Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 29

I did not have any luck finding a source, either. I checked my university databases and even ran the awards page's URL through the Internet Archive and nada. If it is not possible to verify, it should not be included. Erik (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also checked through my university database and was unable to find anything. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks guys. But how can one work up a featured list candidate when one can't find sources!!??! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can contact the PFCS and see if they have any records of the nominations/wins. It's possible that they collected some news articles announcing their reception of the film. It never hurts to ask and sometimes you get lucky. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine is your friend. Here is a list of the 2002 PFCS Awards wins and nominations, from what was (but is no longer) the society's official website. Gangs of New York was nominated for several, but didn't win any by the looks of it. Steve ^T • C 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bless your pea-pickin' little heart, Steve. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on the

Can someone point me to possible discussion over the use of

I found the discussion

here. Is this something that we believe in? Should every single actor who has worked in a certain country have links to every cinema article in them? Or do we let POV decide who we let in to the exclusive "important" category? Or do we scrap them linking to actors and films altogether? BOVINEBOY2008 :)

05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I must be really stupid, but I had to google that term. I don't even know if I cam remember how to spell it on any future articles. What was wrong with Awards? Honors? Nominations? —Mike Allen 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussed

here. Doniago (talk

) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm opposed to "List of accolades" as unencylopedically flowery in general. But imagine a list of "Worst" awards. "Accolades for The Creeping Terror". Just one more problem with this one-size-fits-all mentality, I think... But "Consensus" (3 or 4 editors who gave input here) has spoken, and the whole world of film must now figure out how to deal with it... Dekkappai (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai, I am glad you are coming here more often, but please assume good faith about editors' actions with which you may not agree. It does not help anyone or anything when you deride something like this batch of moves. All one can do is make a strong case for a particular approach and let the consensus form. We have all had our ideas or preferences shot down, but it is best to go on building the encyclopedia and perhaps revisit the consensus of such a topic on a later date. Erik (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Erik so should all "List of award and nominations [...]" be renamed to Accolades? —Mike Allen 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a compelling reason not to, it seems appropriate. I originally suggested "Awards and honors" but "Accolades" seems to be the more preferred term. There may be some cases where "Accolades" does not work but the cases would be for sections, not lists. Dekkappai has a point about "Accolades" for a film that is widely panned, but I am not sure if there are any instances of such a film that would warrant a separate list. The section in a widely panned film's article could be named to something less congratulatory-sounding, perhaps, listing the "negative" awards. The overwhelming majority of films that have separate lists for accolades will be critically acclaimed films. There are not enough "negative" awards for a separate list. Erik (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik-- Glad you're glad I'm poking my nose in here more often-- the reason is, though I'm averse to the rule-making, I find my own work off in the hinterlands of cinema to be affected by what goes on here... About the AGF warning... sorry, but I can't see the bad faith I've assumed. I simply don't like the "Accolade" heading/title-- and I get the impression Mike doesn't either. I prefer a more neutral description. Also, I'm generally dubious of efforts to standardize things like this that don't always need standardizing. If you want to see a real assumption of bad faith, I'm sure I can dig up some diffs of mine. Nothing but good faith was meant by this one. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(Oops-- that's me, Dekkappai, under my "clean" name for editing in Japanese subjects-- working on the

Tora-san series at the moment.) Otis Criblecoblis (talk

) 01:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Erik, so should the awards and nominations/honors sections within the articles also simply be titled Accolades? You already did so for the

I'll take that as a no and change that Avatar section back to Awards and honors then.

talk

) 01:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Soundtracks/scores are something that we've touched on briefly in the past but don't really have strong guidelines on. Recently, I have been merging some stub soundtrack articles back into the main film article, but after a few editors opposed the moves, I'd like to determine if it is a good idea to be pulling the film and soundtrack together in one article. It has been pointed out that if the soundtrack has placed on a chart (such as

