Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 20

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

.

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)

"A certain editor"? Why not name names? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So interested editors can be drawn into discussion based on the circumstances of the situation and not the identity of the opposing party. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable. I was afraid I had cooties or something. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article contains

) - 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This has all been hashed out at the IfD for the image, and the DRV of the "keep" closure of that IfD. S. Dean Jameson 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't mean that we stop talking about it. "Consensus is not immutable." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  I've stepped away from discussion of this image. However, I would say that consensus developed less than a day ago perhaps ought to be respected for at least a bit, no? S. Dean Jameson 19:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• My initial comment was a misunderstanding of the underlying context. With the caption only referring to the abstract notion of a quest, I did not realize Ebert's direct reference to the scouting in the much-later Reception section. It took the image out of context for me. I think its new location directly adjacent to the context is less controversial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current use of the image is fine, though it should really be reduced in size per

) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad point to make, considering that they already have identifying images at

WP:NFC#Unacceptable use under Images, #5: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)." —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Consider this all resolved? Alientraveller (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if those had contested the other image are fine with this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 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:

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

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)

Be careful not to involve

WP:CANVASS. FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Well, it is not canvassing to give notice to relevant projects. (If this is what you are referring to.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is canvassing, it just doesn't violate the policy (I don't think). I posted here (the relevant wikiproject) and at the village pump. I don't think this is excessive, partisan, I think my message explains my opinion without biasing readers, and I'm using on-wiki communication. I wasn't aware of that policy when I posted, but I don't think what I did violated it. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What I see the hint of is an attempt to label some films as "propaganda" according to political beliefs, especially in the arena of "global warming" which tends to get me to think that there is an agenda behind this seemingly innocent proposal. FWiW I could be completely wrong here and be seeing boogeymen when there are none, but I want to make clear what my reservations are. Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

I believe that's what the actual debate is about, so your above comment would be more relevant there. Canvassing only covers debate invitations, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

When I see a meatpuppet involved, now disclosed, I continue to be leery over the actual intentions of this proposal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

This is understandable. However, I don't think calling me a meatpuppet is fair. It's true that I have edited on this issue both logged in and logged out. However, I tried to be consistent so as not to appear to be a sockpuppet, and when I accidentally broke my pattern, making it possible for it to appear that I was two different people with the same opinion, I immediately disclosed that fact (in a reply here). I also posted the message at Category talk:American propaganda films to avoid confusing or misleading editors who weren't aware of the history. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I continue to have Lady MacBeth concerns here, which are not allayed by this remark. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Please - let's take this all to the talk page in order to have a consolidated discussion in one place. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is where I made my concerns known. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 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 {{

15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about FamousLocations or something else? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean any list related to film that might fall under Category:Incomplete film lists.Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind compliment! I'm sure everyone who is actively involved with this WikiProject appreciates your assessment. We try to keep things active here. :) I was wondering for what kinds of lists your template would be appropriate. Some lists will never be complete (such as genre), while some lists could find some degree of completion (such as year). What's your suggestion on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a {{

List of Argentine films, List of films shot in Toronto, etc. (Unless suddenly Toronto were made off-limits to filmmakers.:) ). Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself)

17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

List of Argentine films shouldn't really have such a tag, since it's merely an index for other sub-lists. Not sure I like the wording of {{complete-list}}, i.e. the command not to remove or add entries to a list, which doesn't seem at all appropriate. What about fluid lists that are constantly evolving, which are neither "complete" nor "incompete"? PC78 (talk

) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; I was just going through and changing {{

listdev}} to {{inc-film}} without evaluating the article content. I've removed it from Lists of Argentine films & will keep an eye out in the future. Her Pegship (tis herself)

20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there's a number of things I don't like about {{complete-list}}. The horrible pink colour, for one; why not just plain text like the others? Why use the template at all? Even if a list is "complete", it may be necessary to add or remove items for whatever reason in the future. We don't tag articles as being "complete". PC78 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate

) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think that {{

Expand list}} is used in thousands of articles. I assume it's a stub tag of sorts for list articles. PC78 (talk

) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the film icon

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

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:

• 
  Current
• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3

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)

I like both Option #2 and #3, in that order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

FYI: Remember that the icons will usually be compressed like at {{

Film}}, so some may look better when smaller. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 18:43, 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)

Nice job with this! Where else is #3 already used? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that it's used in "Year in film" articles. I think #2 looks best, too. Hopefully we can hear from even more editors. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second one as well. I remember that I used to like the original symbol that was used by the project over a year ago, but I forgot what it looked like... I think the second image looks more modern for our adapting and expanding project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Erik) The clapperboard image (or rather, various deviations of it) are also used in the gamut of Category:Film country templates and Category:Film country list templates. On the other hand, a deviation of image #1 is used in {{Future film}}. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one PC78; I was literally in the middle of working on something like this myself when I saw you'd already beaten me to it... For the record, 1 looks like a UFO, 2 and 3 are the best. I'd be happy with either, with a slight preference for 3 if it came to a tie. Steve ^{T • C} 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I say go with Option 2. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:31, 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)

Of the three I prefer option 2, but I might just like the current version the best... and I think we should have a box for it next to the others. gren グレン 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also like option two. It has some of the same features as the current icon. I guess I like having a bit of the film coming off of the reel. Though the way things are going I suppose that we will have to have a few bits of data coming away from the microchip when film becomes extinct in a decade or so :-( MarnetteD | Talk 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Movies won't become extinct, don't worry about it. Now that movie makers have the right technology, do you really think they're just gonna give it up?

talk

) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I like option 2 as well. Oh, and I like to think that MarnetteD meant the "film" itself would become extinct as filmakers begin using digital cameras to capture and project everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making clear what I did not Bignole that is exactly what I meant. Just think there was a time that we had to wait until the filmstock had been developed before we could see what we had just taken a picture of! MarnetteD | Talk 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is a very strong consensus for implementing #2. I will request the change for {{

) - 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the project userbox and {{Film-stub}}. These are the other templates that use the icon. PC78 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've taken care of it. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...or not. Bugger. The old image is far more widespread than I thought. PC78 (talk) 00:24, 6 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)

Looks good, still a bit of problem with the redlinked dates... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Go ahead and move it! :) As long as you stick to descriptive information and back it with citation, you should be OK. When it comes to the film's release, it may be a good idea to let others shape the "Critical reception" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if you think it's OK for me to move, then I can do so. I noticed the redlinked dates, but hadn't checked

WP:CITET for an example at that point. Now I see it's like 2008-08-06, so I'll update that first. Thanks, all. NMS Bill (talk

) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Page is now up: Morning Light. Erik, thanks for the suggestion -- once the film is released, and if no one else gets to it first, I'll do a section on the reception in the style I've seen on other film articles. NMS Bill (talk) 19:07, 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

| 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1977? Are you sure? I know that {{filmimage}} says 1964, but I'm not a copyright expert, so I don't know where that comes from. Either way, I would imagine that the trailer's copyright year would be for the year the trailer itself was released. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe 1977 is wrong. Trailers made previous to 1964 hold a 28-year copyright and entered the public domain in 1991. (Trailer rights are held separately from movie rights since trailers are released before the film is considered published.) However, the Copyright Act of 1964 changed that and provided film with a 50-year copyright. The only trailers released after 1964 which might be in the public domain are those which were released without any copyright notice -- such has the example about the trailer for The Shootist. At least that's my take on it. CactusWriter 08:22, 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"

19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Non-free images. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:11, 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

19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not (sure) everyone on this page is using the same definition of critical commentary. :) Steve ^{T • C} 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, forgive me for editing your contribution, I think you may have meant to add a word in the sentence. Delete if inappropriate. Bzuk

No problem. :) Steve ^{T • C} 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that removing some of these images from the articles is a negative thing. However, we are constrained by certain site-wide policies regarding fair usage. One of the principles is that images used for identification or illustration are insufficient to justify fair usage - copyrighted images used within the text must provide critical commentary to support specific passages written in the text. It's a hell of a raincloud to deal with, admittedly, but the diktats for this come from the general site-wide discussions and subsequent site-wide image purges, so there's little we can do about it at a project level, unfortunately. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main point that was made was that plot summary does not count as critical commentary, it's just a factual account written by one or more users. It's not for us to decide what a "key moment" is in a film. A scene is only significant if it has been discussed in neutral, independent sources, in which case it should be discussed elsewhere in the article and appropriatly referenced. PC78 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

