Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_films_by_year

ya no 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.28 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The external links section was missing. It's been corrected. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizen Kane's Plot

At the end of the plot section it say:

"The word "Rosebud" painted on the sled burns as the camera closes in on it in the furnace. For the viewer this is supposed to solve the "Rosebud" mystery. Perhaps, the sled is a token of the only time in his life when he was poor; perhaps, more than this, it represents the only time in his life when he was truly happy and wanted for nothing, a period in his life when money hadn't yet corrupted him. After this twist ending, the film ends as it began, with the "No Trespassing" sign at the gates of Kane's estate, Xanadu, an indication that sometimes we can never know the truth behind people."

I tried to fix the end by taking out the "PERHAPS" and the personal opinions of the movie, but someone actually reverted my edits. Then I see the history of this article, and that has been there in a while....seriously? So I reverted it again to my previous edit, but I think the plot section needs another look. Ricardoread (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. The paragraph you cite certainly does not belong in the plot section. It should follow the
WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. Anything else becomes analysis and should be placed in a separate section using proper reliable references. This discussion can be moved to Talk:Citizen Kane. — CactusWriter | needles
07:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Showing copyright in the Template:Infobox film

Ok, it could be too software-oriented, but I think it could be useful to include copyright notice about the film:

  • Old films are in public domain (as far as I remember, the copyright for such medium expires ~100 years after the death of the author?)
  • Many new films, especially the independent ones and short ones, and student ones are CC-BY-SA (i.e. free as in freedom + other qualities) or similar
  • Yes, many many more films are made for the markets and are heavily copyrighted and, therefore, won't be in the public domain for the next 200+ years (author lifetime + ~100 years now + future copyright extensions), but mentioning that it is proprietary would help
  • I personally think, that copyright notice is more important than the gross revenue (especially for the independent films/movies).

Thanks for attention, Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I see how it is useful or relevant to the majority of readers. --
talk · contribs
) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Including serials in "List of [genre] films"?

As a rule, should articles of the form "List of [genre] films" (where [genre] is a film genre such as "science fiction") include or exclude all relevant film serials? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The silence is deafening.—RJH (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Because there was no comment, I'll proceed as though "include" is the consensus.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New Line Template

Hi, I've created this template:

{{New Line}}

Is it good enough to list on all of the New Line movie-related film articles? I mean New Line doesn't have a navigation box yet, I like it. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason it didn't have one. Such a template is fairly useless for navigation! Way to big and to unmangeable. --
talk · contribs
) 04:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The following was asked at the help desk:
Is there a way I can have a bot do a mass adding of templates? I'd like to add this template to the pages in this category. Thank You! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AWB can be used to add the template. It is quite large, so I've collapsed the template. However,
ZooFari
04:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See thread above. Template should not be added to any films and really should be deleted. Just not an appropriate use of templates at all. --
talk · contribs
) 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have delinked everything "what links here". What you decide about the template is up to you guys, but IMO, a "see also" should be added instead that includes
ZooFari
05:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure the list is already linked to from New Line Cinema. Film articles generally do not have a see also to a distributor/producing company's list of titles (and most don't even have lists of titles because of the number most major studios produce in a year). --
talk · contribs
) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps a category is more suited (I'm assuming there's one already, but I haven't checked).
ZooFari
 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep
talk · contribs
) 05:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and put my AWB to scan all links in the template, and everything seems to be in shape.
ZooFari
 06:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm using AWB to get the ones in the list itself. The template apparently doesn't have all 300+ films either :P --
talk · contribs
) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we move it to New Line Cinema Releases or New Line Cinema Films or something like that, then I can create a regular navigation box for the production company... Good? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

New Line has released over 500 films (per IMDB, over 300 of which have articles here), and has nearly 100 more in development at this moment. Having it in a footer template just is not practical. --
talk · contribs
) 06:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Son of a...... How about I just do some TOTAL revamping of the New Line Cinema films page? I'd hate to see the navbox go, I guess I could just keep a copy in a subpage, Let me check out that article once more before anything takes place ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Or creation I meant, not revamping ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
talk · contribs
) 06:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as every film page has the category Collectonian mentioned above, you don't have to worry about thinking the articles getting lost into wiki-cyber-space.
ZooFari
 06:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
They should now. Finished going through the list, though didn't do the ones for New Lines subdivisions (since those should be in subcats). --
talk · contribs
) 06:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I heartily agree this template is useless, and as necessary as the succession boxes it was agreed should be eliminated. Why do people want to clutter articles with so much extraneous information? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson merge discussion

There is currently

Samuel L. Jackson filmography back into the main article on the actor. Since filmographies fall under the project, I thought I'd mention this here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib
) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Payne (film)

A newer editor who didn't know anybetter (AGFing) "passed"

talk · contribs
) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to nominate it at GAR, but it somebody here can review the article soon it shouldn't be a problem. I'd do it but I have already helped the main contributor in copyediting/preparing the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I debated doing that, but I didn't want to ping the article with the possibility of a quick delisting just because some guy was playing around with the first GA. It was never fairly evaluated the first time, so would rather it get a fair first shot. I can ask the main contributer if he'd rather it be GARed though. Right now, it fails GA. It also wasn't properly passed as he never actually listed it on GA or finished the GAN closing process. --
talk · contribs
) 04:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, admin refused to deleted the BS GA, so article has been delisted instead. --
talk · contribs
) 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Films RS for Their Own Plots

There is a discussion going on at

talk · contribs
) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Films by lenth at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart the actor

Previous discussion on the proposal to move

James Stewart (actor) to Jimmy Stewart was not to make that move. Further discussion to make James Stewart the American actor (with no disamiguation in the article title) the primary use of James Stewart continues. This proposal would make a James Stewart (disambiguation) page the home to the listing of all uses of the name. Please post your opinion regarding this proposal at Talk:James Stewart. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk
) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Two suggested articles

I have created in my user subspace two articles,

neutral. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk
) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seth Gordon is now an article, I moved it from your userspace to mainspace. I've been unable to find much info about H*Commerce: The Business of Hacking You on IMDb to confirm any of the information (even the director's IMDb profile does not list this as a credit of his) so I won't move it to mainspace just yet. I'll keep looking for more info on it, though. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this up. As far as I understand it, IMDb doesn't count as a reliable source; meanwhile, the H*Commerce article is pretty carefully sourced to news articles, all of which are available online, so to my mind it easily passes the general notability guideline. But please fill me in on your thinking, and if I can be of any assistance, let me know. NMS Bill (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Guidelines

What are the guidelines for film infoboxes? Such as "Starring". Which cast members should go there? Are there already existing guidelines? Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the ones headlined on the theatrical posters and/or DVD cover should go in the infobox. For overall article guidelines, see
talk · contribs
) 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kehlmann

Hello, this is my 1st new page on English wikipédia

Louxema (talk
) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Does this project not have a collaborations of the week (or another length of time)? If not, can we please consider establishing one? They can be quite productive, and it is fun to work together and watch an article expand within such a short time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there used to be, but interest waned and lack of participation ended an organized one. --
talk · contribs
) 02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Too bad. Just thought I would ask. Thanks for the information. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with collaborations on film articles is once certain editors start working on one they act like they own it and start removing everything anyone else adds to it. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I very rarely run into
WP:OWN issues in film articles. If you ever do, there are ways of dealing with it. They tend to be uncontroversial, and generally editors are glad when you expand a film article or add an image. The only time you may run into difficulty is if you wish to add poorly sourced information to an article. Stetsonharry (talk
) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can this be uploaded?

I've found a picture [here] that would be great for

Sky Attacker
21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a free image (any posters/DVD/VHS covers are almost always non-free). It can be uploaded, but it would require and appropriate
talk · contribs
) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please adjust for inflation - nonsensical numbers everywhere on WP now

I notice that the nonsensical use of nonadjusted box-office receipts is rampant in Wikipedia. Not only does it appear in things like List of highest-grossing films, but also every film on this list has an "infobox" on its article giving its place in this meaningless list.

This is like a

List of tallest buildings and structures in the world
article where some buildings are listed in feet, some in meters, and some in fathoms, and the numbers are sorted without converting the units. The only reason to compare nonadjusted numbers is the film industry's desire to promote the latest films by continually setting meaningless "box-office records."

No inflation-adjustment scheme is perfect, but any adjustment would be vastly more informative to the reader than doing no adjustment at all. A simple, standard, widely accepted scheme for US Dollars is the US Bureau of Labor's

Consumer Price Index. They have a handy calculator
online.

Proposal: convert all box-office receipts into 2000 dollars (to pick a nice round year) using the CPI, and sort the lists accordingly.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a handy template for this kind of thing, which will automagically convert them using the most recent inflation figures. For example, if you input:

"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 (${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|293750|1935|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})."

This results in:

"Released in 1935, the film made US$293,750 ($6.53 million as of 2024)."

I would, however, oppose attempts to replace the original information with the adjusted-for-inflation figures; the best option, such as in that List of highest-grossing films example, might be to have an inflation-adjusted column beside the original one (though I haven't looked at that specific article closely enough to determine if that's 100% within its scope). Steve T • C 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the proposal for individual film articles. The grosses are concurrent with the budget, and make perfect sense there, and I'd be concerned about pushing the
talk · contribs
) 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, list the gross in dollars for the year it came out. But also list the inflation-adjusted numbers, which are much more meaningful. And in lists of films by grosses, sort by inflation-adjusted numbers. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
PS. Film budgets should also list inflation-adjusted numbers in addition to the raw number for the year it was made. Again, the purpose is to be informative, and inflation-adjusted numbers are at least as informative, and arguably far more useful, than nonadjusted numbers. The same is true of any historical monetary amount, at least from the last 100 years where standard inflation adjustments are available. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I rhink you'd have to attribute and properly source any inflation adjustment to whatever online calculator is used. If an online calculator is not used, if the editor just does the math himself, that would smack of original research. But I agree in general that inflation adjusted numbers would be useful. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It would also require showing that any one calculator is better than another, or the only reliable one. Not likely to happen. For the list, its probably there is already some reliable source that has it with inflation adjustment, but otherwise, it still smacks of OR.--
talk · contribs
) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I imagine inflation adjustments must be used elsewhere on the Wiki, in finance and economic articles. If it is done routinely by editors there, using calculators viewed as being reliable sources, that might resolve the reliability issue. Stetsonharry (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How many people read a film article, see it grossed $20,000,000 in 1975, and ask themselves, "Gee, I wonder how much that would be in 2009 dollars?" Also, if an inflation-adjustment scheme were utilized, who would accept the responsibility of changing the figures in every article every couple of years? If anything is "nonsensical" it's this discussion. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Returning to Steven G. Johnson's original point, I see that there is a separate list already on Wikipedia of the highest grossing films, adjusted for inflation. I don't know if he was aware of this when he raised this point initially; I certainly was not. The inflation adjusted numbers come from an apparently reliable website, which resolves the OR issue. As for individual films, I think that would depend on the individual circumstance. The older a film, the greater the need to adjust for inflation. Most film articles don't mention the gross or budget. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of Steve's template thing to be included in infoboxes. It makes numbers much clearer, without wiping the original number, AND, as far as I can see, updates itself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox name change

