e.g. 1957 in film), and it wouldn't be difficult to add a "see also" link to a single appropriate "List of American films of [Year]" article (instead of to the lists for an entire decade). I personally would prefer to generally avoid placing a navbox in an article unless that article is actually linked in the navbox (for instance, Glory (film) should contain {{ Edward Zwick}}, since the template contains a link to the article about the film), but that's just me...
Thoughts? – Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well they are connected at the bottom of articles to the films of that year or decade for navigation and comprehension purposes to organize cinema. We do this for every other cinema but with America we had to be more cautious because nobody wanted "generic" templates so we had to do by decade. I fail to see how these small templates harm or clutter the articles and they ar eintended for quick navigation of American film which I believe they do well. Again, why was it only Lugnuts who had the decency to inform me of this discussion ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
Well I'm thinking in terms of newer vistors to the site. They read an article from a given year, Perhaps they'd like some list of other films in the same year or period in which they can browse. Category:American films or Category:e.g 1977 films doesn't do this rather List of American films of 1977 does. I really don't mind as long as there is some link to connect to the bank of film articles in the lists. Iwouldn't mind if there was a See also List of American films of 1977. As long as there is a link it doesn't matter. At the time, creating decade templates seemed the most logical step to improve connection between articles.Personally I think having a full list by year greatly improves our comprehension. I'm sorry if nobody here appreciates that I want to enhance connection across articles by year but I and many other users find them of use. When the cinema templates were initially nominated for deletion before, a lot of editors turned up to protest at their deletion. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd bite the bullet and list these at WP:TfD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14, for those who are interested. PC78 ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know this has been created. The Bald One White cat 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
We've now got a new edition at Category:Mexican film stubs which Lugnuts is taking the intiative to administer to the articles as we speak a smany of those articles were not even stub tagged at all. If anybody has any suggestions for other new stub templates that it has missed please mention them and we can stub propose them together. Its a pretty useful project category I think for our to-do list. To expand these stubs!!! Cheers The Bald One White cat 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No probs. Most of the films were tagged with {{Mexico-stub}}, or just not tagged full stop. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while since I tried to rework Letters from Iwo Jima from its long sysnoposis, to a shorter one (though it's still, as noted blow by blow). It seems that more small, insignificant details are slipping in. Though this may sound obnoxious, could somebody try to rework it? I'd do it myself, except I'm retiring from wikipedia. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know a reliable website we can find data on the top 10 grossing U.S movies of each year? I thought adding a top ten to all of the years like List of American films of 1998 would be a good move forward The Bald One White cat 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Films participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I run a website FamousLocations.com and we list 233,000 movies and 4,600,000 locations around the world. We list movie locations for the movies. We are a free site and offer great movie/film location info and are interested to get listed on the movie pages at Wikipedia for the pages.
Please have a look and see what you think.
What do you think? Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.21.68 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, August 4, 2008
From FamousLocations - I have changed my user name to flocations.