After feuding with the image police on this issue, especially since there are a number of editors who feel it is their perogative to enforce a binding and very arbitary intrepretation of the guidelines. There is a specific case to be made for film article to use screenshots as they are often the only available imagry used to provide "critical commentary" and unless it detracts from the article, I consider images to be of a benefit to the reader. FWiW, I don't particularly agree with the above sentiments as I feel that the guidelines are being interpreted to the disadvantage of the project but surely from the edit history of those involved, to the gleeful satsisfaction of being a powerful editor with a mission... Sorry for my pessimistic outlook, but I do think that the image issue is one that needs addressing. Bzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

OK, to expand upon my original reply, let me try to expand the point. Non-free content must comply with United States copyright/fair use law. There's no way around that. But the fact is, a hell of a lot of the images used on Wikipedia simply don't. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but it helps to have a base position on which I hope we can all agree. Now, fair use law is actually quite specific in determining what meets the criteria. A surface reading of "screenshots may be used for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" will leave an editor with the impression that almost anything is permitted, as long as we describe the event in the plot section. This is not an accurate reading. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, if its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, and if no free equivalent is available. Per

WP:PSTS, only simple, descriptive passages can be used in (for example) plot sections that draw from the film as a primary source. So what is required is "critical commentary" from a third party source on the image. If it doesn't have this, the image cannot be used, even if an editor believes it will be genuinely insightful. Our idea of what's useful can't trump the law. :( Steve ^{T • C}

19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict the third time; this what it feels like, Steve?) I've removed screenshots that are only added to articles for decorative purposes because screenshots need to have critical commentary, not just to identify characters or to show what an editor considers a key moment in the film. Wikipedia wants free content, so it should not be surprising that it needs to be "highly restrictive" about the presence of non-free content. When it comes to films, we have a lot of sources commenting on different aspects of cinema, either technically or thematically. We can provide screenshots to significantly illustrate these sources' commentary. However, what is the critical commentary for images like the three at Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, the five at Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, and the three at Austin Powers in Goldmember? For example, for the character Fat Bastard, we could easily find critical commentary about the design of the character and what was needed to realize the look, and support that commentary with an image of Fat Bastard in the film article. Instead, a lot of these images are just scenes from the film. If we're showing these, why these? Why not another batch showing some funny antics going on? Screenshots need critical commentary, and plot details don't qualify. With a lot of articles on current films, some editors are doing better about relating screenshots with critical commentary in the article. I've tried to do so with the work I've done. I've even gone back to my very first image on Wikipedia and removed it because it didn't have any commentary -- it was just one of the many scenes in the film. I do wish that there was more flexibility with including non-free images, but the criteria isn't unrealistic. With enough work, we can justify a fair number of non-free images supported by the article's commentary and not fret about possible removal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 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

20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try to do that better. I really have left alone images that seem like they have some basis in the article. Most of my removals have been from the Plot section because it's not critical commentary. I suppose I've switched sides, so to speak... in the past, I think that we at WP:FILM have cited tradition to keep non-free images deemed inappropriate by outsiders. Tradition was what was cited for list of episodes and list of characters, too. I just think that as I've edited more and more that there are a lot of possibilities. With Fight Club, I added images that I never would have considered "key moments", but when the right context is provided, these images make a whole lotta sense. From what I've noticed, I think that it is very easy to implement images for big-budget films with lots of production design. Superhero films come to mind, so do war films. With the most famous films of all time, there are a lot of iconic scenes cited, like "Here's Johnny!" at The Shining (though it could use citation to support it). More challenging films, I think, are contemporary run-of-the-mill dramas or romantic comedies, which may get some thematic coverage if they're lucky -- or perhaps famous humorous ones, like the deli scene in When Harry Met Sally. While I'm taking away images, I really am looking for ways to add other images that could have their foundation in Wikipedia for all time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I support you removing unnecessary images of characters which really aren't essential to the plot. I know some articles abuse the fair use criteria and many of these decorative images should probably be taken out. However I think we should try to bring the film to life on the article page by one screenshot of a very important scene or main cast which are specifically discussed in the plot I personally think should be acceptable providing it enhances the understanding of the section of the film being discussed. I always thought "limioted use of screenshots to provide visual commentary" was acceptable under fair use providing the nyumber of images are strictly limited and they ar eused in the most productive way possible in relation to the tex. I believe this helps the user in an encyclopedic way as it visualises the important moment being discussed and at least identifies the film on screen. If this isn't acceptable then we are missing out on visual media which is very important to a visual based topic like films.

$1,000,000?

20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik and others, the deletion of screenshots has become a bit of a "cottage industry" to some editors who have a passion for only removing and reverting material. I tend to see these enforcers as having very few substantive contributions but they pile up a huge number of edits in indiscriminate removals. I tend to give the orginal poster the benefit of WP:AGF in that they found or made a screenshot for a specific reason, that is to illustrate and enhance the reader's knowledge. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC). Just to clarify this statement further, Erik, I certainly do not put you into the category of the "do nothingers." You have made substantial contributions to film articles in many ways. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

With respect, the article actually has to have a reason, you can't just assume that there is one. From what I've seen, many people will upload an image simply because they can. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what Bzuk means is that the editors did have reasons for adding the images, but they're not reasons immediately apparent in the article. The addition of non-free images isn't an act of vandalism; it's with good intentions, but not done in the best way. Human beings benefit from visual aids, so God knows I try to break up a huge block of text with images (free or non-free) or quote templates. No offense taken, Bzuk... believe me, it'd be nice to have ten or a hundred of me working on Wikipedia articles and adding non-free images where it suits the commentary... so much work that could be done! :) Deletion is definitely easier than inclusion. I just hope I can provide some Featured Articles that can demonstrate how non-free images can be tied into the existing content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is blatant, there are numerous ways to "connect" an illustration to the article text and would it not be contingent on the editor questioning a usage to "tag" the illustration first and allow the original poster to justify the reason for use. Many of the film articles are "a work in progress" and the simple expedient of advising the editor who posted the image to provide a rationale, would be much more preferable to me than the "blanket" removal that I am seeing at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunately, unlike the many other problems that can be found in a "work-in-progress" article, this one has external ramifications for the site, because it involves possible copyright infringement. Increased editorial contact, of course, will go a long way towards both engaging the issues directly and educating our users, thus averting possible future problems. However, since this matter has external legal implications, it can't as easily be dismissed as something to be gradually dealt with over time as the article develops. We generally handle textual copyright problems in exactly the same manner - immediate deletion from the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that illustration/identification/description for its own sake is not considered enough for fair use. Much like Erik, I used to look the other way when these occurred, and furthermore, I have actually spent a decent amount of time in the past fighting with the "image police" at the image use policy discussion pages. But here's the sober reality: we can write the project style guidelines to say anything about images that we want - we can even require random screenshots - but at the end of the day, the image police are going to come around and eventually delete these pictures anyway, frequently without any regard whatsoever or willingness to engage in discussions. (I have just been a "victim" of one myself this week.) And they can and will, because the site-wide policies supersede ours. Therefore, my conclusion is that it is better that we do this "in house" with our own experienced editors, who will be more apt and willing to help confused editors, engage in discussions where there are contested removals, and repurpose images for critical commentary where possible. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blofed, I've had a look at the Vanaja article, and I think this is a good example of the problem we're faced with. What makes the scene notable? So far as I can see, there is nothing in the article to substantiate this claim. Where is the discussion of that particular scene in the text? The removal of this image (here, by User:Mspraveen) was quite correct, IMHO. If you want to show what a character looks like, the the appearance of the character must have received some commentary in third party sources. Screenshots of living actors will be especially tricky; at what point are you showing the character, and at what point are you merely showing what the actor looks like? PC78 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I had suggested the removal of that image on the talk page. I tried to explain the reason and suggested another possibility (production design of a particular area that was spruced up). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterrate "tagging" an article for change is much better than simply removing an image and then the "orphan image" syndrome goes into effect, making it doubly difficult to reconstruct the original image. I still feel that there can be some defining statements that can be made at WP:FILM that will assist editors in providing screenshots with a proper "anchor." FWiW, I'm enjoying the opportunity to at least discuss this issue as it was almost impossible to do with the image cops. Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes, but why just tag? I've always been somewhat conflicted about tagging, because it essentially is saying "we've got a spill on aisle four, but I don't wanna clean it up". Would it not be better to simply remove the image and then maybe leave a standard template-based message on both the article talk page and the uploading editor's user talk page? This deals with the problem proactively while also providing notice so that it can be re-included if any editor wishes to do the necessary legwork. Again, consider how we deal with text copyright problems - we don't tag it and hope it goes away - we actively remove it as soon as it's identified as such. As a legal liability, it can't be dealt with on the same leisurely timescale that an article without an infobox can be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Take the image to IfD. This gives notice to the uploader, and allows time for concerns to be addressed. If it doesn't happen, the image (should) get deleted. Seems fair enough to me. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 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)