As a note, an administrator has moved

talk · contribs
) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have queried this change with the admin in question, since this is contrary to existing guidelines regarding infoboxes. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My bad, it seems that the relevant guidelines have been changed following discussion. Seems a bit pointless to me, but meh. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Second request for new article approval/comment

Last week in this space (just a few discussions north of here) I proposed two articles that I had created in my user space but, for reasons of potential conflict of interest, came here to seek approval for them both. One, about film director

general notability guideline in any case, with several articles/reviews, primarily in technology publications, when it was released on the web. I haven't heard back from this editor since last week and, assuming he or she has moved on, am requesting assistance again. If there is a better venue for this question -- perhaps WikiProject Business, owing to the commercial nature of the project -- please let me know that, too. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk
) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing wise, it looks good, however tonally it seems a bit promotional. May want to get a neutral editor to give it a copyedit before launching, and check out
talk · contribs
) 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. If not here, is there a particular request board for having someone edit for neutrality? (I certainly tried to stay within
WP:BETTER when I have a bit more time. Appreciate your advice. NMS Bill (talk
) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 article improvement drive

I started a page for an

article improvement drive for this month. I know this is kind of last minute, and maybe a little bold, but hopefully it will help the project to continue to expand its featured/good content. Due to the number of delisted GA/FAs in June, I started this page to attempt to get a jump start on returning articles to their former status or improving new ones to higher classes. Any article that is improved to GA/FA/FL status this month (based on edits starting this month) should be listed at the drive's page. Based on the number of articles that are improved should help us gauge whether there is interest in a project-wide contest or other drives. The drive page can be expanded with further details/ideas, and any questions/suggestions can be left on the talk page of the drive. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib
) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Apt Pupil (film) is pretty close to Good Article status, if not there already. (I have some documents at home that I have yet to implement -- currently backpacking in Europe and writing this from a hostel!) American Beauty (film) is another possible candidate, though Steve and I are pushing it more toward FA status with a heavy "Interpretations" section. I'll be back at a keyboard for real by mid-July and hopefully be able to help with this drive! —Erik (talk • contrib) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I started on Forrest Gump a few days ago and brought it up to GA. I've added it to the drive's page as an example. Hopefully it's joined by other articles from members! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Request additional opinions

There is a dispute over at Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen#Edit dispute again. This time over mention of Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode. regarding well...Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's supposed appearance. One side is arguing that Frenzy's head in a jar constitutes a "cameo appearance" in the new Transformers movie, while the other side is saying that it's a trivial point that isn't a real cameo. The other argument is that including a personal comment that Bonecrusher's Buffalo Mine Sweeper vehicle mode appears in the new movie constitutes original research, because it implies that Bonecrusher is in the movie (and that if the intention is only to point out that the vehicle mode is being used, then it's just as trivial as the Frenzy head comment); the other side says that it's not original research and is important to note that at least the vehicle appears. Additional opinions are requested to hash out this problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A question

How do you handle a situation when an administrator is making a mess out of an article???

I cleaned up an article from this:

December 1st 2005 also in Vienna
. He was writer Daniel Kehlmann's father.

to this:

Michael Kehlmann (21 September 1927 - 1 December 2005) was an Austrian film and theatre director, screenwriter and actor. He was the father of writer Daniel Kehlmann.

and User:Garion96, who is an administrator, keeps reverting it to the original sloppy mess. He also keeps reverting a long list of red-linked film titles. These are obscure foreign films made for German television that never will get articles. Wikipedia:Red link clearly states, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created." Shouldn't an administrator know better? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That you changed the text I missed, that I shouldn't have reverted. To remove a filmography from a director however is just idiotic. If you object to the red links, why not simply remove the brackets so the list is still in place. Also, please don't remove the category living people from
Gigi Levangie Grazer, that's bordering on vandalism. If you object to that category, take it to Wikipedia:Village pump or Category talk:Living people. Garion96 (talk)
17:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The same policy on redlinks cleary states, In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name. I think a film could plausibly sustain an article and also invites other users to create the article, instead of seeing a short article that needs a lot of work in expanding it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, a lot of articles list only a select filmography, so why does this one have to list every film this director made, especially since they were made for German or Austrian television and not for theatrical release? I don't think it's plausible that anyone is going to write an article about any of these titles for English Wikipedia. In fact, I wonder if Michael Kehlmann is even notable enough to have an article in English Wikipedia at all. If you Google him, most of the information you find is in German. I don't think anyone could find enough data about him to expand this article, which is nothing more than a list of TV movies he directed. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, according to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), "Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be piped to articles (e.g. 1989)," yet every year in the lists in this article is linked! 209.247.22.164 (talk
) 13:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Even the blue links in this article are worthless!
Einen Jux will er sich machen leads to an article about a play, not the film of the same title. Geschichten aus dem Wienerwald leads to an article about Tales of the Vienna Woods that refers to three film versions, and none of them are Kehlmann's! Radetzkymarsch is an article about a march by Strauss, not the film of the same title. And so on and so forth. So all we have in this article is a lead of two sentences and three totally useless lists. Why does this article exist at all? 209.247.22.164 (talk
) 13:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with German sources. If you think this article doesn't belong here, please take it to
WP:AFD. If you object to the links and there will be no article created from that link, remove the brackets. Although with some links I think it's possible articles will be created. The same for the year links, feel free to remove them. But to have an article on the director and deliberately remove a filmography makes no sense at all. And yes, there are many selected filmographies, there are also many editors working on these to make them "complete" filmographies. Garion96 (talk)
14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with German sources for anyone who speaks German. Unfortunately, they are useless for anyone trying to do research for an article for English Wikipedia. As far as your belief that with some links you think it's possible articles will be created, I would like to know which ones you think are important enough that it's likely that will happen. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Foreign sources are accepted on the English Wikipedia. See
Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. I also created the AFD page for you, since as an anon you can't create pages. I also saw you now simply cut down a huge part of his filmography. So from a complete one it is now a selected one, that again is not an improvement.Garion96 (talk)
14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so tense

What's the appropriate tense for documentary synopses: past or present? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All fiction info is in present tense, unless it occurred in the past in the fictional universe. In other words, if the film itself is making reference to the past, then it's past. But their current events will always be present tense. Is there a specific page you were having trouble with?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This was a tricky little bugger, but I think I've got it sorted out. Clarityfiend (talk
) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding John Dillinger

This isn't specifically film related, but it is tangentially. Since the release of Public Enemies was released, several IPs had stuck in notes in the Film depictions section of John Dillinger stating that the film has historical inaccuracies. I've reverted it before for multiple reasons, including that the observations are unsourced. Without belaboring it all too much, tonight a registered editor returned it, and when I removed it and stated that it was "unsourced and does not assert relevance for a fictional film". Editor returned it saying "Unsourced? The dates of deaths are readily available on Wikipedia." I removed it again and left more discussion on the talk page. The basics of it are that besides being unsourced, such content more properly belongs in the article about the film. Film depictions like this are just that, screen depictions, not documentaries. Film depictions are not obligated to be historically accurate, they are fictional films based on stories about such persons as Dillinger that take artistic license for whatever reason to produce the film in the filmmaker's perspective. They aren't documentaries, there are no claims made that such Hollywood productions are obligated to conform to historical accuracy. They aren't made necessarily to put forth an historically accurate story, they are made for entertainment. To me, this is beyond irrelevant. There are several films listed as depictions in the article and I'm thinking that all of them had multiple historical inaccuracies, but until reliable sources actually address that, it doesn't even belong in the film article, otherwise it's original research. In any case, without proper sourcing, original research gleaned from watching the film and drawing conclusions cannot be used. I'd really appreciate feedback here, or at Talk:John Dillinger about this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again? It seems that every time there is a movie based on real people, editors here get hysterical about historical inaccuracies. There are always historical inaccuracies in films based on real events. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking year in films for lead section

Is this really necessary? I remember my newbie months as a Wikipedia editor and did this a lot with articles. It bugged other editors.I realized it was useless, seeing as how film articles are already over linked with actors, directors, or if the film is based on some sort of book or whatever. Anyway, AskFranz keeps linking the year in film for every lead. Should we get a final consensus on this situation? Wildroot (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think linking to them is fine since there is some relevance. It's like linking to the genres, only instead of being topical, it's chronological. I oppose linking to "year in film" in the infobox, though, because it is more of an
American films of 2009). —Erik (talk • contrib
) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This tendency seems to have been accentuated by an anon on a "campaign" to do exactly that, link year in films in the lede to any article that he/she encounters. Good luck with that... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
I support linking the year a film was released to that particular "year in film" (as opposed to the year in general). What I find curious is Wildroot's comment that "film articles are already over linked with actors, directors, or if the film is based on some sort of book or whatever." Aren't all of these supposed to be linked? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I continue to support the linking of the year in the lead. I have edited multiple articles' leads to include the year in film, also getting my start like Wildroot in my newbie months. Like Erik points out, it does allow some readers to discover film articles they wouldn't otherwise notice by visiting the x in film article. So long as it isn't included in full dates (January 1, 2009), then I don't see the harm in continuing to link years in film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorising films by language AND year

In short, is Category:Malayalam-language films by year a particuarly good idea? I've not seen this level of categorisation anywhere else, and it seems a bit unnecessary for what amounts to just a few hundred films. PC78 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's best off under Category:Malayalam-language films only. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Erik. This isn't a good idea at all. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Listed at CfD here. PC78 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Film series categories for discussion

Several film series categories are being discussed for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. No (film) GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Dr. No (film) for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Tango in Paris

The article on Last Tango in Paris needs some attention. There are at least three specific issues on the talkpage (two I added myself just now). Actually, I feel, this article is in pretty bad shape, and could use your attention. Debresser (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded about two issues. I can't help with the plot summary since I haven't seen the film. The article is on the core list, so a bit more attention is due. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of "Plot"

I have proposed a rewrite of the "Plot" section of the

guidelines. Please see the draft here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Renewed attention is needed for a recent divergence in a near-complete rewrite; please share your thoughts
here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 14:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Split

Hello! I recently suggested a split of film into cinema and motion picture. Only one person responded to my suggestion, and he didn't understand what I was saying. I was hoping that I would get more feedback here. What do you think? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference? What is it? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The film article is currently about two separate topics: the field of film as an art form and the motion picture industry and individual motion pictures. Many other arts split these into two articles (one for the art and one for the work of art). Compare literature with book. Or photography with photograph. Why does film have to be different? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Film provides a broad overview and links to many subarticles, so it is in effect already split up. (Your examples don't work BTW. For film, we have film stock.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No,
Motion picture is to cinema as book is to literature and as photograph is to photography. See? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk
) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not all art form lexicons are analogous. Some words are simply synonyms in the common vernacular. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Could you give a example? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice with Fight Club