FamousLocations is a wiki site and we rely on people in the business sending us information such as actors/directors and film makers, which is first hand information. We do vet/monitor the information and cross reference with many sources including books. We do get notified of wrong info and have an active community within the filming industry/business and they do help keep the information as accurate as possible. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocations ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We have been developing other projects in the past few years but in the last 12 months we have attracted one of the founders of Amazon Europe to the company. The site has just finished a major revamp. We have not done any PR since the revamp but in 2002 we got Yahoo Award, we were featured on many radio shows and 1000’s of websites. We are now set fare to regain that position. The problem we had is we were received so much information the only way forward was to rebuild the site as a wiki base to let users in to give it to us. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Flocations (
talk •
contribs) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We source most of the information from User input due to the scale of the subject but we vet the information using books/IMDB/etc and we also use moderators similar to wikipedia. Most of the information is public domain I.E. what actors/directors related to the movie/film and the film locations. So it pretty accurate, our main focus is on a niche market of Locations used in the movies, TV shows, etc. No other website on the Internet presents the information in the way that we present the locations using Google Mash ups. We also link the actors to the famous locations. The website is also very useful for travelling. If you wish to go to a famous location or destination and want to know other famous locations near we present this information for users. We have 233,000 movies and growing and could have a link to each of the pages on wikipedia for the locations made in the movies. We also are a very usful source for travel and to find out why the locations are famous. Any other questions please let me know. Thanks David (from Famous Locations.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Any progress on deciding whether to include FamousLocations as part of the wikipedia either the content or the links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does it not comply with the WP:EL? Please explain as to why it does not comply. We have more unique information that Rotten tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is only a review site. We present other information which like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and does not show. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read The Jane Austen Book Club and was amazed at how different the film is from the book. When a film adaptation departs dramatically from its source, is it appropriate to cite the differences in the film article? If it is, would the details go in the plot synopsis, the production section, or a different section completely? Thank you for your input. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this may not be the most correct forum to start this discussion but I couldn’t really find a more appropriate one.
I’ve been going through film titles in the list of requested articles in order to create some of them and I find the scope of the current list overwhelmingly broad and the length of the page excessive. Has there been a discussion anywhere about separating the film related requested material from the rest of the Culture and fine arts from that list and creating a separate sub page? The current page takes a while to load and can get choppy while scrolling through it not to mention the possibility of an edit conflict on such a large page. Does anyone know of a better forum for this or could we do something about it from here? SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NCF says that titles should be "film" rather than "movie", and IIRC, there was a mass move some time ago from article titles that were "Name of film (movie)" to "Name of Film (film)". I've just come across film star, but that is redirected to movie star. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The template/box "Christopher Nolan Batman film series" was just placed under External links on the Cillian Murphy article. The placement of these kinds of boxes has always confused me. They seem most often to be placed under External links, but they are most definitely internal links to other Wikipedia articles, links related to one narrow aspect of a film actor's work. And usually, the most relevant of these links to the home article are already there in the article's text. Is there any guideline on the proper placement of these boxes? Should they have their own heading? Should they go at the bottom of an actor's filmography section? What's the deal? Thanks, Melty girl 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can some of the project people take a look at this discussion? The discussion needs additional input. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's that time again...
So election-time is fast approaching, and the current coordinators already begun some initial discussions about the details, which we wanted to bring to the community's attention and hopefully approval. At the moment, here's the gist:
We're still hammering some smaller issues out, but these are the larger ideas with the biggest project-wide impact. All of your thoughts on these are most welcome! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm not getting the idea of this task force, it makes no sense to create a task force based on a country that existed 20 years ago. If that's a pattern, should there be a task force "post-colonial British cinema" that would include cinema of India? Cinema should be categorized by different languages/cultures and in that sense it should include movies made in Russian only, meaning the task force should be renamed: Russian cinema!-- Termer ( talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take the rest of it to
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Soviet_and_post-Soviet_cinema_task_force and only address Dividing up the task force to please current political interests ignores the cultural and historical conditions which (willingly or not) has bound these countries' cinematic traditions together.
From where the idea of 'has bound these countries cinematic traditions together' comes from, I do not know? It has no basis, factual of anything. The only bound there was, films made in Soviet Republics were financed and censored by Moscow. To suggest that this created a cultural bound, would be good to know at least according to whom? Even the three Baltic states have different cultural traditions, 2 upper Estonia-Latvia are protestant like Northern Germany, Scandinavia and Finland and Lithuania is a Catholic country, culturally most closely tied to Poland if anything. To suggest that there is cultural bond between lest say the Baltic states and former central Asian Soviet republics, I just don't know what to say. The cultural bond between the Baltic states and Russia, well, that's just like between any other either Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christian country.