Well the thing is its not as if people can't google image the film or actor in two seconds flat and see hundreds of images from the film discussed. If people want to see images of film then its not exactly impossible to achieve this and in far more abundance than wikipedia could have even with one or two. However I've always thought a screenshot of an important scene, perhaps the Vanaja one wasn't but there are many examples where there are, improves the article and useability of wikipedia. While we want the best possible encyclopedia of the highest quality and accuracy it also has to have an element of enjoyment to read it and often images can "almost bring the article to life" providing it abides by copywright law and general WP Policy. The definition of certain laws on here seem to be of much debate, I remember the months of discussions on whether a screenshot is acceptable in an actor biography too. There are many who think it is an utter abuse of copywright, while others think it is very encyclopedic and enchances useability of the article. Me, I'm on the fence on the issue as I see both arguments but i generally believe the limited use of screenshots to identify a key scene or the main cast in a scene in the film is a positive step for the article rather than a flaw providing the useage is strictly limited.

$1,000,000?

20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Fair enough, but please understand that as things stand with the fair use policy, identification is not considered critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know but if anything isn't considered critical commentary it is film posters. Screenshots of important scenes in films which are discussed in the text have more encyclopedic value than film posters. I'm not sure how one is considered unacceptable yet another which provides a lesser insight into the appearance of the film is considered to meet image requirements when it does nothing to aid the article in terms of critical commentary. Whether film posters are essential or not, they are still copywrighted images and in relation to the new requirements seems something of a double standard.

$1,000,000?

21:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to recall anyone defending the use of the poster images, IIRC. It's a very good point in its own right that merits its own debate, but

other stuff exists is not sufficient for this discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not about other stuff exists. If somebody is trying to implement a policy that images of films can only be used for critical commentary the selective nature of the implementation seems to be more of a view of the editor removing them rather than any serious licensing issues. To remove screenshots of films claiming that they a merely decor as only images for "critical commentary" are permitted yet to retain posters of the films seems rather odd.

$1,000,000?

21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is about that. You have essentially said, "but what about the posters? They're not critical commentary either." This discussion is about screenshots. And this is not "somebody trying to implement a policy" - this is and has been the site-wide image policy for sometime now. As I have said, the issue of the posters is a cause for concern, and it too merits discussion - but independent of this one, because it touches on similar, but not identical, issues. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Film posters are different, IMO. They serve as an identifying image for the article as a whole. PC78 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, PC78,

Wikipedia:FAIR#Images allows for cover art. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it also says at WP:FAIR#Images that Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. If you are discussing a film whther it is a plot or cinematic techniques and use a screenshot to discuss the content of a film then this should meet requirements.

$1,000,000?

21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as I can tell, "the cinema" does not mean a particular film - it means within the context of a national cinema. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The bit you've just quoted quite cleary says "critical commentary and discussion"; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The guideline seems to support everything that's been said so far about screenshots requiring critical commentary. (Actually Giro, film posters would appear to fall under "4: Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary". Personally I would argue that film posters, used in the context that we use them in, should be treated in the same way as CD covers and such. It's something worth discussing separately, perhaps, but it's not what we're discussing here).PC78 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 1. is explicitly for identification of a work itself, though. 4 would be appropriate for adding poster images elsewhere in the article (which would need critical commentary). The description of 1 also notes that these images don't have to have critical commentary themselves if the work itself is the subject of the critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reason behind "tagging" a concern. It puts the onus back on the originator to justify its purpose. I do not think the moving of the image to a "delete" status at IFD at all works as I have seen images summarily removed on the basis of "conversation" there, not consensus. It gives the editor who has the "whip hand" far too much power and it rarely accomplishes what it is supposed to do in that IMHO, it does not provide a forum to help establish the credentials of the image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Arbitrary section break

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.

) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not featured (yet), but Erik's work on

Fight Club is a good example. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a great example, thanks. This discussion is getting large, maybe we should split it up in sections. Never mind, it's not that big yet.

talk

) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, done anyway. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll finish it one day, I swear! :-P (Of course, Wikipedia is never complete...) Blaziken, I meant that I have a desire to provide Featured Articles that use screenshots indisputably. It's just a challenge for me now because a lot of my aspirations require actual research, not just Googling and using newspaper databases. Also, I just did a little bit of brainstorming about dealing with the images, since Girolamo mentioned the "in-house" approach. Since we have some departments, it may be worth having a non-free images department. If we do implement the new draft at

WT:MOSFILM about non-free images, we shouldn't rush and delete everything that's questionable. So here's my proposal about a possible structure. Maybe it could be an essay instead or something instead, but it may be helpful to follow a certain structure or to request help when dealing with non-free images. Criticize harshly if you like -- I just think it would be a good converging point between the purging approach and the mass-uploading approach. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My final point, reverting or deleting is a technique that is mainly used to deal with vandalism. I think using it as a "hammer" is not justified. I think what we as a group want to do is identify questionable use of images and help the editor who has used them to find a reasonable solution that will either allow their use or have that editor withdraw the image if it is not appropriate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Soundtrack covers

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 say it's the same as posters - you are allowed to use cover art for identification purposes, so long as the article contains critical commentary on the subject being identified. Might want to refer it to the fair use editors, just to be safe. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article on the albume, but not in the film article. Unless there is critical commentary on the album cover, you don't get free reign to use in the film article. It's the same reason we don't allow DVD covers without critical commentary, or images in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the criteria of when to use soundtrack images a little strange. Ideally, if a soundtrack has enough background information and reviews, it could be

WT:NFC#NFC in infoboxes where we could ask about this. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, the use of a non-free image here has to be clearly connected to text and necessary for the understanding of the article. Unless the soundtrack is especially unique, it's difficult to even make a case for it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC).

I touched on this subject above when I mentioned about using film poster images in very short articles. I've had a quick look at Tropic Thunder: the section on the soundtrack is very brief, but the reality is that there are many album articles out there with equal or even less content. In essence, you're saying that if the soundtrack section in Tropic Thunder was split into a seperate article, then it would magically become OK to use an image in the infobox. It seems to be a remarkable double-standard to me. PC78 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Once it becomes part of its own article it's now representing the entire article. In the film article, it's merely decorative because there's not enough information to warrant a separate article (i.e. it lacks notability). We don't allow DVD covers in an article without some type of commentary, so why would we allow CD covers?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What about cases in which soundtracks can have a separate article, but an editorial judgment is applied to keep all film-related content under one roof? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the information is in it's own article or in a dedicated section of another article is neither here nor there, IMHO. It's not a question of notability; a subject need not have it's own article to be notable. A well-developed film article should ideally have a well-developed section covering the soundtrack. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because most soundtracks aren't notable. A single line discussing the soundtrack is all that is needed. We don't need a track listing. We aren't Amazon, we aren't here to promote a product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with excluding track listings in their entirety. I usually prefer to exclude them if they are your basic songs ("Intro", "Outro", etc.) due to availability on commercial websites, but if the soundtrack consists of popular songs and/or various artists, then the listing helps in terms of navigational purposes. Getting back on topic, though, Bignole, what if a soundtrack is notable for whatever reason, yet information about it is kept in the film article anyway? Can there not be a soundtrack cover if the preference is to keep all the information together? For what it's worth, we should use this discussion to improve the "Soundtrack" section at

MOS:FILM. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Like you've pointed out, it's typically a variation of the poster, and I don't see why we need two images depicting the same thing. If it's on its own then I can see why you would identify it, but if we already have one identifier in the article why do we need two? What makes it stop there? Why not have an identifier for the DVD covers (as there are usually multiple DVD covers). If there is a book released to tie-in, why not an image of that cover? I mean, if we have developed sections about the DVDs and the books, should they need images depicting their covers as well?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, if they are relevant to the context of the article, then yes, they should need images. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I interpret "relevant to the context of the article" to be "critical commentary". In which case, sure they should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the argument to have is that a poster is appropriate for a film article and a cover is appropriate for a soundtrack article. We need to avoid the assumption that readers will traverse between the two articles because if there is a soundtrack article, its stand-alone notability should already be established. Another point to make is that while