For example,

Deep Blue Sea and Gone in 60 Seconds are stubs, but both have made it to the Billboard charts, which warrants them both a separate article, although it may be difficult to expand them. As for 187, I guess it could go into the film's article, being that it did not chart in the US and I have no idea if it charted in another country. But it would be easier to expand other soundtracks like Men in Black: The Album, #1 in the US which went 3x platinum, Wild Wild West (soundtrack), #4 in the US which went 2x platinum and spawned a #1 hit with the title song, The Nutty Professor (soundtrack), #8 in the US, platinum certification, 4 charting singles and the list goes on and on. The thing is a soundtrack album is related to a film (OR TV show OR Video game) but a separate piece of work.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the fact that a soundtrack is notable necessitate a separate article for it? I suppose I'm thinking in terms of

WP:SS, but I would think that if the information can be included in the film's article without making it too long, or being able to break off the section into something long enough for it's own article (that is, longer than a stub), it would make more sense to keep it as a section in the film's article. Of course, if enough information is gathered later, then by all means make a separate article. But better to have it included in an FA on the film than to exist as a stub on its own, in my opinion (see Branded to Kill). —Akrabbim^talk

04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But for the vast majority of movies, the soundtrack isn't any more notable than, say, the editing, the titles, the special effects, the color grading, etc. In some cases those merit an article section, perhaps even an article. But by-and-large, as an acquaintance who has scored a few films said, "If the music draws attention away from the movie, it's failed." That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that, but again they are exceptions. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Start writing about the soundtrack in the main film article. When/if the writing/sourcing on the soundtrack grows beyond the bounds of a reasonable film article, then break it away. Dekkappai (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this view. If a soundtrack made the Billboard chart, but that's about it, and there is little actual content to go with it beyond that, merging to the film article is appropriate as it is generally an integral part of the film itself and not a wholly separate item. --

talk · contribs

) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO, if the soundtrack is notable in its own right, then it should have an article (no matter how small). This will then (hopefully!) encourage editors to expand that as a standalone article, maybe from projects outside of WP:FILM. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I disagree with that. I should stress that this is my personal opinion, rather than that of the community, whose policies and guidelines tend to back you up. I've said this a bunch of times before, but where I'm coming from is that,

WP:UNDUE permitting, if a parent article has more than enough room to accommodate the material, that's where it's best placed. Not for editors, not to conform to policy, not because a topic deserves its own article, but for the reader, for whom the wider context of the parent article will allow the material to be better presented, understood and valued. So, while most of these articles "deserve" (whatever the hell that means) their own articles, my recommendation is for editors to think twice before spinning them off, and maybe even try a few bold merges to create more comprehensive parent articles (accompanied of course by more targeted redirects). And think of it this way, someone is far less likely to read The Nutty Professor (soundtrack) than they are The Nutty Professor (1996 film); as an editor, if you've written something, surely you'd want the text you've written to be exposed to the widest possible audience? All the best! Steve ^T • C

10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has good arguments either way. While I usually tend to merge soundtrack articles to film articles, I think that there is a very valid point behind the idea that film soundtracks can be separately consumed media. We are used to the notion that these soundtracks complement films, but they can also be enjoyed on their own. If a soundtrack appears on the charts, it seems to be a strong indicator of its popularity as its own element. At the same time, though, the soundtrack is composed to work with the film (usually), so details of the composition fit in the film article's context. See why I agree with everyone? I think that if a soundtrack has chart appearances, we need to more strongly consider the possibility of a stand-alone article for it. Maybe we are being too averse to stubby notability when we should not be... just because a certain topic has been recognized fairly well in its respective sphere does not mean we will always be able to write at length about it. Sometimes such topics remain skeletal even as they tout chart appearances. Erik (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But as Piano non troppo said, many soundtracks may only chart because of the popularity of their respective movie, so sales don't necessarily indicate the actual importance of the soundtrack outside the sphere of the movie. A separate article should be considered based on the amount that can be or is written about the soundtrack, not just because it hit the charts (for the most part). —Akrabbim^talk 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a good point as well. For the reader, why make them go off to a stub article just to read the soundtrack was released, made billboard, and maybe a tracklisting (which for most instrumental scores, tends to have little meaning outside of the context of the film). So many times people are eager to shout "its notable, so it should have an article" without stopping to remember that just because it meets the minimal requirements for notability doesn't mean that having a standalone article is in the best interests of the topic nor the readers. --