For some time now, I have planned to nominate

Fight Club (film) as a Featured Article candidate, especially to display the article on Wikipedia's front page on October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Part of what has held me back is the overwhelming number of academic resources about the film. I decided to relegate academic coverage to a sub-article, which I am developing on my userspace: User:Erik/Themes in Fight Club. (I will link to the sub-article through a {{See also}} template in the film article's "Themes" section.) I am requesting advice on the most appropriate article title for this sub-article before I perform the move of the sub-article from my userspace to the mainspace. Should there be a (film) disambiguation, e.g. Themes in Fight Club (film), if the book article has no thematic sub-article? Should the article title start with "Themes", "Interpretations", or even "Critical analysis"? At the film article, I wrote in the "Themes" section how filmmakers intended the film, but there are many more perspectives on different elements of the film... are these also classified as themes or interpretations? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer something more along the lines of "Critical analysis" or something like that, as "Themes" is very specific. Themes does not cover things like "Symbolism" (though, the article itself could legitimately do that) for example. "Critical Analysis" seems to be able to encompass more (or at least another term of equal value).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've had several conflicting thoughts about this ever since you first brought it up; the only consistent opinion I've had throughout is that the article title shouldn't use the (film) disambiguator, as that's a specific convention to indicate that the article title is that of a film. "Interpretations" (e.g. Interpretations of Fight Club or similar) is probably the better fit, as it has a broader scope than "Themes", and as there is no sub-article for interpretations of the book, a hatnote pointing to the appropriate section of that article will likely be sufficient. It's not ideal, but it saves the article from a cumbersome tile such as Themes in the film Fight Club or similar. Steve T • C 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided to go with Interpretations of Fight Club. I added a hatnote to explain the sub-article. Are there any useful categories we can add to it? Also, I kept the very long "Further reading" section to demonstrate why the sub-article is appropriate, but should it, being so long, be moved to the talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a eponymous category that the film was already included in. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Benefit of Allmovie

Does the website Allmovie truly benefit film articles by being included in "External links" sections? In the past, we have "staple" links which are links that are tolerated fairly frequently in film articles due to consistent hosting of content that supplement Wikipedia articles. IMDb is included because of cast and crew information and other links to more community-based areas. (I doubt anyone would dispute the popularity of IMDb.) Box Office Mojo is included because of more detailed box office statistics not provided in the article body. (Though some say referencing it is enough; a discussion for another time?) Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are included because they host links to multiple reviews, which is better than including any one typical review. What are the reasons that Allmovie is included? I recall that it seems to have been treated as a "superior" alternative to IMDb. A film page at Allmovie has overview, review, cast, production credits, and sometimes awards. Cast and production credits have more limited information than IMDb; most of it would already be included in a well-developed article. One decent characteristic of Allmovie, in my opinion, is "Similar Works" under the overview page, which can serve as an objective way to introduce readers to similar films in a "See also" section. For example, I cited it at Apt Pupil (film)#See also. So if similar works could theoretically be included in articles, how does Allmovie truly benefit a film article as an external link? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, Allmovie rarely is a benefit to any article. In the rare cases they have reviewed a movie, it would be better to just cite the review. The cast and production credits are almost always incomplete. The plot summaries are pretty generic and, for most contemporary works, just the advertising blurb. The awards scanty at best. I'd also disagree on it being usable for citing a see also of similar films because, quite honestly, I find their "similar works list" to be loosely associated at best and seemingly pretty random based on some weird criteria rather than being a carefully considered list. For example, in its entry for Lassie Come Home[1] it lists various movies, including
talk · contribs
) 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we had a similar argument before when desiring to have allmovie in the infobox when links were still there. I can go either way whether a link to allmovie is needed, but I like it as it provides plot summaries, it's cite production countries and usually lists a good amount of dvds and blu-ray films have been released on. This is information that imdb doesn't provide so nicely and readily and it's not user-generated as well, which is a plus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but all of that should be in any decent start level article already. What does it really add that our articles don't/shouldn't have? --
talk · contribs
) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but most WP:Film related articles aren't start class. :) By this theory, what does imdb add? Imdb is user generated and I recall reading information about cast members being "rumoured" in it. Such examples include Isaac Hayes being "rumoured" to be in films as old as Escape from New York.source. All in all, although I'm on the lesser half of the stick in this one, I think it's a good back up source for an online film database if any information that someone might read on the imdb link is questioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I've always wondered the same. The only thing I can see that IMDB adds is the full credit list (where as we only do selective/notable cast and crew). Beyond that, not much. --
talk · contribs
) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought Allmovie's "Similar Works" would be a nice way to cross-navigate articles of similar topics that may otherwise not be familiar to the reader. The similar works come from a source other than the editors so there's no original research. I haven't looked at a ton of "similar works", though... Collectonian, do you think there's any benefit whatsoever to using them? Maybe temper such inclusions with editorial discretion? I think I've only implemented similar works on around three articles; I excluded works by the same director since they would already appear in the director template at the bottom of the article.
I am not compelled to challenge IMDb as an external link. The website is established as possibly the most popular film website on the Internet, and while we don't humor it as a reliable source, it certainly has an audience. Having IMDb's pages as external links is not quite an endorsement for reliable sourcing; it has more than that, especially in a community-based sense. I was more interested in finding out what others felt about Allmovie because it does not stand out very strongly as such a persistent external link in film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot request for the American taskforce

For info, I've raised a request for a bot to tag American films accordingly. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist, the Movie

There are a couple of SPA IP addresses reverting the criticisms response of the

Zeitgeist, the Movie page back to what had been tagged as a quote farm, and had unreliable sources. They are not providing any justification nor responding to comments I have placed on their talk pages. They haven't yet broken 3RR, but I will do technically (I don't want to call their reverts vandalism as such) if I revert again. (Other editors have also been reverting their changes; it's not just me). The criticisms section isn't nice about the film, but that's because there was nothing much nice said about the film in any mainstream or scholarly sources. I suspect POV edit warring, and would appreciate input from other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk
) 05:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent unexplained revert and left a message on the IP's page directing them to the discussion. If multiple IPs continue to keep reverting without providing an explanation, the page may need to be protected. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response!VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV
15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

Main page:
Wikipedia:Alternative text for images

The {{

Featured and Good Articles under WikiProject Films. I ask primary editors of these reviewed articles to revisit them and add alternate text to their images. I also ask editors in general to provide alternate text for images at any articles they may edit or may come across. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to become mandatory for GAs and FAs is it? I mean, making articles more accessible to impaired users is good and all, but I shall find it frustrating if it becomes a requirement. I also find the thinking behind alternate captions to be a little misguided. The entire reason for using images (especially fair use ones) in articles is because they fulfill a capacity that text fails to do. Having overly technical descriptions of posters and such just gives the reader a false sense of understanding.--Remurmur (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw WP:ALT mentioned on FAC pages, so it's highly encouraged there. It's appropriate to extent the same treatment to GAs as well because reviewed articles should have images supported by fair use rationales. (Articles that are not FA or GA may not be vetted properly, so we don't want alternate text for non-free images that serve a decorative role and should be removed anyway.) What's important to realize is that we take being able to see an image for granted and absorb all the details within. Providing alternate text helps visually challenged readers grasp every element of the Wikipedia article. If editors are making effort to bring a film article up to Good Article or Featured Article status, it shouldn't require much more to provide alternate text for the images. After all, no citations are needed, and only a layman description of the image is needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club was a good example to use, because it raises the question of POV. The alternate text for the infobox image states Edward Norton "faces the viewer with a sullen expression." Why "sullen"? Why not "pensive," "sorrowful," "angry," or "unsmiling"? Any of those could apply to his expression. Those who opt to add alternate text will need to be careful not to use adjectives that impose their personal interpretations on an image, especially for those unable to see the visual themselves. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Television movie

Having been unable to find any prior discussions regarding the naming of this article, I was ready to

boldly move the above article to Television film
per naming convention guidelines. I just wanted some second opinions before I do that.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it called a "TV film", just "Made-for-TV-movie" (and the like). Obviously "movie" isn't the most professional of terms, but in this case it's probably the most commonly known term to descrive the topic. Per
naming conventions, is typically what we are supposed to be going for (so long as they are not completely outlandish). IDK - personally, I'd rather keep it where it's at.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Bignole, and to make sure, I compared "television film" OR "TV film" vs. '"television movie" OR "TV movie" on Google News Search (regular Google displays too many messy mentions like TV comma film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I also vote to keep it as is. Television movie has been the term used as far back as I can remember, possibly starting with ABC Movie of the Week in 1969, if not earlier. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur, the term "television movies" is commonly and predominately in use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Fair enough. As I said, I was unable to find any previous discussions about the appropriatness of the article title so I considered the possibility of the it being one of those cases that "slipped through the cracks". Thanks for the input everyone, I'll leave the article as is.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie/participant list

Why does

Member list page?! Lugnuts (talk
) 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed, see this edit. Garion96 (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers Garion. Something as simple as that! Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Is my face red. Who da thunk mistyping a | as a : would do that??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you just ask Wildhartlivie on his own talk page instead of making this a public issue? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because talk pages aren't in the public domain, are they? Oh, wait... And it might not have been something that WH had done directly - IE a bug. Lugnuts (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Decorative non-free images at film articles

Editor

WP:NFC
stipulates. The placement of the images further demonstrates a purely decorative goal, and this is not even half of the images the editor has put up. A small list is below:

I removed the several dozen non-free images, but he reverted me, saying that there were fair use rationales (which really are the very boilerplate excuses, "Used to illustrate the film"). I ask for other editors to review whether or not this is abuse of non-free images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

These are pretty clearly
talk · contribs
) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I deleted a bunch of the non-free content violations. Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Template-Class film articles

Is this category: Category:Template-Class film articles supposed to exist? As I pointed out on User talk:Ysangkok#Template:Adam Shankman there are already thousands of categories like this on Wikipedia. --Ysangkok (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but we have Category:Film template pages which serves the same purpose. Template-Class is optional and not used by all projects; however, we do use it here. PC78 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, PC78. I thought that it did not exist (blind to it, I suppose) and reverted him. Appreciate the restoration. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Films based on preexisting material

For the

here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential merger

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Wes Craven#Merger proposal regarding the potential merging of 25/8 back into the Craven article. Additional opinions are requested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A The Third Man dispute requires a third editor

During the past couple of weeks, a user has been emphasizing a rumor that Orson Welles rather than Carol Reed directed The Third Man. They have added the word "disputed" beside The Third Man entry on Reed's film template [2], [3], Carol Reed's filmography, Welles' film template [4], [5]], [6] as well as removed Carol Reed's name as director of the film [7] and added the statement that Welles plausibly directed the film [8]. My subsequent discussion with this editor can be found at Talk:The Third Man#No dispute about Reed as director in which I state that all reliable sources, including Welles himself, all say Welles' involvement was only minimal and that Reed was the director. I inserted this text to clarify the issue. I think I've gone as far I can on my own and would prefer a third opinion. Can someone weigh in on the talk page discussion, especially about the proper method for dealing with old rumors like this? — CactusWriter | needles 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FLRC - List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland

I have nominated

talk • contribs
) 21:13, July 21, 2009

Added FLRC to the WikiProject's announcements template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator

Alien vs. Predator will be displayed on the Main Page on July 23. WikiProject Films would like film-related articles to be at their best when presented to a wide audience, so I ask editors to review the film article and make changes to improve it further in time for its showcase. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's the film article (Alien vs. Predator (film)), and not that semi-disambig page? ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes... you're right. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I addressed this issue at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film), but as it might be overlooked there I would like to repeat it here. According to the article, "[Shane] Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production," yet he is listed in the infobox as "uncredited." Given his contribution appears to have been substantial, I would like to see an explanation of why he received no screen credit somewhere within the article. I think this is something worth discussing. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has used boldface for the bulleted items in the "Cast" section for some time. Editors disagree with the primary editor that the boldface should be used and consider it unaesthetic. Will others please weigh in at the discussion at
WP:FILMCAST, one of the oldest sections of our guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaslight (1944 film)

User:Xbvca keeps adding screenshots to this article. I tried explaining to him (or her) why these are unnecessary but he just removed my comments from his talk page and keeps reverting the images I deleted. Would someone please intervene and explain why there shouldn't be three images in one short article, especially when nothing in the article refers to the specific images in detail? Thank you for your help. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The two images in the article body are in the public domain, not copyrighted, so there is greater lenience in using such images. I think that the bottom image could be placed better, but I would rather encourage expansion of the article body, such as including a "Cast" section, so the image can be placed there. Film articles rarely get free images, so I'm okay with what Gaslight has. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the fact the images are in the public domain should matter. When there are so many images in such a short article, it looks ridiculous. And once a discussion has been started, shouldn't Xbvca participate in it instead of ignoring it and just reverting the article? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, discussion should have started sooner. Let's not point fingers anymore and address the matter more head-on. You mentioned that the article was short, and I just added a "Cast" section that could at least house the bottom image. Instead of playing tug-of-war with images, we could expand the article to warrant both images' inclusion. Public domain images are in short supply with film articles, so it seems more beneficial to Wikipedia to try to preserve them by building more content around them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about public domain images. The description of the pictures used in this article says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice". These are screenshots, so doesn't the studio that made or released the film own them? And where were they published without a copyright notice? If someone puts an image they don't even own on the internet without a copyright notice, does that automatically put it in the public domain? LargoLarry (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some films had trailers which were in the public domain, though the films themselves were copyrighted. I assumed that this was the case with Gaslight, but it may be worth reviewing the images to make sure they are public domain. To answer your last question, it does not put an image in the public domain. Most works are copyrighted the moment they're created (at least for written works). Trailers of films like this and
The Searchers (film) may be weird workarounds. If someone is more familiar with copyrights and public domain, please weigh in and correct me if necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Gomolo.in spam and is not WP:RS

Dear All I am working on

WP:RS and its a spam. I dont know any technical aspect about gomolo.in. Is it true this website is a spam? [9],[10]. If surely this site is a spam I shuld not use as a exterlan links. And please check this website, only one I found after imdb and citwf.com one and olny have Bengali Cinema database yaes wise, and other category wise shorted. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomolo.in and give you valuable comments. thanks- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb
) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See
talk · contribs
) 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At

WP:GROUP guide. Unfortunately, the notability guide seems meaningless at AfD. Milo
08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a group or organization, so no, that guideline doesn't apply. --
talk · contribs
) 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Gomolo.in is also reported to have a CEO and a business strategy,[11] which makes it a
WP:GROUP for one category of notability. It may also be describable in others, but I only did research on the group category. Milo
19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound Character list/section

Further views would be useful at

talk · contribs
) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB, again

I apologize for dredging this up again, but after I removed material from the

WP:RS? Doesn't that guideline reasonably apply to verifiability? Nightscream (talk
) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He might be citing Wikipedia:Citing IMDb as the no consensus. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. If you read our exchanges on
wikilawyer or flat-out distort policies. Even that one you just cited indicates that BLP info is not among the recommended uses. It doesn't even say that there is no consensus for citing imdb, only that that policy has failed to achieve it. Nightscream (talk
) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Element - User Adding IMDB Rating

Hi there,

I'm having some trouble with a user (anon IP) who keeps adding the IMDB rating for The Fifth Element insisting that there's no problem including it. I spoke with Collectonian on this, who agreed with me and said that there should be a discussion here, I believe, establishing that IMDB ratings shouldn't be included, but I'm having trouble finding said discussion. I'd really appreciate it if someone with a bit more experience, or perhaps authority/diplomacy, than I could either get this sorted out or point me in the right direction. Hm, just noticed that the item right before mine is similar to this one.

Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See
WP:MOSFILMS#Critics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist! I believe that's what I used initially and it got shrugged off, but maybe having another editor in the discussion will help. Doniago (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: First Contact

David Fuchs (talk · contribs) is ambitiously working to get all Star Trek films to Featured Article status. He's achieved this with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Currently, he has Star Trek: First Contact placed for peer review, so if anyone has time, please review the article and share your thoughts in regard to the style and content. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins FAC

talk · contribs
) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the word "duology"

Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Film studios and Creative Commons licenses

On Twitter, Jimmy Wales tweeted this article about the Davos World Economic Forum releasing its Flickr stream of 2,600 photos under the Attribution-ShareAlike license. (See more about licenses here.) Most film articles have copyrighted photos—screenshots or production stills—since only the oldest films are in public domain. Is anyone familiar enough with film studios to know if they maintain archives of production stills or specific screenshots? It may be a worthwhile campaign to petition to studios about being providers of such images, using one of the Creative Commons licenses. This way, we could illustrate film articles without struggling for adequate rationale of non-free images. What do others think? Is it in the realm of possibility? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is something that we definitely need to look into. If we can secure any individual pictures for multiple films, it would really help our older articles, many of which that are lacking in content. Unless we happen to have some member(s) that work for a studio, we would likely need to write letters to individual studios to determine if they were willing to release some of their images. It would be great if we could get full cast images or one individual screenshot for each film, but it's going to depend on the studio. If we are able to secure images like this, it would be another great step in improving our articles. Any success that we make with older films could possibly help us convince studios to release images for newer films. As a side note, I e-mailed the author of The New York Times' article on the images detailing the efforts Wikipedians make in attempting to find images, but his reply didn't seem too excited about our progress. Contacting the studios is something we should make an attempt at some point soon to help further improve our articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This is basically a two-part question posed by someone who finds the image rules thoroughly confusing. 1) In many major cities there are memorabilia stores selling screenshots from films. Is it safe to assume they are doing so with the consent of the studios that released them? And, if so, does that place them in the public domain? 2) Years ago, when working as a film critic, I usually received press kits that included screenshots the studio intended to be used with reviews or articles promoting the film. Would these images be considered acceptable for use in Wikipedia, given the studio was expecting - and hoping - they would be published? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how memorabilia stores conduct business, but the screenshots are not in public domain. It likely involves some sort of copyright licensing permitting stores and other outlets to sell them. The material in press kits are under similar licensing, I imagine. I say this because the Creative Commons licenses are fairly recent alternatives to public domain licensing and copyright licensing. Websites that use re-print images from press kits do so with fair use rationales, which are too light by Wikipedia's standards, since it strives to be a free encyclopedia. It would be very impressive if we could achieve CC licensing with any one studio. Older films would be a good start, and hopefully there will be a cascading response. Might be worth finding out if there are specifically maintained archives and who may be in charge of them that we could write to. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Neat idea! Here are some relevant links for everyone:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, and Outline of film. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of The Lion King characters

I stumbled on this "lovely" list while looking at articles in the GAR Sweeps queue. It was riddled with excessive non-free images, copyright violating links to YouTube videos, fansite "sources", ridiculously minor characters, etc.[12] It still has a lot of problems with excessive plot, in-universe prose, lack of any real notability, lack of sources, and a lot of OR. Personally, I don't think the list is necessary at all, however as it exists, before discussing merging or deletion, clean up to see if its salvageable seems the better option. So I did an initial clean up to address the first, and most major of issues regarding removing the illegal stuff and the fansite and minor characters.[13] The talk page also has nothing but forum discussions and opinions rather than discussions on approving the articles. One of the list's only editors reverted this as "vandalism" (for which he has been warned), however additional eyes and discussion is likely going to be needed here as his response to the message was to blank it. Thoughts on other clean ups to do and other ways of dealing with the list? Volunteers to help cull down the excessive plot and look for third-party sources to justify this list? --

talk · contribs
) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm embroiled in the middle of rescuing Scarlett Johansson from losing her GA. I hope she appreciates it... Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope so too! Meanwhile, a discussion has been started at
talk · contribs
) 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"See also" at Fight Club

here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of film?

The Transhumanist 00:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Major non-American film studios such as
AB Svensk Filmindustri or Gaumont. Pantherskin (talk
) 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair-Use gallery of character images spanning three films

Characters of From Dusk till Dawn has a "gallery" of characters embedded way down at the bottom of the article. Need opinions on whether or not it passes muster for Fair-Use.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk
) 09:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Textbook violation. --
talk · contribs
) 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Collectonian. Galleries aren't usually appropriate for articles, and galleries of non-free images definitely run afoul of
WP:NFCC. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please explain to me why this article is even necessary? Shouldn't the characters be described in the individual film articles? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed...its is a pretty pointless article and unnecessary article, and not an appropriate list. Alas, some seem to be trying to push out more film character lists to justify their existence through numbers. See above for further fun with such lists. --
talk · contribs
) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name change

Talk:Adaptation.#Move is going through a discussion whether or not people want to change the article. Need opinions on whether it should change or not. Wildroot (talk
) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion about a film that ends with a period is taking place here:
Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck.#Requested move. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