Album cover fur}} says, "This template is optimized for album cover art used in the article about the album. Other contexts may work, but it may not." An approach to take is that if an editor wishes to provide soundtrack content solely in the film article, he or she sacrifices the opportunity to have a visual indicator since the soundtrack is relegated as a sub-topic. This approach could be compared to lists of fictional characters, in which there could be background and reception about each one, but only they only use non-free images if there is direct commentary about the appearance. Just drawing in some outside applications. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing within the image fair use guidelines that says that cover art is only permissible where there is a separate article solely devoted to the actual item - it merely states that it's only permissible where critical commentary about the item exists, and that commentary on the cover itself is not requisite. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede that this is true, but I think it is fair to say commentary about the cover itself is a definite lock-in. It's less appropriate to include cover images if they don't meet #8 of

WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." So it seems realistic to say that a slight variation of the film poster in the soundtrack image would not make it appropriate. So what about cases in which the soundtrack image is significantly different from the film poster? Do we still include it in the sub-topic? What does it mean to increase the readers' understanding? —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, my time zone must be way off compared to you guys, this discussion went further than I thought it would. A lot of you are bringing up the same questions I had, so I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. I'm glad that Erik mentioned above that this discussion would hopefully improve the MOS concerning soundtracks, as this was one of my goals coming from this. As Bignole mentioned above with having book and DVD covers, there is definitely a gray area on what images can be included, especially if the soundtrack isn't split off. Commentary on the cover is a requirement of the criteria, so are we limiting the upload of soundtrack covers to only ones that have been commented on (which will likely be none of the images that are variants of the movie poster)? I mentioned before how the score differs in appearance then the soundtrack's cover, but I don't think that it should be uploaded solely because its image differs. As a side note, if the images are not included, we'll have the infoboxes remaining, but it is likely that we will not be able to generally find free images on the soundtrack (although I'm not eliminating any possibilities) to put in place of the cover. The infobox parameters discuss putting the album cover in the infobox, so are we to take that to mean that the infobox should be removed as well or that there has to be a separate article for the soundtrack? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there has been a misreading of requiring commentary about the cover art. Read

WP:NFCC (especially #8, significance), it can be included. "Significance" may require editorial judgment, though. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempted summary

I would like to summarize my thoughts in a way that will make sense to everybody. First of all, if we look at

) - 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "soundtrack covers" part (as per other discussion), because this is a discretely different item being discussed which is related to the film, but is not the film itself. Whether or not it has sufficient information to demand splitting to another article per Wikipedia conventions is not relevant in my mind (nor would I hazard to guess that it would make a difference legally) - significantly different items in different media are each allowed cover images. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that soundtrack information and home media information are significantly different from other information about the film? I would disagree because we're adding such information to the representative film articles in the first place. I don't see why we're identifying sub-topics where the overall topic has been adequately identified. As it's been said, soundtrack covers and home media covers are often redundant to the theatrical posters. So where is the significance in presenting a secondary identifying image on the basis that it's a different-looking representation about a part of the film's package? I have to admit I'm trying to figure out what you do advocate. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm only discussing the soundtrack material, because it is a completely different medium and can be considered a separate item in its own right. That we are grouping the soundtrack within the film article for convenience is not a relevant factor, IMHO. That would imply that splitting it to its own article suddenly makes it alright to display the cover. The thing is that the article can discuss two discreet items of distinctly different character - each of which is permitted to use a cover image for identification. I wouldn't be in support of this for the film and DVD release, because there is not really a large enough difference between the two. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think he's saying (or at least if he's not, then it's still what I think) that a soundtrack CD is inherantly different from a DVD release, because the CD does not contain the film. And also (as I said myself above) that it makes no difference whether the soundtrack is covered in it's own article or in the film article; either way, the commentary directly relates to that item. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what Erik is saying, which makes sense. Girolamo's point that the soundtrack is a more different medium in comparison to the film then a DVD does present a separate type of commentary. Should we make it a part of the MOS that soundtracks should be split off since it differs from the film and would be the only true way for a non-free cover to be used to represent the soundtrack? Or by keeping the soundtrack within the article does a cover adequately represent the information present? Although a poster is similar to a soundtrack cover, I don't think that it necessarily represents the information detailing the soundtrack. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the distinction that Girolamo is trying to make, but I was referring to how both soundtracks and home media could theoretically be spun off with enough content directly about each item. For both of them, there is background information, reviews, and sales figures. It's a bit of an argument to get into the nitty-gritty of comparing and contrasting the soundtrack and home media to the fictional work. Nehrams, I don't know if it should be encouraged for soundtracks to have their own articles... looking at the category, there's not too many stellar articles. In addition, I noticed that the soundtracks seem to fall under WP:ALBUM and not WP:FILM (at least not from the samples I checked). Perhaps what we could do for MOS:FILM is to write content about the soundtrack as it relates to the film, and point to the soundtrack article with {{main}}, having the infobox, cover image, and track listing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm one of the largest advocates for not having the soundtrack split off. I looked at many soundtrack articles prior to this discussion, and wasn't impressed. I was just presenting it as a possibility (just trying to be diplomatic). If editors were against including a soundtrack section within the film article if a non-free image may be not allowed, then I'm sure some editors would possibly want it split off. That sounds like a good idea for modifying the MOS guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They are

| 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rang De Basanti

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)

You are right that rumors are out of place. The minimum threshold should be that it is publicly reported that an actor is in negotiations to join the film. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter do this often. However, I would not suggest listing such potential involvements in the filmography sections since negotiations may not pan out or production may not take place. Where have you seen the rumors? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I already removed an entry from Kate Hudsons filmography and synchronized it with IMDB's filmography. At that time "Nine" was nothing more than a rumour. However, I recently skimmed a few articles where I found 2 filmographies with one "rumoured" and another "supposed" film. I just did a quick search but couldn't locate them. Maybe it has already been removed by someone else but I'll come back to this as soon as I find them again. Thanks so far for your opinion. ► robomod 09:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here. Could also impact on Western film actors too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, guidance on how to present reviews of a rather controversial film, so that all perspectives are properly represented, would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible to find a well-reviewed (in terms of breadth of reviews) film that does not have a fair share of both good and bad reviews. The best course is to follow NPOV principles - dispassionately discuss points which were commonly praised and commonly criticized, while briefly quoting some of the most representative and salient pieces of each. The goal is not to present the film as being "good" or "bad", neither of which would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, but simply to encompass most of the critical approaches to the larger aspects of the film. Given that this won an Oscar and was given a Criterion release (with several essays), I don't think it should be difficult to find and discuss the praise given the film - which the current diff is lacking. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:11, 11 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)

I think that's a good point to make; if the templates aren't even directly encompassing the articles in which they're implemented, it does seem like overproliferation. Why not contact the creator of these templates? Maybe we can figure out a different solution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I've notified User:Lugnuts of this discussion and invited him to participate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, we're not actually putting these things in articles are we? These templates may link to list articles, but this is really the domain of categories. Personally I would TfD the lot as needless overproliferation. It's actually

Blofeld of SPECTRE who created most of these. PC78 (talk

) 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs another looking over in some formal setting - if that's TfD, so be it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Erik for alerting me about this - I've let Blofeld know about it too. I personally don't see any problem with having these placed at the foot of an article. For me they provide a handy link to the films that were released in that country in that year. It's unlikely that an average user would stumble upon List of American films of 1928, for example, by accident. Finding that page can then result in the user improving other film articles of that year, or maybe even turning some important redlinks to blue. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 1 August 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

10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

I'm not sure, Blofeld. I saw that you were the creator of these templates and had you in mind when I told Black Falcon to contact the creator. I'm not sure if the templates should be deleted, but I don't think that they belong in individual film articles. Then again, I see that "List of American films of XXXX" already have the infobox breakdown at the top of the articles, so wouldn't templates at the bottom be redundant? I just think that the template is so above an individual film that there is no explicit relationship. A lot of films come out for each year, and I don't think the template in each film for each year is helpful. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Erik that there is no explicit connection between one film and every other film from that country released in the same decade. Each film article should be in a "Year films" category, and that should be quite sufficient. I'm not even convinced that we need the "Cinema of county" navboxes in every single film article, either. PC78 (talk) 13:14, 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

16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if nobody here appreciates that I want to... - this is not about you; please confine your discussion to the issue at hand instead of implying that other editors should be grateful and are not allowed to question things on their merits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut up Giro. It does involve me, so please quit your public ownership pretensions. I absolutely said nothing at all about my contributions or "what I have done" nor did I explicitly state that I "owned" the templates or that a consensus or project discussion wasn't a good thing. However you have made it look like I was trying to justify something based on my overal contributions to the project which is totally not what I was saying. "Appreciate" was probably not a tactful word to use and left the wrong impression. Rather it was me (and Lugnuts) who distributed the vast majority of these templates which we are talking about so "I" partly have some responsibility for them as they exist whether they are public property or not. I fully agree it should be WP:Films having a responsibility for them rather than "myself" but as I was the one who distributed then the discussion does partly involve me whether they are WP:Films group material or not.