talk · contribs

) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really is a change of current practice, rather clarifying and codifying what is the actual current practice. Many soundtrack albums are merged to their respective film, television, and anime articles. It is the consensus of other projects, and really,

talk · contribs

) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that merging is not deleting but material merged into the film article is subject to the possibility of removal from the same article should a discussion determine that it doesn't fit for some reason. With its prior stand-alone article now a redirect, the material is lost, for all intents and purposes, to revision history. I do concur that consensus overrides guidelines and two independently notable subjects can be merged into one article if the community decides to do so. However, I don't think that we should try to generalize and standardize the practice of merging soundtrack stubs into film articles on the basis that we consider them too small; that's what a stub is. It may really depend on where one stands in the deletionist vs inclusionist spectrum (I'm not always sure where I stand) but I personally think that an article should be allowed to stand alone and be expanded if it meets the relevant notability criteria. Consideration for the material in an article on a soudtrack album needs to be extended to include the recording artist as well. Merging a soundtrack with a film article would mean that a) the same material should be copied for a second time to the main article on the contributing recording artist or b) a reader looking for information on someone's contribution to a soundtrack album would be redirected into the middle of a film article. While merging stub soundtracks into film articles would benefit us in our project, I don't find such an arrangement beneficial to the rest of Wikipedia, specifically the recording artists' articles as mentioned above. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think the inclusionist/deletionist argument applies. That question is not whether information should be present, not whether it should be as a section or a stand-alone article. And why would you need a duplicate section absolutely added to the recording artist's page? If the information improves the artist's article, then sure, per

WP:SS, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the artist the same it applies to the film. As for the revision history, none of the information is completely lost - if consensus changes or whatever we can always get it back. And I don't see how redirects pointing to a section in the film's article is not "beneficial to the rest of Wikipedia". —Akrabbim^talk

16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a soundtrack and every other notable album? How do these soundtrack not pass wikiproject:album if they clearly have made it to several charts around the world and been certified gold, platinum oe multi-platinum just like any other studio or compilation album. The only difference is that soundtrack features music from or inspired by a particular film. No one on this talk page or anywhere else can say that albums like the American Music Award winning Men in Black: The Album, Godzilla: The Album, Life (soundtrack), the American Music Award winning Wild Wild West (soundtrack) or the Bad Boys (soundtrack) that spawned a Grammy nominated song.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No is talking about merging those soundtracks, which are clearly notable and have more than enough material to support a standalone article. We are specifically talking about the standard, generic soundtrack whose only hint of notability might be that it hit the Billboard charts once. If it won major awards like that, obviously there will be tons of sources to make a full, standalone article beyond just release dates, track listing, and "hey, it hit the billboard for a week". --

talk · contribs

) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Akrabbim, what I mean by being "beneficial to the rest of Wikipedia" is that I don't think it's beneficial for an article about a recording artist to have a link to the middle of a film article if the reader is thinking they are going to be redirected to an article about an album. Don't misunderstand me, I understand that nothing is lost per se if removed from an article and that it can always be restored from revision history or by reinstating the album article from a simple redirect. My point is that, in the normal process of editing, material merged from the stand-alone article into the film article can be removed by consensus or otherwise altered that it makes it increasingly more difficult to link from the recording artist's article to the place in Wikipedia where a reader can find information about this artist's contribution to a soundtrack album. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally against merging if a stand-alone article already exists, because it's highly likely that that article has, or could have more information than the parent article-- the film article here. As I implied above, my way of working is to gather my sources, write an article, and then if one section over-grows the topic, summarize it in the main one, and then branch it out to its own article. (I've got a couple film articles in which the director has his own subsection because I haven't found enough info on him yet to start a healthy article, and only one film by him.) Working the other way-- merging existing articles-- is iffy unless it is a genuine stub with no more info than could be logically contained in one section of a larger article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So when you merge a soundtrack article to its parent article, do you bring over the album cover image if it has one? Also do you request a speedy deletion for the article or just redirect to the Soundtrack section of the parent article? Thanks. —Mike Allen 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether the cover should be added to the merged article, or whether you bring the whole infobox over, I think should be determined on a case-by-case basis. There isn't any reason to delete the page, since the content isn't being removed, just moved. Treat it like a regular