The second regarding: to please current political interests. The best would be to avoid politics out of such a task force, from it's name and insignia. You guys, in case you're not aware of it: in Baltic stats Soviet symbols are considered equal to Nazi Symbols
[2] therefore making up such a task force and posting it on the Baltic states notice board , even though most likely done in good faith, is a very bad idea. Therefore in case you'd like to tie together these countries, politically more neutral name and insignia should be used!--
Termer (
talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Please do not remove dubious tag until the issues are solved! thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Post-Soviet" is an anachronism that implies a common cinematic theme and connection with Soviet cinema of the past. But for contemporary cinema this is confusing. Using "Post-Soviet" for simply a regional grouping does not make sense, since the Soviet Union extended to the Pacific. If you are concerned about taskforces of sufficient size and regional scope, then the Baltic states should really be grouped under " Northern European Cinema" so that Finland, and the Scandinavian countries can come under a taskforce. Currently these other northern European countries are not yet covered by any taskforce. Then there should be taskforce for Commonwealth of Independent States to cover the other countries in the so-called "Post-Soviet" space. Martintg ( talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
After reaching A-class a few weeks ago, I have nominated Little Miss Sunshine at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments in further improving the article at the nomination page which can be found here. Thanks and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for The Boys from Baghdad High is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Kiki's Delivery Service is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Rang De Basanti; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for The Five Heartbeats is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I note there is no coverage of Northern European countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc. This is quite a significant gap than needs to be filled. The scope should include all of Northern Europe, with the obvious exception of the UK, which already has its own taskforce. I would be a member of this taskforce if it were to be created. Martintg ( talk) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A Northern European Task Force is simply far too broad a category to be useful or manageable -- dozens of countries related only by geography. In the same way, there is also very little shared cinematic history between the Baltic and Nordic countries for all of them to be categorized together. A proposal for a Scandinavian task force might make sense since there has been direct cooperation in film making between Denmark, Sweden and Norway from the late 1800's through today. Plus, there is a lot of coverage here already -- over 500 films and more than 1000 film bios on the english WP from these three countries alone -- more if Iceland, Greenland and Faroe Islands are included. However, the need for developing another big task force is questionable. Cinema of Denmark and Cinema of Sweden -- both significant players in international film history and arguably deserving of their own task forces -- have been developing consistently already. Of course, my feeling is that rather than spending lots of time developing and writing material for a new task force, it is always better to have editors who are interested in a particular country simply leap in, pound out a few dozen film articles, and fill the gaps that way. CactusWriter 10:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Eyes Without a Face is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As some people have noticed, I've started to clean up the lists in {{ Academy Award for Best Foreign Film submissions}}, and have managed to get quite a few FLs from it. As it stands, however, a lot of the lists needs cleanup, and we are particularly hampered by the fact that finding sourcing for the submissions is near-impossible for older lists (the lists were added by a user who contacted the Academy in order to get the lists. As such, I'm sure the information is correct, but we simply do not have a tangible source to use in the article). That said, my main point is that several of the submission lists by country ( List of Japanese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film as an example) are in pretty poor shape. Some lists have barely any entries ( List of Tajik submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, List of Albanian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, etc.). The current minimum number of items permissable for at WP:FLC is ten items (subject to exceptions, but not for traditional table lists like the submission lists), and many of these lists will never reach that number for years to come. I've submitted one of these lists ( List of Macedonian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film) for A-class review, so it's a nice in-between since it can't get FL status yet. However, for the lists with barely any items, they're probably better off merged as of now (no point in having a two-item list, and I wouldn't want such a thing to be considered A-class). As such, I would like to propose that all the country submission lists with two or fewer items be merged into the relevant cinema page, films list, or whatever is appropriate. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no problem with having an article "List of countries with less than x submissions to the Academy Awards." If some of those countries pass the x threshold, I am pretty sure it is going to be very easy to move that country into a separate article. Nergaal ( talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The leads is the main issue I see. It's just a long list of sequels that came out. When I compared it to other "... in film" articles, it's at least double or more in size. The question is: which to remove? Or perhaps just a rewrite to make it look better? There is also: 2008_in_film#Unscheduled_2008_releases, which should be checked and updated. Some movies could be bumped to 2009 or later. Considering it's almost September, that's not much time for all the ones officially announced plus the ones in that section. RobJ1981 ( talk) 08:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Just found some unconventional claims regarding this guy, sourced to a community website, that have actually spread all over film related articles and would need to be cleaned up in accordance with published sources. I noticed the problem at last on History of film and Film. I've started a discussion at Talk:Louis_Le_Prince, there's more about it. Feel free to step in help out and/or fix the problem. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't see how could be true "world's earliest film" from 1888 since film itself was invented next year in 1889. Le Prince used photosensitive paper that he shot his image sequence with. Or do they refer to it as "paper-film"? the 'paper roll film' was invented by Arthur James Melhuish already in 1854. Also Albert Londe designed a single camera to shoot image sequences in 1884, 3-4 years earlier than Le Prince. The bottom line, Le Prince shot possibly, and for certain the worlds first surviving "moving picture sequence with a single lens camera", not "the world's earliest film" . These should be the facts and the articles should be cleaned up accordingly I think. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it seems has spread all over and it might be difficult to track it down. So anybody noticing this "first film" by Le Prince, please help to set things straight.-- Termer ( talk) 07:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The point I guess is more that the statements regarding Louis Le Prince for making the "first film" or the "first moving picture" and "generally regarded" etc are misleading. I mean Muybridge did show off his image sequences he shot in 1878, he also had means for viewing them in motion, so one could claim the same way that he was the guy with the "earliest surviving motion picture". As long as these statements about Le Prince would be sourced to exact books and made clear in context, it would make more sense I think. -- Termer ( talk) 10:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm covering old ground, but would Category: Films based on a true story be a worthwhile category? I'm thinking it would apply to dramatic features where this can be verified with reliable sources, of course. But would the category simply be too big? 70.55.150.229 ( talk) 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently changed the musical numbers section of the Hairspray (2007 film) article from the format found here to this format, adding bits of information about the song's placement in the film or trivia about the scene after each song title. I'll admit that my impulse was to revert the edits, but I feel I've grown a bit too close to the article over the last year, and I can see where something like this could potentially be beneficial, so I thought it might be best to ask here first. Is there any sort of precedent for formatting an article like this, or would the information be better off removed or mentioned elsewhere? I know it probably needs some work if it is going to be kept (removing trivia/information adequately covered elsewhere, sourcing some of the info, removing WP:OR-ish details, etc.), but I thought I'd ask here before doing anything and see what a few other editors with a bit more experience in the film article field thought. — MearsMan talk 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the renaming and/or splitting of the task force has been ongoing for several weeks now. I've created a new proposal on how this might be handled - comments are cordially welcomed. This may also impact the structure of a Nordic cinema task force as well, so any editors interested in that region may also want to have a look. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we may need your input on, more likely. It's been proposed that we merge Category:Films that portray the future to Category:Films set in the future, but we, and by we I mean I, didn't know if you had a reason for having the two categories as separate. Appreciate it if you could chuck your two pennyworth in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_1#Category:Films_that_portray_the_future. Ta, Hiding T 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am quite confused as to the origins of the Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures and the article that has sprouted up? I cannot find anything about it other than "pipe" articles that rotate right back to Wikipedia. Hoax or not, it seems very questionable. FWiW, I invite others to comment. Bzuk ( talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
Following discussions on the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force, a Baltic cinema task force has been suggested. We'd like to gauge the number of interested editors and solicit any comments. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Baltic taskforce include Poland? The Bald One White cat 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah thats a shame as I would have out my name down if it included Poland as there is a HUGE amount of work to do on it which exceeds the total for the Baltic countries put together The Bald One White cat 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Passed - I will create the task force shortly. As for the other task force participant numbers, several of them were grandfathered in through old WikiProjects before we had task forces, so it's not necessarily a fair comparison. And on the subject of studies available, I have found a fair amount of material on Google Books alone when searching for basic terms such as "Baltic cinema", "Estonian cinema", etc. And that's just in English, without the benefit of a proper research library. In any case, I assume that the editors are sufficiently familiar with NOR and NPOV that this will not cause problems down the line. Enjoy the task force and good luck - we all look forward to seeing the articles on Baltic cinema develop! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Girolamo Savonarola for creating the task force. Regarding using the basic terms such as "Baltic cinema", "Estonian cinema" etc. on Google Books. I've been through all of them while creating expanding the Cinema of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania If you'd look at the google books returns more closely, the only book in English that has a chapter on the subject, is the Culture of the Baltic states. The rest of the books just mention the terms or give very brief overviews.-- Termer ( talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussions can be found here and here. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks tables for cast looks really ugly? Its just I've seen them appearing in numerous articles e.g 1776 (film). I rather like the Casino Royale (2006 film) cast section with the bold for the cast and characters. I know this exmaple has been used in many other articles butwhat should be do about these tables? The Bald One White cat 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the See also section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:
{{Portal|Film|Video-x-generic.svg}} |
This displays as: |
(I updated it with the new icon.) Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If we are listing multiple release countries in the template (e.g. US, UK, Australia), why are we not including the rating for these countries? -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The list of ratings to any given film is going to be a mile long. therefore, in case felt necessary, please start up The List of ratings (name of the film) for each article covering a film. thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Traffic (2000 film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick currently contains several dozen "citation needed" tags. I will not be working on this article myself. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion taken to Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help-- Termer ( talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Several images which have been nominated for deletion may be of interest to the members here, since they are all of cast members in film articles which have been nominated as being "decorative". The notifications of the nominations can be found here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If these images can be deleted, then any fair-use image of cast members of a film can be deleted at any time as being "decorative". Given that it might be worthwhile to express an opinion about this, so that a precedent is not set, and image policy becomes even more restrictive than it already is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Not sure if this is the best place to ask for advice, but I've just come across something that seems ridiculous and wanted some third-party input. Yesterday I removed the sentence "Then the credits roll" from the end of the plot summary of
this article. I removed them because... well, it seems pretty obvious and isn't notable at all. I reasoned that if the film didn't have credits then it would be worthy of mention. I reworded the final statement to make it clear that this was the ending scene and then removed the offending sentence.
I've just noticed that it's been restored with the reasoning "(I)t's (an) important notice after the end of the film (that) there was a closing credits". I've added a note to the (IP) editor's talk page to ask why they did that, but in the meantime I wondered what your thoughts were on having statements such as that. I have noticed it on other film articles, too.
As I said, this strikes me as rather strange but I thought I double-check myself rather than remove the statement again and (possibly) end up in conflict.
Cheers,
OBM |
blah blah blah 08:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion @ CfD can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Our project has finished reviewing all of the B-class articles needing review, which was initially at 1,000 articles. With the expansion of the standards within our project concerning sourcing, broadness, and reliability of sources, the total number of B-class articles has been reduced to about 250 articles (the vast majority were reduced to Start class). The majority of these articles are very close to GA status, and just need some minor to significant changes to get there. If interested, consider adopting an article or two from this category and advancing to GA. Some of these are Core articles within our project, which we should try to improve as much as possible. Working on these articles will really help to expand the number of GAs in our project, and I do invite you to seriously consider working on one. If I lowered the status of one of the articles you worked on and you disagree, please leave a message at requests for assessment stating why you think it should be B-class and I or another editor will take another look at it. Good work to everyone on improving our articles, and let's keep it up as we advance to 300 GAs. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Felix the Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the subcategories of Category:Films by technology have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 06:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. Based on recent investigations and edits by Ed Fitzgerald (at Pandora's Box (film)) and PhilipC (at Grand Illusion (film)) it looks like the Criterion Collection website no longer has the essays that accompany their DVDs posted on it. I don't know if they moved them to a different part of their site or if they just removed them completely, but, when you click on the link now it just goes to their page for the film. We may need to remove all of the links that we have which is a shame really since a year or so ago we worked so hard to defend keeping them. I haven't investigated this too deeply so I am posting this here so that the community can be aware of the situation and make whatever changes are needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)We had to remove the essays temporarily due to technical problems, but we do plan to restore them as soon as we are able, so please keep checking back. I hope this helps, and thanks for your email!