$1,000,000?

09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to make this about me; I would ask that you retract your comment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, try to realize that we recognize that you do a lot of work, but also try to recognize that not all your work will go over well with editors. That's why Girolamo is asking to focus on the merits of this particular template instead of implying that we cannot criticize any contribution you make. We determine the validity of contributions through policies, guidelines, and consensus. Meanwhile, some more discussion related to the templates is going on below, and I'd appreciate it if there could be feedback about addressing this kind of navigational outreach. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Doesn't seem helpful at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to with just this discussion. I don't mind either way what happens to the templates whether they are replaced with a see also section or not. Consensus is great when people ar emade to feel equal and free to express their views. My main concern is that EVERY time I comment on a WP:Film discussion page I end up being prompted by Giro or made to reconsider my values or made to feel like my freedom of speech is no longer acceptable. If I can't freely express my views without somebody hovering every time then I really don't want to be part of the project.

$1,000,000?

14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple link to List of American films of 1977 in a "See also" section at the foot of an article should suffice, or a piped link such as "1977 American film" in the lead. But in what way do these lists "greatly improve our comprehension" of a film article? In their present state, these lists don't offer anything of the sort. In what way does a category not provide a "list of other films in the same year or period in which [a user] can browse"? Sorry, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of weight in your arguments. PC78 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The cinema templates that were nominated were {{

CinemaoftheUS

}} be "exploded" to list each "List of American films of XXXX"? For example, in combination with the template's existing links, have below it the following:

• 2000s: [[2000]] • [[2001]] • [[2002]] • ...

Obviously, with the years, I mean to pipe "List of American films of XXXX" in each one. That could be a switch off in expanding navigational accessibility while not transcluding the templates in individual film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Now back to the discussion. Well all the other cinema templates do this if all the years are available which I've always thought maximises navigation. I thought however that one template linked to all the years in American film would be considered "generic" and wouldn't be well received by the community for America this is why the decade ones were created to "lighten the blow". Either way I think there should be consistency across ALL articles e.g each for a template OR see also section. If everybody can agree on a template or form then I think the project should have a responsibility for ensuring that most articles have a consistent format in the guidlines for year plates or see also sections

$1,000,000?

Personally I would prefer not to have links to individual year lists in these nav templates; {{

CinemaoftheUS}} in individual film articles, then the existance and use of these templates appears to go against the spirit of such an arrangement. PC78 (talk

) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd bite the bullet and list these at

) 09:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know this has been created.

18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We've now got a new edition at

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

19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Box Office Mojo? It has capabilities of checking grosses in several different ways, though I'm not sure about how far back it goes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a reference for this in 1998 in film. PC78 (talk) 20:48, 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

I talked with the above editor and encouraged him to post here. I also instructed him to read

search engine test unlike IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search using various combinations of film site, film locations, filming locations, famous locations for film and each time the FamousLocations.com site came up as the number #1 listing so that there is some merit in the use of the site for research purposes. I think this topic needs to have more discussion but there does seem to be some great information here (3.6 million sites listed). For example, when I typed in a search on "Jesse James", I got back 83 "hits" including "Mr. Wong meets Jesse James (1982)" which gets me to think, how did I miss that one? But seriously, when I looked up "Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford The 2007 at Locations In Winnipeg" because I was actually on the film set of this movie, it accurately listed all film locations even a couple I wasn't aware of. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Are we looking at this website as a reliable source to use or an external link to implement? I had been thinking about the latter and mentioned the search engine test in the context of independent news coverage since there are a lot of movie websites that have been solicited but may not have pre-established notoriety. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't yet vouch for the reliability of the source as I have only just come upon it this morning, but it sure "nailed" the "Jesse James" test and with some further testing, it may work out to be a useful source of information. As an external link, it probably qualifies. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

If it can be demonstrated that the site gets its information from

reliable sources, then it may be of some use. If its information is user-submitted, much as the imdb is, then it will not (other than as an external link perhaps). Do we have any information either way? Steve ^{T • C}

13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

According to its FAQ, its pretty much entirely user edited, so no different/better than IMDB and not

talk · contribs

) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Like all external sites, it has to be checked for reliability and individual submissions have to have some verification, but I was impressed with the initial results of a check. I certainly think it can exist as an external link. Hi Collecti, I had been meaning to say I do enjoy your submissions but check out the argument at MoS on dating, I again brought up the old argument that ISO dating "stinks." Knowing how you feel about it, make your thoughts known. FWiW, sorry for the ramble on... Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

I have two issues with the website so far, though. As a reliable source, I'm not sure if it meets the criteria. It appears

self-published. As an external link, I think we've tried to keep the links to what has had pre-established notability. The website has not had any press coverage, so I'm concerned that we're providing the notability for this particular website. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 14:19, 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)

Here's the dilemma that I see - if the information is cross-referenced, then it implies that other sources exist which likely are more in accord with our RS policy and should simply be sought out themselves. If it isn't cross-referenced, then there is no way that we reliably use the site. Also, does the site itself indicate its sources (online and cross-referenced) or name its editors? Finally, there may be a dilemma that the site may be more reliable for recent films, but it is also more likely that such films have more available and accessible sources which pass RS that already divulge such information (e.g. local community papers when shooting on location, online interviews, etc). My inclination, therefore, is to advise against using the site for direct sourcing, although it may be useful - much as the IMDb is - as a starting point for research. Not so certain about the EL issue at the moment. Anyway, that's my two cents... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:11, 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)

I would say the answer was a pretty clear No. It does not meet

talk · contribs

) 14:28, 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)

See

here. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts

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?

) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's all the work on

this section into WP:FILMREQ. Lugnuts (talk

) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Film" vs "Movie"

) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more of a parentheticals naming convention - we aren't specifically proscribing the usage of movie in any article title. The star article should be titled based on the general site-wide naming conventions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a "comme ci, comme ça" issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:42, 21 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)

Information template boxes referring to a list or other sources are generally listed last in an article as these refer mainly to other wikipedia articles or information. Due to some variances in approaches, there have been differences in the actual location of the template box, but the majority of articles will have the template box as the last item. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

I have seen them as the last item mostly. I wondered if anyone had a better solution or guideline, because putting them last puts them under the External links heading, which is inaccurate. Anyone have thoughts about this aspect of the issue?--Melty girl 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically you're right, but I don't see it as a problem. I don't consider such a template appropriate for an actor article, though. What does

The Dark Knight (roller coaster) have to do with Cillian Murphy? The only salient links, i.e. for the film(s) and the character, are already in the article. PC78 (talk

) 22:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you -- as I noted initially, and as you say, all the most relevant links are already present in the article. But I think the template has been placed on all the cast members' pages, as it links to each actor's article. I bet removing it will lead to an edit war. Hmmm. Not sure how to proceed, especially during TDK-mania. --Melty girl 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could try removing it from that one article and then take it from there, though I suspect (as you say) it will lead to a debate with other users. Hopefully no-one will be daft enough to add it to articles like Battersea Power Station! :) PC78 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I compromised and moved it into the filmography section, which is where other such lists and links exist. But now it's somehow removed borderlines from the films table above! I have no idea why this is. I may have to revert it. It looks fine now. --Melty girl 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is that templates are placed at the bottom/footer of an article. So it wasn't in the External links section, it just happened that that was the last section of the article. See:

Wikipedia:Navigational templates - AdamBMorgan (talk

) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I guess despite seeing this around, the protocol just doesn't sit very well with me. There is no actual delineated footer in Wikipedia articles -- they do not exist as far as the ToC is concerned. That's why they seem to be in the last section, and that often doesn't make sense. It just seems like fans of something go around sticking boxes at the bottom of tangential articles to draw people's attention to a fandom, adding tangential links that were not relevant enough to be linked from the text of the article. A whole bunch of boxes sit at the bottom of some articles, and it doesn't look logical or pertinent enough to the subject at hand. One annoying trend is awards succession boxes sitting at the bottom of articles, far from the actual Awards sections (I always move them up); and they often repeat the awards info that's already there anyway. Is it really that relevant to most readers of Michael Caine who won the best supporting actor Oscar the year before Caine did and the year after? No, that's really more of a film history issue than a Caine issue, and the content is better suited for the Oscar article or a film history list. If there was an appropriately named section for these things ("Postscript"? "Errata"? "Somewhat related pages"? "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon"?), maybe it would look better to me. --Melty girl 22:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to