merge, and leave a redirect. —Akrabbim^talk

20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you do not speedy delete the article, as it was merged. Per GFDL the redirect must remain (and the edit summary must indicate the target of the merge). In general, the soundtrack cover should not be included, unless its inclusion can be supported with a rock solid FUR. Most Soundtrack covers are just a variety of the poster, so its usually unnecessary to have it. --

talk · contribs

) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. —Mike Allen 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think we're talking about two separate things when we're talking about soundtracks. There's the soundtrack we hear when watching the film. The instrumentation, musical themes, how it relates to the film, the composer's interaction with the other filmmakers in the development of the score, etc.-- that all belongs in the film article, I think. It's a rare film score that is significant enough to carry its own article (though they do exist-- Psycho for example)... Then-- separately from the soundtrack/score-- there are the soundtrack album release(s)-- which is what most people seem to be talking about here. Personally, I don't consider these part of the film. They are separate releases, separate entities and deserve consideration of any other album release. If there is not enough info on the soundtrack album release for its own article, then discussion of it can go in the film article until there is. But I think of this something like having a separate infobox and section on a sequel or remake of the film within the article of the main film. I've seen this done, but I think it's just a temporary measure until that other entity is sourced well enough for a stand-alone article. (For example, the CD releases and track listings at the Psycho article don't belong there, in my opinion. Only a discussion of Herrmann's score-- which is what we hear in the film. The album release(s) deserve discussion in a separate article if there is enough material for that. Herrmann's score is significant enough and has created enough writing to support its own article, and the album releases would go well there.) Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: The film article should be about the film. The soundtrack is part of the film. The soundtrack LP/tape/CD album release is not, and deserves consideration like any other musical recording release. It has about as much relationship to the film as the book on which the film is based. Could we put a "Film" subsection in an article on the book? Sure. But it should be a summary, or just temporary until the film gets its own article. If there is not enough info on the soundtrack release(s) to support a separate article, it can go in the film article, but this should always be seen as temporary (even if it's permanently temporary). With all due respects to this fine article, I think the Branded to Kill example shows just what a Soundtrack section should not be. It says nothing about the soundtrack's place in the film, instead discussing a CD released 40 years after the film, track listings and all. Dekkappai (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "why not" Isn't this all about "Information at your finger tips ?".

talk

) 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A response :) Sure-- I'm not saying delete all sountrack recording info from the film articles. Just saying that if they can support their own articles, that's where they should go. Discussion of the actual film soundtrack-- how it works in the film, its development/composition process, its musical themes/development, criticism (of the music, that is, not the CD), etc. That's what belongs in the film article. And it's a rare soundtrack (not music release) which needs its own article, but they do exist. Dekkappai (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Piano non Troppo's retracted comment: Yes, remixes, re-arrangements, covers, etc. those all belong in a separate article on the soundtrack (if it warrants one), or (more likely) the soundtrack album release. A discussion of a musical release of the re-arranged, re-recorded score would be of such tangential relationship to the film we'd probably (rightly) delete it from the film article, But it would be relevant to a discussion of the history of recordings/audio releases of the soundtrack. Dekkappai (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If I might simplify my point one notch further:

1. A film's soundtrack (i.e., soundtrack, not an album release) is as integral part of a film as editing, directing, cinematography, etc., and should be part of the film article. In exceptional cases (e.g., Psycho), a soundtrack has inspired enough commentary to merit a stand-alone article.
2. A film's soundtrack recording release(s) are not part of the film. They are separate entities, releases of musical recordings, and deserve the same treatment any other musical release. Only if they do not merit a stand-alone article should they be shoehorned into a film article.