After seeing this at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) as the latest in the proliferation of so-called succession boxes, I am coming to the conclusion that these boxes are being abused. It does not seem relevant to have these boxes, especially so many. If a film holds the #1 position at the box office in whatever territory for quite a few weekends, it should already be covered in prose. It's not really relevant to know what came after (important usurpers can be written in prose) and even less relevant to know what came before, at least in the scope of that particular article. I would like to see if there is consensus to remove such boxes or at least impose some kind of limit on them. (We may need to conduct similar discussions about award-related succession boxes; what came before and after one particular year's Best Picture winner is not within the topical scope of that one film.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ARGH!! That is excessive and unnecessary, and #1 is already covered to some degree in the article. These should be removed, and I'll be watching for the discussion about the succession boxes for awards.
WP:ACTOR stopped these a while back for essentially the same reasons you mention for films. Wildhartlivie (talk
) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Completely and 100% agree, those things are excessive, unnecessary, and fairly pointless. I seem them often on stubs that odn't even have a source for it, much less the fuller articles. --
talk · contribs
) 22:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, did you meet any resistance when WP:ACTOR phased out succession boxes? What was the rationale you put forth, and did you do a mass sweep or what? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It was first proposed by Garion96 on June 14, 2009, and when it was under discussion, it was, interestingly, something no one who responded opposed. The rationales brought up included being redundant to article content/filmography listings, repetition to navboxes that were present, that next year's winners don't succeed this years winners but just get next year's award, they look untidy, take up a lot of space, the clutter looks tacky and unprofessional, are unuseful, etc. Last weekend, one newer editor popped in to question why they were removed but didn't respond further after a couple of us responded. Several of us did a manual sweep by working from the awards pages and I believe we've removed most of the ones that were out there. I noticed that some other editors not involved in the actual project began addressing them as well. I come upon the occasional articles that still have them, but those are becoming fewer and farther between. None of us had enough bot savvy to know if this was something that could be done by bot, and because we didn't want to infringe on other projects that do use them, felt it was better to go about it as we did. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition to including information in the box office section in the film's article, the top films for the year can be seen at lists such as 2009 in film or List of 2009 box office number-one films in the United States and from Template:Lists of box office number-one films. The large succession boxes for each country (this will only continue to expand) aren't really needed with these other alternatives are already present. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Very true! My question is, should we strive to link readers to these articles to compensate for removing succession boxes? Or is this unnecessary, too? I'm preferring the latter, but not completely set because I don't know what the backlash is like. Maybe we should contact the editors who have been prolific with such boxes? Bovineboy2008 is one, I believe... —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be okay with removing them only if they are replaced with some sort of navigation box. Without these succession boxes, no one is going to be able to find lists like
WP:ACTOR, I think we could do the same in this projects. BOVINEBOY2008
05:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, in most cases, the navboxes were already in place on
WP:ACTOR boxes, so it was mostly a no-brainer in that regard. Wildhartlivie (talk
) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If we put the related links in a "See also" section, it would look like this:
That kind of presentation still suggests unwieldiness since there could be more countries with such lists. I don't think the "See also" section is the best place for it, and I'm not sure if it's possible to pipe such list links into the article body. I'm more inclined to exclude links to such lists unless someone can think of a way to implement them appropriately. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we have a winner! Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to giving Wildhartlivie a heart attack or something!? :P I support the removal of that eyesore. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Cripes!!! I thought those had been removed from that article already. How mortifying! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

← To help build consensus, I've nominated the templates {{Box Office Leaders}} and {{Box Office Leaders USA}} for deletion; see discussion here. While this will not remove all box office-related succession boxes, these templates are used in quite a few articles already, and successful deletion of them may serve as a catalyst to deprecating the boxes. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A couple of things. 1) The example given can be fixed with a collapsing box. I didn't do a great job, but I put one in. I'll futz with it when I have more time. 2) Some people (myself, for instance) like to browse articles this way. They tend to be people that take films less seriously, not necessarily reading the entire article word for word. I'm guessing that they also don't hang around this talk page much either. - Richfife (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If readers like to browse the box office leaders of a particular territory, isn't it easier for them to access the list of the leaders for the whole year? We can discuss a way to link to such lists, but the succession boxes at the end of the article don't seem important enough to include in the scope of the topic (the individual film), even when collapsed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea for linking. In Bruno, what if "Bruno topped the charts with $33 million in its first week" was changed to "Bruno topped the charts
eggy, but I can't think of another logical way to do it. BOVINEBOY2008
00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That could cause problems if a really successful film had "topped the charts in the United States, the UK, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, etc." A possible option is that if the film is an American film, we can link to List of 2009 box office number-one films in the United States, which could include a template linking to other country lists. Or 2009 in film could include the country lists in a template within the Top grossing films section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the country links for US, UK and AUS are already linked in 2009 in film, and I can add the rest. Would it be possible to make a nav box that's title was "List of 2009 box office number-one films in the United States" that had the list of films in it? BOVINEBOY2008 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about guidelines

There are two discussions going on about the guidelines at its talk page:

  • MOS:BOLD
    , which is clear about the application
  • References
    " section (which was very, very old) and welcome opinions about the suggested best practice and the language

Please feel free to share your thoughts! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New discussion! I have proposed a write-up to add prose to MOS:FILM's "
here and please share your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia/The Wizard of Oz

I just saw Australia on DVD and I immediately noticed an anachronism. The film opens in September 1939. Lady Ashley sees a newspaper ad for The Wizard of Oz before the start of the cattle drive, which arrives in Darwin just before the beginning of the rainy season, which lasts from November through April according to [14]. This means it's safe to assume she saw the ad in September or October 1939. But The Wizard of Oz didn't open in Australia until April 1940. Also, it opened in the United States in August 1939, so I doubt Australians would have been that familiar with "Over the Rainbow" just one or two months later, but Lady Ashley knew the tune and some of the words. It's amazing that Baz Luhrmann didn't do better research. If he was going to make The Wizard of Oz such an important element of the film, he should have set the beginning a year later than he did. I'm wondering if this anachronism is something that should be mentioned in the article. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found an article at Suite101.com that mentions the mistake, but Wikipedia says the link to that website is blocked and won't let me include it here. The article states "Two anachronisms in the film include The Wizard of Oz advertised in an Australian newspaper and screened in Darwin in 1939, but it was actually released in April 1940". 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the discrepancy is worth noting. The time frame is minor enough that it doesn't affect the film as a whole. Even if there were sources to mention it, I'd be hard-pressed to find a suitable place in the article body for it anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Such anachronism's are very common in films, including period pieces. It isn't really notable at all unless multiple reliable sources felt it note worthy. Otherwise, it is really just trivia. --
talk · contribs
) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is only one of the few recent movies that I just couldn't get into, especially the maudlin and stereotypical characterizations, and having an overlay of "Oz" on the realife OZ, is integral to the film's construct, yet as you can appreciate, it's an entirely forced and inaccurate metaphor. The war scenes are also blatently false. FWiW, mention of the glaring error should accompany this drudgery (whoops, my observation may be flavouring this comment)... Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC).
Maybe the ananchronism wouldn't be that notable if the newspaper ad was seen for a split second and then the film was never mentioned again. But The Wizard of Oz is referenced several times and used as a key plot point. The film and the song "Over the Rainbow" make a big impact on Nullah, and near the end of the film, when Lady Ashley mentions returning to Faraway Downs, Drover responds, "There's no place like home". I think if a screenwriter is going to place that much emphasis on something he should be sure it existed at the time his story is taking place. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a definite plot device and it is compromised by the lack of referencing to real-time events. The "look, it's like we're in Oz" was a part of the movie's appeal. That it was improbable and likely impossible is a valid point to make, regardless of the rose-coloured view of the film that the Wiki article appears to be making. I was very tempted to put in a review section which seems to be glaringly missing, as I can't believe I am the only one who found the film an appalling mess. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The article mentions The Wizard of Oz and "Over the Rainbow" so why not mention the ananchronism in the same section? I think it's too important to ignore. LargoLarry (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Film-based theme park attractions ... in-scope?

Someone requested help tagging all the movie articles on the project, and the bot went nuts (in my opinion) and started tagging articles for movie-based theme park attractions (like

Disney theme parks
worldwide. The two schools of thought are: (a) it's not a film, it's a ride; and (b) the main component of the ride is a film.

So, I asked on the talk page if the editors of that article thought that such attractions (those that have movie components, like motion simulators and in-park 3-D movies; not those themed to a certain movie) truly do fall within the scope of the Films WikiProject. At the same time, I thought I'd ask the WikiProject itself what its members thought ... should theme-park rides with movie components fall within its scope?

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. If we include these, then we will need to include every single book, video game, toy line, etc. that was ever based on a film. BOVINEBOY2008 14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Some WikiProjects are very liberal with the criteria for which a topic can fall under them. For example, a lot of film articles have banners on their talk pages from WikiProjects about places, even when the the backdrop isn't that significant. I think in this case, WikiProject Films is more conservative, particularly when articles on people directly related to film fall under WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Theme park attractions seem to be their own beast because the primary sub-topics would be the construction of the attractions themselves and their history, such as upgrades and how many people have frequented them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I think we're all in agreement that simply being based on a particular film doesn't merit being tagged, so that would knock out a significant number of articles that the bot tagged. That said, I think the question amongst the attraction-article editors involves attractions that actually are films (like Mickey's PhilharMagic, a 3D movie attraction, or the aforementioned Star Tours, which plays a film inside the motion simulator). Similarly, whether movie-themed parks that actually have (or had) production facilities on their grounds (like Disney's Hollywood Studios or Universal Studios Hollywood) should or should not remain tagged. But, it sounds like from the initial comments that the WikiProject doesn't believe these things are within scope. Thanks again for your attention. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
May I ask what is different about, say, Captain EO and Mickey's PhilharMagic that would exclude them from this project but not other 3-D films? Surely not just their length? Powers T 02:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
On that note I had a question. Should soundtrack articles like
Selmasongs be part of the film project? Andrzejbanas (talk
) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Duplicate" templates

Template:Argentine films contains only links found in Template:Cinema of Argentina. For this reason I am removing the former form articles also containing the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Non-free images at Rob-B-Hood

At the Featured Article Rob-B-Hood, six non-free images are being used in the article body. Judging from the content, the only image that seems appropriate for inclusion is the one of Jackie Chan hanging from the roller coaster (due to neighboring content about stunts). The "Writing" image adds nothing to the article, the baby is not important to show in the "Cast" section, and the two images in the "Plot" section are just decorative of the scenes with no significance attached through critical commentary. Lastly, the poster image in the "Reception" section is a near-duplicate of the image in the infobox. Since this is a Featured Article (and I am a bit astounded about the lack of image review at its FAC), I wanted to see what other film editors thought about how the images are applied before I go about removing them. Please see the discussion at Talk:Rob-B-Hood#Overuse of non-free images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The poster for the infobox is obviously keepable as well.--Remurmur (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Universal Pictures or Studios

Recently

Universal Studios to Universal Pictures, even though the later redirects to the former. From her edit summaries, she feels that Universal Pictures is more accurate, stating some variation of "The film was released by Universal Pictures! The film's poster clearly states that the film is [Universal Pictures presents]". It became a full blown edit war over the issue between her and another editor (not me) at The Lost World: Jurassic Park
. In subseqeunt edit summaries, she's stated

  • "Based on the official record, the film was released by [Universal Pictures; we need to write every based on the official record.)
  • "The universal studios page clearly states that Universal Pictures is the main motion picture production/distribution arm of Universal Studios ."
  • "But the truth is Universal Studios is a big organization which has many different divisions (film is only one of the business it handles); Universal Pictures is only one of its divisions."
  • "It doesn't dispute the truth the the film was released by UNIVERSAL PICTURES, not its parent company UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. The page need to provide as accurate infos as possible."