WP:LAYOUT on Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc. "Various navigational aids go at the end of the article, following the last appendix section." FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 12:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the link. I suppose that's the place to voice my objections to them seeming to be tables in the last section, as unlike categories, they do not seem to be in a footer section. But since I don't have the time or energy to do that right now, I'll just abide by the guideline. --Melty girl 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember, it's a guideline, not "set in stone" or concrete and variances that make sense do appear all the time. FWiW, many stylistic changes continue to be evolving as editors work their magic. Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 22 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)

This is a wide-ranging discussion looking at a variety of different approaches to dealing with the category and all of its sub-categories. We would like to work out a concensus solution that will hold up over the long term. Cgingold (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the renaming of the category discussion is stalled at this point since there is no consensus for change as to the vagueness of even defining the term. Let's see if the term "propaganda" can first be fully defined as a lead into the group of films. Regardless of the negative connotations of the word, it is the correct usage. "Bending" it into something else I believe is a fruitless exercise. FWiW, a caution in understanding that some of the original thought behind this request for change was an opportunity to "label" some films such as An Inconvenient Truth as propaganda which seemed to be serving a political message rather than a wholly neutral position. Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

That was just a misapprehension on your part. The initial impetus was the inconsistent way that it was being used - e.g. for Expelled, which is contentious, biased, and described by film reviewers as propaganda, but not for Fahrenheit 9/11, which is contentious, biased, and described by film reviewers as propaganda. I'd be happy with any change that removes the possibility of this kind of thing happening, including deleting the entire category tree. My goal is not to get any specific film labeled as propaganda, and Inconvenient Truth (or rather, films about global warming) was just a random example I chose to illustrate one particular suggestion. skeptical scientist (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your fulsome and thoughtful explanation, since as you can appreciate, I did not want to wade into a deep pool (how's that for mixing metaphors?) of politically motivated labelling. FWiW, forgive the odd spelling as I is a Canjan... Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

You can certainly wade into pools, including deep ones, and a deep pool is one you might be unhappy to have waded into... skeptical scientist (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's that time again...

So election-time is fast approaching, and the current coordinators already begun some initial

about the details, which we wanted to bring to the community's attention and hopefully approval. At the moment, here's the gist:

1. Elections will be slightly bumped up (by two weeks time) in order to start them in sync with a calendar month, and thus also include their mention in the newsletter from the start. Previously, the schedule meant that the newsletter was released mid-way through the election cycle, which potentially excluded members from being active from the start. We feel this shift may substantially help matters.
2. This would make for a signup nominations period from Sept 1-14 and a voting period from 15-28.
3. The elections process will otherwise be identical to prior elections, with approval voting.
4. We'd like to continue to expand the number of coordinator spots at a paced level, and thus would like to add two additional slots, for a grand total of seven coordinators.
5. Coordinator responsibilities will be more formally spelled out, and include a basic commitment to at least a modicum of activity as an article
   reviewer
   .

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)

Wasn't the Soviet Union more than just Russia? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

I've already explained the rationale on the task force talk page. The USSR was a very large national cinema, and it commissioned a vast number of films from many filmmakers, a great number of whom are still alive and active today, albeit dispersed across 15 countries instead of one. The majority of the history all of these countries' national cinemas is inextricably intertwined with the Soviet Union, and therefore it made sense that editors who were interested in a filmmaker who started making films for the USSR would continue to maintain their editorial interest past 1991 if the said filmmaker, for example, continued working in Lithuania. 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.

Furthermore, we already have task forces for regions, such as Southeast Asia, and there is nothing wrong with combining closely related national cinemas together when the individual countries do not have a sufficient number of articles or editors to maintain national-level task forces. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As well, there was a long history of Soviet filmmaking that deserves a special focus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

I'm going to take the rest of it to

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)

I believe you are taking this topic to the proper forum by seeking advice and comments here, although there is no problem in seeking out other opinions. If you have seen the dubious tag removed, then the cycle of

WP:BRD has taken place. FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

I removed the {{

fact}} and is for tagging relevant phrases in articles. Disagreements on Wikipedia-space material should be wholly dealt with in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. However, to get back to the point, Termer mentioned Therefore in case you'd like to tie together these countries, politically more neutral name and insignia should be used - I'd be happy to continue to discuss emendations along these lines, so long as we're not changing the actual scope of the task force. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the naming of "post-Soviet cinema" may be an area to explore. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Perhaps. I mean, I was trying to be as neutral as possible; the article on the current grouping of the republics is called post-Soviet states, and I couldn't find anything in there which suggested a better alternate name. I guess I just don't see why all the fuss - it's hardly controversial to acknowledge that the countries are former SSRs, is it really? Actually, the image might be a better starting point, as Termer clearly pointed out why that could be obviously contentious. I'll start looking into alternatives. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few maps from Commons. Some with geographic contours, others flat, different colors or one, etc. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why this is named like so rather than just Russia, plus it also includes many of the other country industries under one group which is a good thing I think

White cat

10:43, 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 "

) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Post-Soviet" is an anachronism that implies a common cinematic theme I find this somewhat disingenuous - the term is a geographical one referring to independent countries once a part of the USSR. It has nothing to do with a "common cinematic theme", nor do any of our other regional task forces. We also very likely will have an African task force in the near future as well - one which will cover a great many countries, cultures, races, religions, languages, etc - it's simply a matter of considering what groupings seem most logical for editors with particular academic interests in regional cinemas. The Basques don't get a separate task force from the Spanish one either, nor do the East Timorese merit inclusion in a separate task force because of their animosity with Indonesia. Now, looking at this debate as it currently stands, I see two editors from outside of the film project, both of whom primarily edit Estonian articles, who are demanding change because they find the association of their country with the USSR (and by extension Russia) distasteful - a situation which is reflective of the current state of bilateral foreign relations. And I see two very active editors within the film project - who have no known bias in the matter either way - who are, much like myself, a bit shocked that this task force's scope is seen as so surprising or illogical. I'm not averse to changes outright, but not on these grounds. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Post-Soviet" is an anachronism, full stop. Nothing disingenuous about it. I am astonished with how tenaciously you seem to wedded to this idea that there must be a "post-Soviet" taskforce, claiming it represents some kind of geographical grouping, even though it spans 15 time zones, and ignoring the fact that the Baltic film industry also existed in the pre-Soviet era, since 1908 in the case of Estonia. As a co-ordinator you should take on board the views of other editors rather than dig your heels in strongly to defend your position. I am from Australia, but have an interest in Estonian culture, Termer is an Estonian who works in the Estonian film industry. If you believe this task force is a closed shop and don't want input from people in a position to make meaningful contributions, fine, but please don't attempt to paint this issue with an anachronistic concept that has exceeded its use-by date, is in some way "disingenuous".

talk

) 01:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created a proposal on the task force talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After reaching A-class a few weeks ago, I have nominated

) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for The Boys from Baghdad High now open

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)

Peer review for Kiki's Delivery Service now open

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)

I don't understand, why are those two peer reviews in archives? Aren't they current discussions?

talk

) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the new organizational system at

WP:PR, I believe. If they are automatically archived from the start, then it's easier to open subsequent PRs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought archives was solely for closed discussions. Anyway I have one more question, how long do peer reviews last compared to AfDs?

talk

) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes I am currently reading about what peer reviews are.

talk

) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually around a month, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A month? That's how long Featured Article Candidates usually last. Well, I read the main peer review page, and it has to go through peer review first before it gets to FAC.

talk

) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to go through anything prior to FAC, but it generally helps to have extra eyes on an article as it develops. We also have a B-class checklist on the project banner to assist in meeting some of the basic criteria, and there is both the good article nomination process and our WikiProject's A-class review. While going through all of these is not requisite, the collective and increasing standards of each level tends to tighten up any possible issues ahead of an FAC, and thus make the featured candidacy much smoother. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rang De Basanti needs attention

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)

Peer review for The Five Heartbeats now open

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)

Northern European Cinema taskforce

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

talk

) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a Nordic task force? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Too restrictive as that would leave out Ireland and the Baltics.

talk

) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no common cinematic history (so far as I can tell) between Ireland, the Baltics, and the Nordic countries. If this is an attempt to continue protest over the Soviet/post-Soviet task force, there's going to be the question of the Baltic's cinematic history from the 40's to the 90's, which was explicitly tied into the Soviet system. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for a combined Nordic/Baltic task force elsewhere is a good one. There currently is close collaboration between Nordic and Baltic cinema. We mustn't forget also that Baltic cinema existed before 1940, and in close collaboration with Finland in the case of Estonia.

talk

) 04:46, 23 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)

Interestingly I was going to suggest just a few days ago when I learned about the Soviet group that a Scandinavian cinema taskforce to include Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark should be created as I know there are a great deal of films that should be covered. However i thought I would be opposed as it would be too broad, Swedish cinema and Danish cinema are fairly large industrues in their own right. I would support the creation of the project if there are a few editors willing to work on them.