Sorry if I'm beating this logical dead horse, but I'd think it would merit some consideration after a lot of opinions stated, apparently, only on personal preference. As for the argument that some film-soundtrack-albums are successful only as a tie-in to the film: We, as editors, are not here to make that judgement. I, personally, think that the "success" of 99.99% of popular music albums in the past 60 years is due to mainly extra-musical reasons. But that's my own opinion, and I won't go around merging articles albums into larger articles simply because of that. Dekkappai (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

About Branded to Kill, you say the "Soundtrack" section is such a section that should not be. Do you think that it should be its own soundtrack article? The availability of the content suggests that it may not merit a stand-alone article, so how should the so-called shoehorning work? Erik (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Perhaps I don't make myself clear. I do believe in "Soundtrack" sections, and I think Branded to Kill should have one. (To be fair to Doc Sunshine, who did a great job on this article, I only picked Branded to Kill because it was used as an example above. It's a 50-year-old Japanese film, and information on the soundtrack per se is going to be extremely difficult to find, the CD info takes its place in this case. My objection is to using this as a model of what a "Soundtrack" section should look like.) I think "Soundtrack" sections should discuss the film's soundtrack, not CD releases-- except in passing to link to a main article on such releases. (For a widely-recorded soundtrack like Psycho, the original release, plus the history of the score in later significant performances/recordings/releases-- which, surely, we can agree is out-of-place in the film article?) Those releases should have their own articles if they merit them. When I want to read about a film, a track listing for a CD is not what I expect to see. I'd expect a discussion of the soundtrack, a mention of a major CD release, and a link to the article with detailed info on that release. Wiki-society being what it is, apparently a stand-alone article on the Branded to Kill CD, with details like the track-listing, won't pass AfD, so it gets shoe-horned here-- inappropriately, I think. But again-- this probably needs stressing-- I am not advocating the mass-deletion of information on film music album releases. If it can't have its own article, then putting it in the film's article is a 2nd-best choice. Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the last time I start a discussion before going to bed and work (and maybe a Lost premiere), I'm surprised at the amount of reaction to the topic. The opinions here seem to follow two thought processes as initially brought up at the start:

• Keep all soundtracks in their own separate articles (if they meet notability requirements), whether they're a stub or developed article. Arguments for state that the soundtrack is a separate piece of work (like any music album) and it leaves the potential for readers/editors to want to expand the article from its stub state.
• Merge stub soundtracks into film articles if the film article has no size limits. Arguments for the merging are that the soundtrack is a part of the film, that the brief amount of information available for soundtracks can be sufficiently covered in the article, and it will allow readers to see the soundtrack within the film article who may not click through to the soundtrack.

This seems to be the two main thought processes (please correct me if I'm wrong). It appears that at the dawn of the great history of film article editing on Wikipedia, several soundtracks were split off due to size or stand alone notability requirements. Other editors who saw one split off soundtrack, assumed that all soundtracks should be split off, and proceeded to do so. Editors against the splits are merging them into the original film article, creating a cycle of going back and forth. Do we leave it as it is, with assorted soundtracks sitting in their own brief articles with the possibility of expansion (Wikipedia's going to be around a long time, so this is possible as maybe new sources arise) or do we actually develop strict/basic guidelines for how music should be covered in the film articles?

If we were to have more developed guidelines, our FAs have a variety of ways of covering the soundtracks of film articles, mainly due to each editor(s)' desire for the section and few clear examples of how it should best be handled.