I've invited both editors here to discuss it and to get consensus on which should be used. Thoughts? --

talk · contribs
) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

well, my reasons for reverting the edits were that the link for universal pictures goes straight to the article for Universal studios, and there isn't even a section about it, another reason why is that on every page about a movie from universal, it says universal studios, except on the ones that Marychan41 edited to say pictures, to me, it would make sense if it says pictures, but only if it has its' own page, or at least a good sized section on the universal studios page. (pardon my grammar and spelling, i'm trying to do like a billion other things at the same time) Blah42b10 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Universal Pictures" is the more accurate term. When I work on films from Universal Pictures, I always come across the term and pipe link it to Universal Studios. It may be worth researching these terms to identify the distinction and possibly create separate articles. From what I can tell, the terms are not fully synonymous, even though they're closely related. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Blah42b10, There are many other wikipedia pages of other Universal films which states that they are released by Universal Pictures, including
talk
) • 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a split is in order, just as Walt Disney Pictures is a separate article from The Walt Disney Company. Powers T 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
At minimum, it seems like the Universal Studios article needs some clean up and a proper subsidiaries section with a section for Universal Pictures. If there is enough reliable information about Universal Pictures, then yes, a split would also be appropriate. As a related note, if we agree that Universal Pictures is the appropriate company name for who distributed a film, any objections to killing the
talk · contribs
) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you guys allow, I will try to establish a stand-alone page for Universal Pictures. I had found enough reliable informations to establish the stand-alone page. I don't have time to wholly write the page, though. I wish that you guys can help me to add the infos on the page after I establish the page. --
talk
) • 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Mary, what are the sources you have to write a separate article? I couldn't find anything that immediately clarified the difference between Universal Studios and Universal Pictures. Collectonian, let's just hold onto the list; there's already
WP:CLN says that lists and categories are not in conflict with each other, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 15:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Two of my main sources: 1) A press release from Universal Pictures (via prnewswire.com) 2) A page from old.oscars.org --
talk
) • 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That really is not enough to warrant a stand-alone page, particularly when one is a primary source. I'd recommend instead working on a subsidiary section that lists Universal Pictures first. See
talk · contribs
) 16:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What kinds of sources are needed to establish a stand-alone page? I will try to find them. (BTW, even the page of
talk
) • 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

← (

Talk:Universal Studios/Archives/2014#Universal Pictures because we don't need to discuss specifics on a community level for this particular article. If anyone is interested in joining discussion, feel free to drop by there. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca

This article needs a lot of TLC. Most of the Adaptation section is missing references. The Character Search section is mostly just a list of actors and the referenced source is IMDb trivia. The Source section is all POV. This classic film deserves a much better Wikipedia article than this. 63.3.15.2 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the two problematic sections. Here is a good page of resources to use for the Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Two GARs

talk · contribs
) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Year of release

Will someone please explain to me why the first release of a film doesn't count if its at a film festival? BOVINEBOY2008 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, the year of release is for its first major release. If it never is released anywhere but at a film festival, then would be its "major" release and be its year of release. If its a theatrical work, however, film festival releases are seen as being akin to a preview or the like and not the real release. Its fine to note the festival release in the prose, but for the infobox it should then be the theatrical release. --
talk · contribs
) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For most films that appear at a festival first, there is not a lot of press about them. Press around a film only steps up when it is being publicly released (either limited or wide), so this is a threshold to cross into the public mentality. If you see these "best of [year]" lists, the films on these lists will sometimes have screened at a festival the previous year, but it was not publicly released until [year]. As an example (not of a "best" film), 300 was first screened in December 2006 at a film festival, but it did not make its impact until March 2007. From what I can tell, it's considered a 2007 film. (IMDb marks it as "2006", but this is probably because of the database setup and not editorial involvement.) Let me know if you have any questions. I expanded the bit at WP:NCF to clarify this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarity. There are some conflicting discussions in the archive and I think this will clear it up. BOVINEBOY2008 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series discussion

There is a discussion to move multiple lists of film series to more direct list names, for example, to move

List of film series with eight entries. Please see the multiple-move discussion here: Talk:Film series#Requested move. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Alexanderplatz (television)

Is this article really within the scope of our project? It looks to be very much like a TV series to me, yet it is classed as one of our core articles. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a film, though at 15 hours is one that is usually screened on TV in 14 parts; however, it did screen commercially in cinemas, in its entirety, so I guess it does fall under the scope of the project. Alternatively, there is a 1931 film of the same name and based on the same source material. Steve T • C 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Psycho (1960 film) GAR notification

WP:LOTM
) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chicago Theatre

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Haeundae (film)

A number of IP users have been changing "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to "East Sea (Sea of Japan)"; this is contrary to existing Wikipedia concensus outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). I've reverted, pointed the IPs to the relevant guideline, even had the article protected for a few days, but it keeps happening. A few more eyes on this would be welcome, especially as I'm going to be offline for a few days. Regards. PC78 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit and the article is now watchlisted. I also added a section on the
talk page advising of the community consensus on the body of water's name so hopefully the revert warring will give way to talk page discussion. Big Bird (talk • contribs
) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing an actor's filmology

I recently came across an article that was in sad need of cleanup and sourcing [15], so I did so... removing the "citation needed" tags and "unreferenced" tags as I added the requested citations as I cleaned the darn thing.[16] However the editor who had done all the tagging, came back and replaced a "unreferenced" tag on the filmography section [17] with a caution that I not remove his tag unless I source the section. So I added some [18] and simply tagged the section for "more sources". In my noticing that actor articles do not have their filmography sections specifcally sourced, I am wondering is this something that we need do now for all actor articles? If so, there are a few thousand actor articles that now need to be so tagged. If such is not required, might I have a link to the guideline or decision that states it, so I might forward that on to the tagging editor? Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps films (or other appearances) with articles with the appearance clear in the article, it wouldn't need a reference. But for notes or other appearances, it should. BOVINEBOY2008 02:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Lists of works generally do not require references since the majority of items are "unlikely to be challenged" per our
citation guidelines. It may sometimes be appropriate for particular items, however, which may be more obscure and less self-evident (such as uncredited appearances or work as an extra). Girolamo Savonarola (talk
) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Sourcing_a_filmology decltype (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds from a Town I Love

I don't want to nominate this article for deletion if my reasoning is wrong, so could someone please give me advice before I do?

I don't think it meets notability requirements because

  1. It wasn't released in theaters and hasn't received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  2. Although it features significant involvement by a notable person (Woody Allen) it can't be considered a major part of his career.
  3. An article about a film should be created only if there is so much information about it that it would clutter up the biography page of the people involved with it. Most of this article is padding that really doesn't say anything about the film itself. I think the film should have been mentioned in the Woody Allen article instead of having a separate article written about it.

Thank you for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me check the resources to which I have access to see if we can establish this short film's notability. Need to head out, though, so I'll respond in a few hours. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I could not find any significant coverage about the short film from the newspaper databases nor the Google News/Books/Scholar Searches. I think it's best to redirect the article to Woody Allen. Talk to Shubinator, who appears to be considering an AfD and start a discussion at Talk:Sounds from a Town I Love to redirect the article. Notify the article's creator, Artichoke-Boy, of the discussion as well. Let me know when you do this, and I'll be happy to support a redirect. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator nominated the article for deletion, so I don't know if I should still start a discussion to redirect the article at Talk:Sounds from a Town I Love or leave comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sounds from a Town I Love or do both. Someone suggested merging the article with The Concert for New York City but that doesn't seem right to me. If it's going to be merged shouldn't it be with Woody Allen? MovieMadness (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The consensus can be decided at AfD. It would have been easier to just start a merge discussion on the film article's talk page and let the proper channels know. Some editors don't like using AfD as a way to "merge" since that's not the explicit purpose of the process. It's done, though, so we'll focus there. In addition to where it's merged, I think the concert article is also a valid place to merge, but the article needs to mention the short films a little more so the meaning is not lost. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for films with special characters

Hello, since

here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bold formatting in film articles

For a long time, WikiProject Films has used bold formatting mainly in the "Cast" sections of its film articles. Despite this tradition, though,

MOS:BOLD makes clear that outside the lead sentence, only a "few special uses" apply: table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers of journal articles. I was removing the bold formatting on several film articles (mainly mainstream ones that get the most attention) when an editor took issue with it. Do others think that there is any reason to ignore MOS:BOLD? I consulted with Tony1, who helped get dates de-linked across Wikipedia articles, and he said this about the formatting. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I happen to like the bolding of the actors' and characters' names in cases where the casting information is presented as a bulleted list with lines of prose following the names (for example, The Mummy). It draws attention to the primary information (the names) without detracting from the prose which follows. I feel this effectively combines the advantages of a list (brevity, easily navigable to the eye) with those of prose (detail, explanations, in-depth coverage). Without the bolding it's more difficult to scan the text and pick out the names (if that's what the reader wants to do), and I don't think that italics has the same effect.
MOS:BOLD doesn't really give guidance about the use of bolding in lists, so I'm not convinced that bolding these names is either A) in contravention of the MoS, or B) negatively impacting the presentation of the articles. Given that quite a few of our FAs use the bolding, I don't imagine that the reviewers find it contradictory to the MoS either. At least in the few FA reviews I've been involved with, bolding of the names has never been mentioned as an issue. I think it's helpful to readers, especially in cases where the lists are long and the names are followed by several lines of text (which I'm not discouraging...the more prose the better). I'd like to hear what other think about this. --IllaZilla (talk
) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am for removing bolding in cast sections.
MOS:BOLD is explicit in saying "use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." This is completely contradictory on the project's part. I think the whole guideline needs to be rewritten to avoid the listing of cast, focusing more on prose for casting, but this issue needs to be addressed now. BOVINEBOY2008
22:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Bolding isn't necessary for the cast section lists. Outside of the title of the article, bolding is rarely needed. I think the our guideline's cast section only included the bolding (in prior versions) to illustrate how the section should be formatted as "actor as character". I think the formatting from the guidelines was then carried over into the articles and then became more widespread. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
IllaZilla, I understand what you mean since I used to apply bold formatting in similar fashion. However, I don't think removing the bold formatting truly detracts from being able to read about the actors and their roles. The problem with applying the formatting to multi-lined bulleted items (and believe me, I used to endorse this) is that there are less and less lines as the roles get more and more minor. Yet formatting is still preserved, even for items that are only two lines long. MOS:BOLD is clear where the formatting applies, and we should be able to write film articles as if bold formatting was never an option in stylizing them. If anything, we should consider rewriting such multi-lined bulleted items into prose that flows, like what Changeling (film)#Cast does. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the look of bolding in cast lists and never use it myself. The vast majority of film articles I've read haven't used it, so it doesn't seem to be that widespread a practice. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup help needed

Per a recent TfD, Template:Box Office Leaders was deleted and subsequently removed from all articles. But it seems there are still a lot of articles left with "Box office number-one films" succession boxes, using Template:Succession box instead of Template:Box Office Leaders (Hot Fuzz and Norbit, for instance), so some help in cleaning those up would be appreciated. --Conti|✉ 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I included consensus to deprecate box office succession boxes at
MOS:FILM#Succession boxes. I don't have time to help deprecate the existing ones today, but other editors should visit the {{Lists of box office number-one films}} template, which links to the lists of films first at the box office, and the film articles themselves can be visited. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the boxes from all 2008 films. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently going backwards through the US films with AWB, starting 2009. --Conti|✉ 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I already checked 2009 and I'm working on 2007 now, so you might want to start with 2006. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, too late. I'm gonna skip straight to 2000 now. :) I already did what was left of 2007-2009. --Conti|✉ 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I found some 2007 films that still had the boxes, but I'm going to stop since there's no point in two people working on the same project. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that it's not as much work as I thought it would be. Thanks for the help, tho! It's possible that I've missed a few articles in the 2007-2009 range, but I think I got it covered for now. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Conti, I left this message on your talk page, but figured I'd copy it here since others may be engaging in the same task. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road, especially since this huge change has precipitated in little more than a week. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tables in casts

Under what circumstances should a cast be converted into a table, or should it just be avoided altogether?