White cat

13:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Eyes Without a Face now open

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)

Country submission lists

As some people have noticed, I've started to clean up the lists in {{

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'm not really certain that's a great idea when these lists inevitably will continue to grow every year. In theory, any of your mergeable country lists is splittable within a year or two. Were it a former country that only submitted once or twice, then perhaps the suggestion would make more sense to me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Girolamo but I have a compromise idea. What if countries with only one or two submissions were placed in groups of related countries? For example, Cambodia, Malaysia & Singapore are all Southeast Asian countries that have submitted once or twice, and they could be combined on one page. Same would go for Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua (in Central America) Latvia and Lithuania (in the Baltics) and all the sub-Saharan African countries (none of which have submitted more than once, except South Africa). Countries like Fiji that simply don't fit into any regional group would be allowed to remain as a "single-entry list". Adtran (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Adtran's proposition to have small lists (i.e. just one or two entries) grouped by geographic area, unless another grouping criteria is more appropriate: for instance, rather than a List of submissions by Baltic states, I think it would be better to have a List of submissions by post-Soviet states, a List of submissions by post-Yugoslav states, etc... Since the USSR and Yugoslavia were regularly nominated, it would be interesting to see how well each one of their successor states has fared at the Oscars. BomBom (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grouping by geographic area sounds fine, so long as the grouping works. Merge away. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:19, 29 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)

Not a bad idea either, as long as it's manageable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 in film needs a little work

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)

Louis Le Prince: "Roundhay Garden Scene, the world's earliest film"

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)

The claim alone is likely true - there's been a lot of material printed regarding Le Prince in recent decades. However, I agree with you that this particular phrase within the wiki has been overused (flogged, more like) across many articles where it is only tangentially relevant to the topic at hand, or used in a peacock fashion where it is relevant. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:16, 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)

I see your point, which is that it wasn't a projectable format in the way that films are today, but the creation of motion-picture capture technology is one of the key inventions. Don't forget that Kinetoscope wasn't projected either; projection in its current form wasn't properly developed until about 1894-5; presumably, the Le Prince material could have been used in a way akin to the mutoscope, though. The Le Prince article does note that his films were exhibited, however, which indicates that he had devised some means of viewing them in motion, rather than as a series of stills (as Marey had done). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:29, 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)

Films based on a true story

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)

How would this be different from the existing Category:Films based on actual events? PC78 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That suggested category sounds like it will do.

talk

) 05:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hairspray (2007 film) musical numbers

An editor has recently changed the musical numbers section of the

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)

I see that it's not been kept, but still, it doesn't really look all that good, and as you noted, it does contain what amounts to original research. It occurs to me that since there is an article about the soundtrack, this sort of thing would best be included there, formatted a bit better and with citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force

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)

Category for discussion you may be interested in

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)

Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures

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).

• Comment Article created by a
  WP:SPA account (history) that edited Wiki only on January 22 2006, October 12 2007, and April 24 2008... each time making edits only to this article, its sister articles, and articles the SPA tagged as winning a PAMP award. The SPA was aided by single-interest IP's that edited Wiki heavily, and only in association with these articles: 70.174.13.187, 70.174.12.3, 70.174.14.16, and 198.82.110.44
  .
• The artices have remained unsourced, even though the PAMP article claims that it has been giving awards to major films and actors every year since 1990. If this were true, there would certainly be some mention somewhere of these awards being assigned for the last 18 years.
• The article seems to represent a well orchestrated hoax that has been building for over 2 years on Wiki, and is now being quoted in off-wiki sources as if it were real: Nationmaster.com, Answers.com, Powerset.com, Freebase.com, Bookrags.com, etc.
• The PAMP article is generating a false notability as its "awards" are being connected online with major stars and films that never received any such thing: Nicole Kidman, Youtube.com (in the Nicole Kidman honors section), Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood, etc., etc., etc.
• The longer its here, the worse this is going to get. If a greater fraud is underway, Wiki should not allow itself to be an unknowing accomplice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Baltic cinema task force

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)

Potential members

1. Termer (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. PētersV (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. talk
   ) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Soviet film came to the Baltics only well after the Soviet Union had matured into a Stalinist state--the Baltics did not participate in the "building" of the Soviet image through film as did the rest of the Soviet Union. As such, the Baltic film tradition there is of a different character even under the Soviets--and the Baltics do not fit the mold of a "post-Soviet" state. (A personal site by someone I know may be found here, providing a number of useful links for further research). —PētersV (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• The intewar Baltic states could indeed produce their own "blockbusters", such as the film version of
  Vai viegli būt jaunam? (1986) preceded and foreshadowed the epic-making Little Vera (1988); one doubts whether the latter could have been made without the former paving the way. Soon Baltic film-makers were daring to explore even more taboo (for Soviet film) territory: for example, Vilkaču mantiniece (1990) was based on a novel first published 1944 (i.e. during the Nazi occupation). Due to these continuities of tradition and specific historical developments, I would definitely say that Baltic film-making should be considered a separate topic from Soviet and post-Soviet film in general. —Zalktis (talk
  ) 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the Baltic taskforce include Poland?

White cat

15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No; just Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland would be a part of "East-Central European cinema". Sometimes everything from Baltic to Balkan has been squeezed into it. Just another idea. --Termer (talk) 17:00, 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

20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are more than enough articles and editors to have a task force for Polish cinema itself. But that's another matter... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• We have three editors who have nominated themselves as participants. I think this is sufficient to form the Baltic cinema Task force, given that the number of participants in the other task forces:

1. French task force - 3 participants
2. Korean task force - 3 participants
3. Spanish task force - 2 participants
4. New Zealand task force - 1 participant
5. British task force - 0 participants
6. Canadian task force - 0 participants
7. German task force - 0 participants
8. Soviet and Post-Soviet task force - 0 participants

--

talk

) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that there are no studies published in any major languages, not in Russian in the East or in English, German etc in West on cinemas of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. For a simple reason that there are no film historians or theorists around in Russian, English, German, French speaking countries who'd understand the languages of these 3 tiny nations and therefore the films either. The language barrier being the major reason why these cinemas have been ignored by film historians in the (big) world, other than classifying them under "Soviet" and "post-soviet" for their convenience. It all comes down to a simple thing that the story of cinema in Baltic states is yet to be put together in English and the only ones who'd be able to contribute to the project on WP are the editors who have some background and know their way around in the area. Therefore, Girolamo Savonarola, please give us our task force, we wouldn't let you down. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:46, 5 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)

Look deeper - some of them do have substantial material, I assure you. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please

WP:WikiProject_Films/Baltic_cinema_task_force#Resources. Thanks!--Termer (talk

) 22:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of film actors up for deletion

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

13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd point them to

consensus. Just speaking, I think their ugly as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Bald One. I'd rather have the cast section as per him or not have it all and instead have the cast mentioned (in braces beside the character) in the plot itself. Mspraveen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the use of tables for cast lists and have replaced them several times. 172.163.4.124 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And why is that?

talk

) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blofield. Just because you can use tables, doesn't mean they have to be used. I don't see anything wrong with a simple bulleted list detailing the cast. I guess at the end of the day, as long as it's factually correct, it doesn't really matter. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...and for the other side of the argument, the cast table or graphic is very useful for a minor article when only the cast and characters need to be identified. I personally like the look of some of the graphics. FWiW, changing tables to lists because of personal preference surely is up to the major or primary editor. One of the redeeming features of Wikipedia is that it is inclusive and allows for diverse views in aspects that are primarily subjective such as layout. Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