There's an ongoing discussion regarding use of Hulu.com as external link in Film related articles. Those interested are requested to contribute their thoughts on the issue. LeaveSleaves ( talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI for everyone who hasn't seen the notice everywhere, voting for the film coordinator elections is now open. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I put in a request at WP:BOTREQ regarding swapping out the film image icons per consensus. I outlined the request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Replacing_a_film_image_icon. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor Barton Foley is literally going through the list of films alphabetically and tagging a ton of them with notability and prod tags. Among ones he's tagged has been several with multiple reliable sources, those that pass films by being released nationally in theaters (such as Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid), etc. Now some of them likely are proddable as they do probably fail the film notability guidelines, however from his talk page it seems like this guy is mostly attempting to be WP:POINTY and I'm concerned that notable films that just need article clean up and/or expansion are going to get lost in this mass prodding, particularly the stubs. Can some other film project members check his contribs to see which articles he's tagged and deprod any that are actual notable. I've already removed the tags from the two Anaconda film articles he hit. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that someone had put prod notices on a bunch of horror movies. I edited them off the articles so that people would have a chance to improve them but I got a lot of grief for that (even though I wasn't doing anything wrong). I think Barton Foley is going through some list of horror movies and trying to delete all of them!!! Can someone help me stop this??? Please?? miniluv ( talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy for the order in which writing credits are listed? Is it:
Screenplay
Story
Based on something by
or something else? Does the WGA have a policy on this? Thanks! -
Richfife (
talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
bear in mind, these are encyclopedia articles, not advertisements, where the prominence of a star name is important. We should provide the reader with clear information on how that movie was written, so starting at the beginning (the source) and progressing through the final result makes most sense. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
But, as I said, that's a different question entirely from whether the source should be presented first in the writers field. In a lot of cases (especially with writer/directors), there's no problem at all, in others maybe it seems weird -- why should Peter George be listed first when Dr. Strangelove is so obviously Kubrick's film? Or is it Terry Southern's? Disentangling "prominence" or "importance" or "primacy" just seems like a fools game, which is why I prefer a straight-forward chronological presentation: this person started the ball rolling (source), this person help make the transition to another medium (adaptation), and this person wrote the script that the director worked from (screenplay). There's no subjective judgments to be made, arguments as to who's the most important get shut down... boom, boom, boom, there it is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be taking the positon that listing the writer of the screenplay last is somehow downgrading his contribution to the finished product, but I don't see that at all. It's just chronology, that's all, what happened first, what happened next. If I see Hans Christian Anderson's name listed first for The Red Shoes, that doesn't mean I assume he wrote the movie, and it doesn't take away from the achievement of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger in making that wonderful film that their names are listed after Anderson's. The order is not about primacy or importance (which, as I said, can be very subjective and therefore subject to debate, edit wars, etc.), it's just about what came first, something no one can argue about.
Besides, this is an infobox we're talking about, a pre-formatted, pre-designed summary of important information. The place where you want to present primacy or importance of creation is in the lede. I've written or revised a whole lot of lede paragraphs for film articles, and I always try to start with what's most important or notable about that particular fim. I can start with the director, the star, the writer, the source writer, the studio depending on what the film is known for, who seems the most important, and what the reader is looking for. It's there where debates about who should come first need to be settled; the infobox is just a list. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, since the article is about a film the screenwriter should be listed before the author of the source material in the infobox. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)