Actor Role
John Doe Not Real
Bob Johnson John Q. Public

^^^ Such as this ^^^ • S • C • A • R • C • E • 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this
back in May about whether or not tables should be used. It was argued that they should be used in the cases of when a film includes the voice work of other actors for release in another country in a different language (for example, see My Neighbor Totoro. For simple actor as character lists as suggested above, they are not necessary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib
) 05:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's easier to render such information in a simple list, such as:
  • John Doe ... Not Real
  • Bob Johnson ... John Q. Public
This way, we do not need to deal with wikitable formatting that may be too complicated for some editors. In addition, simple lists can be expanded into more detailed bulleted items and possibly even into flowing prose about the actors and their roles. I think that tables with just these columns should be mostly deprecated, but where tables could work are multiple columns for different lists of voice actors, such as My Neighbor Totoro#Cast. (Post-E.C. -- Sigh, Nehrams said what I said, pretty much!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha, too slow! Although, I did use your example of a film that used the foreign language voice actors from the discussion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This is one case of just because you can use a table, doesn't mean you should. IMO completly unnecessary for cast lists. Lugnuts (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish someone would rewrite the guidelines so they would strongly discourage using tables for cast lists, which I think look hideous. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes,
WP:FILMCAST needs to be rewritten. It's by now the oldest section on the guidelines page. It's one of the first things that will be clarified since the consensus against such tables has been out there but never formalized. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 15:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Hello, at The Hurt Locker, an editor is unable to assume good faith of others' contributions and reverts our changes, such as the addition of a "Cast" section and the expansion of the "Plot" section. I ask other editors to visit the film article and see what changes they endorse. See page history here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He also makes comments like this, which makes for poor collaboration. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I also left a comment on his talk page to stop with the personal attacks and edit warring and to continue discussion on the talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Erik here is a vandal. He joined in an edit war by recent "contributors" to that page. He and the others have contributed nothing positive to the page, but have merely tried to "restructure" things to promote their negative, minority POV attack on the page out of spite. He and others were asked by admin. to not edit war. I have restored the page to prior to his (and others) that were solicited by Ravensfire & Ckatz to edit war, and have restored comments by major film critic Roger Ebert. Restoring to prior to vandalism is not ownership, as others have made good contributions that are included. It is just common sense. Thanks for your help anyway, guys! Inurhead (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I reported the above editor for violating 3RR here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Again it is not 3RR to restore a page to prior to edit war. Erik and others were told not to edit war and they have been viciously changing the page ever since. Oh, and I forgot to add. Their so-called "additions" of cast was redundant as cast is already listed and also mentioned within article. The Plot section that they added was merely an attempt to spoil, and it was all original material without any sources. It was restored to the SOURCED consensus plot that Ckatz agreed to ages ago. - Inurhead (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

← I blocked

consensus can change. You happen to be on the wrong side of it. Jauerbackdude?/dude.
18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the only time it is okay to break 3RR is when you are reverting vandalism, which this is not. It's a content dispute. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Inurhead, when YOU are the only one reverting, then the only one editing warring is you. And coming here and calling one of the top film article contributors by such a rude label as vandal is beyond inappropriate. You are clearly the only one who disagrees with bringing the article up to a higher standard and it is clearly an issue of you feeling that only your preferred version is correct. No one was asked to come edit war. Seeking additional views from a project is a clear step in dispute resolution, as is actual, proper discussion and not just randomly, and falsely, calling any of their good work vandalism. --
talk · contribs
) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's not antagonize the situation any further and just move on from it now. If the same problems happen again in two days, we will address them then. The Hurt Locker appears to be an exceptional film, so I hope that we can focus our efforts on improving the style and expanding the content. There are discussions to be found at Talk:The Hurt Locker if there are any changes one is not sure about making. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

There is a

here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Ymovies title

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lion King character list

Did some clean up at the

talk · contribs
) 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories

User:Softlavender is adding Category:Films based on short stories to articles that already have Category:Films based on short fiction in them. Isn't this redundant? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think short stories are understood to be works of fiction. In fact, the article Short story says it refers to a work of fiction that is usually written in prose, usually in narrative format. Sodtlavender's addition seems unnecessary. (Recently she added Category:Monodrama to articles that already had Category:Plays for one performer so it seems she likes to over-categorize if such a word exists!) LargoLarry (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both examples are redundant with existing categories as far as I can tell. Powers T 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Doniago (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I created the new category because the old category "short fiction" contains films based on novellas, short novels, comic series, novelletes, book chapters, serials, and so on. The huge category needed diffusion and specificity. I didn't delete the now-parent category of "short fiction" because I didn't want to do that without permission (I've seen that happen before). If someone wants to use a Bot like HotCat and remove the parent category for the films I added the more specific category to, that should be a quick and simple fix. I only added the new more specific category to films that were actually based on short stories (as opposed to novels, novellas, novellettes, book chapters, comics, etc.). Hope that's clear; sorry for the redundancy but the cat needed diffusion and it's a simple Bot fix to remove the redundancies. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you found articles about films based on novellas, short novels, comic series, novelletes, book chapters, serials, and so on, then why didn't you just remove Category:Films based on short fiction from those articles instead of creating a new category that is exactly the same? Your intention was good but I think you handled the problem the wrong way. LargoLarry (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
See below a the bullet point -- I've seen that happen before and it created the need to manually restore a lot of deletions. I didn't want to do that without permission because of my experience with the user who DID substitute a new category without permission. I was also aware that HotCat bot can remove the redundancy easily. Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, didn't quite answer your question (which I misread): Novellas, novellettes, comics, serials, and book chapters ARE "short fiction," but they aren't short stories. There needed to be a specific category for the many many films based on short stories. Those other articles can keep the less specific category of 'short fiction'. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I worded the question wrong. What I meant to ask was, If you found articles about films based on novellas, short novels, comic series, novelletes, book chapters, serials, and so on, then why didn't you remove Category:Films based on short stories when you added Category:Films based on short fiction instead of leaving the wrong category there? You meant well but your editing wasn't thorough. LargoLarry (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear Largo Larry -- I did NOT add the category Monodrama to any article -- that was done by someone else who deleted the category "Plays for solo performer" from the articles she added her new and unparented category "Monodrama" to. I merely went back and restored the category that she had deleted without discussion or permission or reason. I discussed this with the person involved with the definition of Monodrama, who said to leave both rather than revert the other user's redundant category. Softlavender (talk)
Sorry if I misunderstood, but again you meant well but your editing wasn't thorough. If you thought Category:Plays for one performer should be restored, then you should have been bold and removed Category:Monodrama at the same time, no matter what the person involved with the definition of Monodrama said, because there's no point in having two categories that mean the same thing. LargoLarry (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE

The above section of

WP:MOSFILM
states the following:

"Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:

  • Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc."

Should this be interpreted to mean:

  • if the film was initially released in an English-speaking country, only that country's first release date should be listed in the infobox

or

  • it is acceptable for an infobox to contain the date of a film's first release date in each of those majority English-speaking countries

There seems to be a dispute on Meet the Parents on whether it's appropriate or not to list other English speaking countries' dates of release if the American film was first released in the United States.

Thanks you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, is the example given at
Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE#Infobox still correct with regards to this issue? Big Bird (talk • contribs
) 20:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that example is correct (that's how I interpret the guideline anyway). This is something that's been debated in the past, though I don't think discussions have led to anything conclusive on the matter. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I have asked this before, but I can't find where. If we are going by the interpretation you have presented (which is the interpretation I had originally thought) then we would have to list the "first" release date of every majority English-speaking country. Including:
This is obviously not right. The confusion (for me) comes with the plural on "dates" in the policy. I don't know, it is certainly something that needs to be adressed. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's interpreting things a bit too literally. Does Pitcairn even have a cinema. :) PC78 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you be too literal? Either you are and you aren't. What does the "etc" mean to you? Only the "important" countries? To maintain a
neutral point of view either all of them need to be included or it needs to be limited appropriatley. BOVINEBOY2008 :)
23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I found the discussion.
this discussion about the exact same confusion. BOVINEBOY2008 :)
00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My comment was intended to be a little facetious following your unnecessarily exhaustive list of countries. No-one is suggesting that an infobox include 83 release dates; I doubt you would find anything like that many for even the biggest Hollywood blockbuster. I don't think that NPOV requires the all-or-nothing approach you suggest above. "Importance" is relative; even if a film were released in all of the countries and territories you list above, you wouldn't mention them all in the article, only those that were notable, significant or relevant, and the same goes for the infobox. But yes, generally speaking I agree that this aspect of the infobox needs somethiong of a rethink (I believe I said as much in the last discussion). PC78 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going a bit overboard. :P So let's talk it out. The way I usually do release dates in the infobox is the first release (film festival or otherwise), first English-release country (usually US, UK, AUS, CAN), and then the release of the production company (the film's "country"), and then "related" releases. If any of them coincide, I just combine them. That is just the way that I have done it. I really think it is excessive to have the US, UK, AUS, CAN, and NZ release dates for every single film article. It is pretty obvious that such a display is too long for an infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd pretty much go with what you just said, though to be honest I don't see why we need the first English-release country if it isn't otherwise included, because it has no direct relevance. PC78 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1

So, would it be appropriate to adjust the guideline from

The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:

  • The film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{Start date}} should be used.
  • Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases.
  • Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film.
  • In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
to something like

The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the following:

  • The film's earliest theatrical release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release. {{Start date}} should be used.
    Guideline removed
  • Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film. This should concur with the "Country" parameter in the infobox.
  • In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).