Since when do we limit certain edits "to the major or primary editor"? One of the redeeming features of Wikipedia is that no one individual is allowed to control an article. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't but any article will have a group of editors who end up becoming the primary editors as with Casino Royale. And they will be the ones who work towards making an article an FA or GA, and usually they are the ones who will arrive at a consensus as to what an article will look like. I agree with Bignole that cast tables always look ugly and a simple list with character or actor details is better and also cuts down on the need for trivia to be listed in one place when it can be worked into the prose of the cast or other production details. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To weigh in, I don't think that there is a compelling need to use wikitables in the Cast section. Such wikitables have coding that may be difficult for a lot of editors, and it is not a good setup to add prose. Bullet lists work well, so do paragraphs if the flow can be achieved. (I think that paragraphs are good for compressing secondary actors/roles; see Doomsday (film)#Cast.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the

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)

I started using this a while ago when the WP:FILM banner was updated with the new image (which looks infinitely better than the old one IMO). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:36, 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)

Editor has initiated this discussion at

Template talk:Infobox Film#Rating?, and I redirected the editor here. My opinion is reflected at the aforementioned link. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 03:19, 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)

Not certain that would be a good idea - it verges on trivia. At the end of the day, we're supposed to be encyclopedic, which is not necessarily the same thing as comprehensive. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to apologize. Having a list or ratings was the most absurd idea that I could come up with. I didn't think adding ratings from about 200 counties in the world into film infoboxes was a serious idea. Therefore my response wasn't serious either. I'm going to try aiming for a more professional attitude while addressing questions like that in the future. --Termer (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How's it any different to albums having ratings from different magazines in their infoboxes? Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rating" is different in this case, Lugnuts. The initial editor was referring to MPAA ratings such as R and PG-13. Album infoboxes have quality ratings (3 out of 4 stars kind of deal). I don't know why they do that with the infobox, and I think it would be less effective with films, which have many reviews. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, those ratings! I always refer to IMdb for them. Most curious about PG/15 rated UK films, that are banned in Finland! Lugnuts (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is, why do I want to click another link to IMDB when it could already be here? How is listing the release dates for 3 countries NOT trivia? If we're listing the countries, the rating (like MPAA) can easily be listed next to that information. Hopefully this clears up earlier misunderstanding. I am not talking "ratings" like "reviews". I am talking about the MPAA type rating for each country that is listed for a film's release. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't include them because they are different from country to country. The MPAA only governs the US. What a film is rated changes from country to country, and each country has their own criteria for ratings. A film that gets an R rating in the US might not get the equivalent rating in the UK, or India. Because of that, without context as to why the film was rated harsher in one location over another, the simple listing of meaningless letters is trivial.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Bignole, however my point is if we are listing a release date (which differs from country to country) for 2-3 different countries (like the US, UK, and Australia), why is it such a challenge to list that country's rating with it? The context IS there. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The

) 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)

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)

No plot summary should ever include meta references. I keep trimming the line "The film starts with...", the plot summary should summarise what happens in the main part of the film, post credits jokes and single events in the film should be left out. I'm seeing PE tonight, tomorrow I will cut that plot back to its essentials. For an example of my work [4]. The rule for plots is trim, trim and trim some more. The less words the better. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. Cheers for the steer. I see you've beaten me to the punch on that article, but I'll bear your advice in mind for when I next see it. Cheers, OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:08, 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

) 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Felix the Cat FAR

) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nominations of Films by technology subcategories

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)

Criterion Collection Essays

Hello to the members of the project. Based on recent investigations and edits by Ed Fitzgerald (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)

Have y'all checked to see if they were archived in the internet archive? If they were, the links can be updated to add the archiveurl (and archivedate). --

talk · contribs

) 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the Internet Archive, Google's cache, the entire Criterion site and its related forums and blogs, and I cannot find the essays anywhere I've looked. (I used J. Hoberman's essay for Pandora's Box as my exemplar, in case someone wants to try with another essay.) I've dropped an email to the contact address given on the main site, asking about the problem. I'll report back as to what they say if I get a response. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this archive for Grand Illusion and this for Pandora's Box at the Wayback Machine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great - could you tell me what search term you used? I went through the Wayback Machine, but nothing came up. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually just put in the url of the original essay, which I got from the article history and it came right up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I did exactly that and I got a "no results" message! I'll have to take a look and see what went wrong. Thanks for the info. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what I did wrong before, because it's working fine for me now. I've restored links to the essays that I've deleted since I first observed this problem, and will try to make some progress on the others tomorrow, once I've gotten some kip. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a response from the person at Criterion Collection:

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!

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hulu.com

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)

Voting open

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 articles have been selected for Film

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, see bot request page

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)

Was later archived to Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_22#Replacing_a_film_image_icon. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass of Film Prods

Editor

talk · contribs

) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

His prods are really really horrid. The sole reason given is "notability" (no explaination other than a single word). I'd say that's very WP:POINTy. Given what's said on his talk page, ... 70.55.200.51 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that in place of some prods, he is also now leaving boilerplate messages on a huge glut of film articles claiming they are not notable. He has made it clear that he feels that the articles were created by "series of intellectual fiefdoms run by the topics fanboys/girls, whose only yardstick for notability was the work in question simply existed" and he is going to continue attacking a huge number of film articles, continuing his run first through horror films of 2000s. --

talk · contribs

) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This "campaign" tends to occur whenever a new editor arrives on a mission to reform the Wiki into their own vision, which in this case, appears to be a singularly

WP:POINTy one, with some very subjective appraisals of films. First of all, I would suggest that the editor join WikiProject Films and to seek consensus for his "work". I concur with User:AnmaFinotera that the use of massive "boilplating" to cover the actions is also problematic. FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Apparently the editor feels he has made his point, as he seems to have moved on to other things. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Horror movies under attack!!!

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)

See above at

talk · contribs

) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's saying on his talk page that he won't do any more prods but that he may start AFD discussions for the articles he did earlier. Maybe people could help me fix them up??? miniluv (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack articles into parent media?

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)

Writing credits order

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)

As far as the infobox goes, I also go by who has more prominence. You would ask yourself, was the movie filmed off the story or off the script? Since the people the wrote the script tend to be slightly more important for filming the movie than someone that just came up with a story, I usually put them above the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but it seems like it's asking for edit wars. Should a firm policy be put in place? - Richfife (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Prominence shouldn't be the criteria, it's a subjective judgment. My preference is for the original source material credit (story, novel, play) to go first, as it is where the whole thing originated - without that short story, book or play, there wouldn't be a movie at all. Logically, any adaptation credits should follow, since the adaptation is the link between the source and the screenplay, and the screenplay credits come last.

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)

We don't make the source material (comic book author) the beginning of the infobox, we typically reserve that for the director. Is that not giving preference to a role in the making of the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an entirely different issue, the order that the fields in the infobox are presented. Given the promience of the auteur theory, and the general belief that the director is the primary creator of a film, I think it's reasonable that the director comes first. Certainly there are cases where the producer is the auteur (The Longest Day, for instance) or the writer (although in many cases they're hyphenates), but an order has to be chosen and I think the current one (director - producer - writer - stars) is very reasonable.

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)

They may have "started the ball rolling" but that doesn't mean that they had any direct connection to the current film in question. It is John Carpenter's screenplay that "inspired" the 2007 remake by Rob Zombie, but it wasn't like they took Carpenter's screenplay and filmed that. Zombie wrote his own thing, and that should be the prominent recognition in the infobox. In television articles, we don't even list the "story by", because it's inconsequential in the infobox (which should be what is essential to understanding the film). One can note the fact that the story came from a particular person (who did not write the script) in another section of the article. It's the same idea behind not listing every single type of producer (executive, associative, etc) in the "Producer" field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between listing every functionary who collected a paycheck and making explicit the progression of how a film was conceived.

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)

I'm not sure this is a debate that will be settled with examples. Any ordering probably has thousands of examples that support it and thousands of examples that prove it wrong. A random sampling of IMDB shows a mishmash of orderings: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. No help there. I personally prefer a reverse temporal order: Screenplay over story over source since the director credit is above the writer credit and the director's involvement generally comes after the writer's. - Richfife (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure why there has to be a single way of doing this, as long as all the information is there and is clearly labelled. I certainly have no objections to doing it one way for Film A and another for Film B is that's what makes sense for those films. I think we get much too hung up on buttoning everything down. Time like this would be much more productively spent editing. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:40, 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)