Changes are italicized above. Any suggestions or oppositions would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, do not find this proposition any clearer than the existing MOS. What we currently have is clear — although some care should always to be taken not to get carried away such as with your previous example above because that clearly benefits no one — even if it's not universally agreed upon but, then again, many things are not. Even the FA-class articles are not uniform in this regard and those have undergone more rigorous scrutiny than any others (on average). In the end, barring extreme attempts to cram any and every country in which English is spoken (natively or otherwise), I see no harm or detriment to featured articles such as
Borat, But I'm a Cheerleader, Little Miss Sunshine, Transformers, V for Vendetta etc. which have allowed such information in the infobox. A global consensus on this would be great, yes, but until such a consensus is reached I don't find it productive (and I hope we should all be able to agree on this point) to aggressively enforce one's own preference upon a particular article, especially in contravention of existing MOS; in other words, we shouldn't repeatedly remove information from an article if that information is explicitly allowed by official policies or guidelines unless there's clear proof of detriment to the article by following said policy/guideline. Specifically speaking, since I'm the one who brought this up and am looking for some sort of resolution to a current dispute, Meet the Parents will not suffer from an over crowded infobox if UK and Australia/New Zealand release dates are listed as per current MOS wording. Disagreements with current MOS wordings — which this clearly is the case — should be brought up at policy level before tackling individual articles. Big Bird (talk • contribs
) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes are supposed to summarize information about a film, so we have to be reasonable about what to include. I'm not sure why the release dates of Meet the Parents in Australia and the UK need to be mentioned in the infobox. We have the article body in which we can mention specific release dates that aren't important enough to include in the infobox's summary of details.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here; just because release dates exist don't mean that we should include them arbitrarily. A twist on the example is The Proposition; while it got popular in the United States, it is an Australian film, and the Australian release date is enough. The guidelines do need to be updated; I intend to centralize guidelines for the parameters at the infobox's documentation subpage (as the redundancy has been pointed out). In whatever update we devise, the emphasis should be on keeping such details on the shortlist, like we do not want to mention every actor in the film in the infobox. I'm touch-and-go this week, but just wanted to share my thoughts here. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 10:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Would be easier if we avoid a list format? As Erik touched on, it really depends on the film on which dates should be in the infobox. In your opinion, Big Bird, why do you think UK and AUS, NZ release dates should be included in the infobox? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think that it is a must that the dates be in the infobox but I do find it more disruptive to repeatedly remove them despite policy allowing them.
The reason I believe that they should be included is that the UK and Australia/New Zealand have 58 million and 20 million native English speakers respectively. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I find it to be an important piece of information for those approzimately 80 million readers who might look up a certain film article.
Either way this is looked at, I think a certain amount of disagreement is always going to exist, I concede that. But I do have a problem with the aggressive manner in which this info was repeatedly removed from Meet the Parents due to what is now clear to be a misunderstanding or disagreement with policy. I've never been the one to use the
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but I find it entirely appropriate to use the above example of FA-class articles because our ultimate (although unlikely to ever be reached) goal should be to bring every article to FA status or close to it. If it's good enough for the FAs, it most certainly should be good enough for the sub-FA material. I'm not advocating adding such dates to each and every FA and non-FA article; quite to the contrary, I believe that such information is not harmful — however helpful or unhelpful its presence may be cosidered — and aggressive pursuit for its removal is not in the best interest of the project. All of the above mentioned FA articles are likely to watchlisted by multiple editors who would not agree to the removal of these release dates. I, clearly, have Meet the Parents watchlisted because I've expanded it from a stub to a B-class article and am attempting a final push towards it making GA status sometime soon. In it's expansion, I've followed the example of several of these FAs and have not found the extra information harmful. Big Bird (talk • contribs
) 13:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that a simplier change to actually meet what has been stated before would be to change "Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases." to "Its first theatrical release date in one of the majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases." or something like that. --
talk · contribs
) 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is already so cluttered it doesn't need numerous release dates in it. A showing at a film festival isn't a theatrical release. If it premiered at Sundance or Cannes that should be mentioned in the article. The date that should be used in the infobox is the first theatrical release date in an English-speaking country and the theatrical release date in the country of origin if it is different. If a UK film opens in the US first, list that date first, then follow it with the UK release date because that's the country where it was made. If an Australian film opens in Australia first, list only that date. Adding dates for Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc to articles about films that weren't made there doesn't make any sense to me. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between limited and later wide releases in the infobox. I feel that type of information can be mentioned within the text with an explanation as to why the initial release was limited, if it is pertinent, i.e. "It initially opened on Christmas Day in New York City and Los Angeles in order to qualify for Academy Award consideration" or "Hillbilly Honeymoon was given a limited release in rural areas in the South to gauge audience reaction before opening wide in major cities where the subject matter might be of less interest to the movie-going public" (with such statements properly referenced, of course). P.S. No offense to either honeymooning hillbillies or residents of rural areas in the South is intended! :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Big Bird, I did stop and continued to discuss it with you. Notice I haven't changed it since then. It is clear that there is a disagreement about this policy so that should be the subject of this conversation.
So, if I read the past few posts correctly, we should include in the infobox the first wide release of a majority English-speaking country only. Should we include the release of the country of the film as well? And what if a film doesn't attain a wide release anywhere; just does the film festival circuit without being picked up? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't stop and you did continue. This is the last edit on that article with regards to this issue which is a revert you made incorrectly citing
WP:FILMRELEASE as official document per which you made the revert. Big Bird (talk • contribs
) 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to revert it back, I'm not going to change it again until a consensus is reached. Reverting twice is not against the rules. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(Response to comments above) Again, I still don't see why we need the first release date from an English-speaking country. For a French film that premiered in France, why is a release date from the UK or US (or other) relevant? PC78 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since this has been a discussion about style guidelines, I'm going to take it the discussion here for more opinions. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil Cinema

Hi i am added new task force for Sri lankan Tamil cinema, as am quite new to here, please help me to work better here.--BlueLankan 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

please add Sri Lankan Tamil cinema task force to the list. --BlueLankan 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Italics in article titles

{{italic title}} was created so titles of articles about films, plays, books, TV shows, etc could be italicized but I don't see it being used. Is there a reason for that? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus that special formatting is necessary or desired. See Template talk:Italic title. Powers T 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with such italics, though I was wondering why WikiProject Films was not notified. I recall the proposal being mentioned here some time ago, but I don't remember any links to widespread discussion. Do we need to form a community consensus for it? The italics can't apply universally, though... short films use quotation marks, not italics. Formats like these we'll need to discuss. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no community consensus for doing that sort of thing, and I'd hope there never is. There is a huge RfC about it been going on for weeks now. --
talk · contribs
) 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the rationale against it? If we had this feature around since the beginning of Wikipedia, it doesn't seem like it would be a big deal. After all, we italicize the film titles throughout the bodies of their articles, so why not the header, too? Is it a problem with its universal application? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally would be against titling the headers as that's the name of the article and not the name of the subject if that makes sense. I also find it visually distracting. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but film titles are frequently (though not always) italicized in titles of publications and in their tables of content and their chapter titles and their indexes. I think it's only visually distracting because we're not used to it... if it was around since the beginning of Wikipedia, it'd be inconsequential to us. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Short summary: aesthetic (people find it ugly), incorrect use of italics (article titles are the titles of articles, no tthe title of the work itself so should not be in italics), not consistent with conventions in most print encyclopedias, poor execution of an idea (if it is how it should be, and many feel this should be addressed at the software level and behind the scenes than with a template "hack"). See
talk · contribs
) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
An excellent summary, Collectonian. Powers T 11:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

List of similarities/differences between a remake and the original film

In the article about the film

WP:MOSFILM (4.4.5) such sections should not be created and particular differences/similarities should be mentioned only in context: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." - wrong? Shahid • Talk2me
14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your removal is correct. It is unsourced OR and inappropriate content. --
talk · contribs
) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the removal. It's indiscriminate to list such differences, and it enters the realm of synthesis if there is an argument to tie such differences to the article's mentioned concerns of plagiarism. We editors have no idea what scenes are suspected to be similar or not. If anything, there should be examples from secondary sources backing the accusations and not just our own take on it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Future film

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib
) 12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting to withdraw. There was a follow-up discussion to the consensus to deprecate (which I completely missed), so this template will be addressed later on when discussion on widespread action is taken. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If nothing else, this did bring to my attention the creation of {{Future film section}} which is contrary to what we agreed on for {{Future film}}. It was only being used in two places so I've removed it and redirected. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On this day...

Since the people who prepare the main page of Wikipedia didn't think it was important enough to mention, I would like to note that on this day in 1939 The Wizard of Oz was released! 63.3.15.129 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's not too late to include it, though I don't know which page to discuss this. Is anyone familiar with doing this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd suspect it wasn't included because it isn't listed at
talk · contribs
) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
According to The Wizard of Oz: The Official 50th Anniversary Pictorial History, the film opened on August 12 at the Strand Theatre in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. The five-day engagement was advertised locally as the "World Premier Showing." The Hollywood premiere was on August 15. On August 17, it opened in Spirit Lake, Iowa (!) and New York City. It went into national release on August 25. MovieMadness (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has to be said. "I can while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain. And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain." There. I feel better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Budget and revenue for Donnie Darko

Resolved

Greetings film buffs,

An IP has pointed out that our article on Donnie Darko gives two different figures for both budget and revenue ([20]). Different websites give different figures and I don't know what's a reliable source for this kind of information, so I thought I'd seek help here.

Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The 4.5 million is sourced to a fansite. That's not a reliable source, so it should be removed. Box Office Mojo lists the $6 million amount. They also only list a worldwide total of $1,270,522. I don't know where the 4 million gross is coming from. It appears that the infobox is reflecting BOM, while the other is reflecting that fansite.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I realised the existing source was inadequate, I just didn't know what a reliable source would be. I've just found
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Resources which supports your implication that BOM is considered reliable, so I'll update Donnie Darko accordingly. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs
) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Going by these edits by an IP, $4.5 million is quoted by the director on the Director's Cut DVD commentary. The-numbers.com also supports the $4.5 million figure. Any thoughts on how to proceed here? Should we take the director's word for it? Perhaps the article should simply state the film was made on a low budget, with a footnote stating that different sources give different figures. It would be good to get this right, since Donnie Darko seems well-known as an excellent film made with a low budget. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It just means that more reliable sources exist. I typically take a director's/producer's word over a website, because it's "from the horse's mouth". If the DVD commentary says that, then cite the DVD commentary using
Template:Cite video. BOM, for me, is a reliable source but also a last resort if you cannot find a source that quotes someone specific directly. Go with the 4.5 mill budget, but use the cite video template to cite the DVD commentary (though, if you have the commentary, I would suggest verifying it for yourself and not taking the word of the IP). Or, just use The-Numbers. If you look at the list of resources you provided, they are considered reliably just like BOM. Plus, it seems that The-Numbers has the international gross as well, which is where that 4 million in worldwide gross came from apparently. If I don't have personal responses to verify my numbers, and I'm down to picking between either BOM or The-Numbers, then I usually go with whoever has more detail. Here, The-Numbers has the international box office, while BOM didn't have it. So, to be on the safe side, I would cite the commentary for the budget, but "The-Numbers.com" for the worldwide gross.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Donnie Darko Book also states a budget of $4.5 million. ...So that's three for $4.5 million and one for $6 million. -
talk
) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for the prompt and sensible responses. I don't have the DVD, though I have no reason to doubt the IP, especially given the other two sources. I'll follow Bignole's suggestions. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series by number of entries

I have just nominated these categories at

over-categorisation: the discussion is here. I wondered who best to notify, and thought this was probably the best place. --RobertG ♬ talk
12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scream 2

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for this sort of help but hopefully there is a quick fix here. A user with a long history of vandalism has recently made a minor change to Scream 2 which does look plausible but then I have never seen the film, given the editor's background could somebody have a quick look and ensure his edit is correct? RaseaC (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address it, though I have not seen the film in a long time. The removal seems to go against the plot summary. Anyone else able to verify the edits made about the characters? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a quick look on the internet and it does seem to be BS and this vandal is particularly persistent (his first edit was about two years ago and he's spent more than half that time blocked) RaseaC (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_26&oldid=1136052365"