All the above aside, I'm a case-by-case guy. An ideal film article (with all the sourcing imaginable available), in my mind, would have a soundtrack section, which would link to the stand-alone album(s) article. Until the article achieves that perfect state though, various in-between stages are perfectly acceptable (to me). Dekkappai (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a fixed grin on my face regarding Nehrams2020's summary of the next time he/she is going to start a discussion before bedtime. Methinks that, alone, is sufficient reason to do it again. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in no way involved in this project, but there's something I think you should be notified of. As far as I can tell, your main infobox is {{Infobox film}}, but Vilnisr has created {{Infobox Movies}}, which I think is their variation of the same thing. Someone might want to check it out before more people start using it accidentally. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The editor added the infobox to the Stargate films, and I've reverted him. Not sure why the editor wants to circumvent the {{Infobox film}} template. Maybe for the sake of a color bar in the infobox? Erik (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

whats the problem with infobox? its looks and organozed better, what is the reason of this? i dont see the reason why {{Infobox film}}stay and{{Infobox Movies}} don't! Vilnisr (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason to adopt a new infobox? On first reading, I don't see any particular advantages to using the alternate form. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

There is no valid reason to make another infobox, and just because you personally think it looks better and is better organized does not make it true. The film infobox was created from numerous discussions with many editors experienced in film articles, and reflects the consensus of the community as to what is appropriate content for the infobox, how it should be laid out, etc. Your copy is not even that much different, just with more garish colors and inappropriate use of flagicons. Further, Stargate is not special. It does not "deserve", need, nor warrant its own special infobox that is no different from the main one other than a poor choice of colors. If you feel the real infobox template can be improve, then properly start a discussion at its talk page with your suggestions. --

talk · contribs

) 14:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"personally think it looks better and is better organized does not make it true", let people to choose and we'll see. p.s. {{Infobox film}} is completely unorganized, want to improve > go to infobox televisionVilnisr (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Creating a separate infobox is not the answer. We should start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film about what you think could be improved. Erik (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the question is changing the parameters of the current infobox, you may have to set up a discourse on the appropriate forum to clearly outline the reasons for change. Regardless, there does not appear to be any inherent advantages to the new format and my vote is essentially cast in retaining the present infobox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

and again {{

Infobox VG}}, both are ugly, these templates stuck this way for a long time, want to improve > go to infobox television and take a look, and about discussions, one user vs 5 admins, sure you will listen Vilnisr (talk

) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. i made template not only for stargate Vilnisr (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See my earlier comments, and try to use "string" replies. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And your attempt at making your own personal video game infobox was also quickly opposed by the video game project. And, FYI, I am in the Television project as well and its infobox is not magically better organized (its actually rather in need of clean out, and both use the same core code/fonts. I'd also encourage you to watch the

talk · contribs

) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See above. Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont see the reason to have different codes, and about to get glasses its not about disagree or other users, but about text size, its TOO large Vilnisr (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its too large? Maybe you should check your monitor and browser settings or something. The font size is no larger than the standard text here. Its actually 10% smaller. If you think its too large, that would indicate an issue with your system, not the need to go make your own personal one with different font sizes. --

talk · contribs

) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, Vilnisr, tens of thousands of editors have tens of thousands of personal opinions on what looks better or nicer. Since we all have to work together on one project, compromises must be made to benefit Wikipedia and its readers, not our own personal preferences. Changes on a large scale are made by engaging in discussion before making such changes. True, these discussions will not always bring about the result that you may desire but that certainly does not give us the licence to do freely as we wish. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, please work with us, not against us. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Succinct and diplomatically stated, thanks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Hmm, the temp has been terminated, so I can't judge it. Vilnisr, it sounds like you have your browser font size increased, perhaps you did it before you got the glasses and never changed it back. If you're using Firefox go to View → Zoom and then click Reset. Personally I don't see why any colors should be added to the infobox, and can you elaborate on what is not organized? It looks like it's in good order to me. —Mike Allen 00:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if this project has ever been featured in the

To some degree, but not as a project as a whole.

talk · contribs

) 00:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was doing some searching for a project featured in the WikiProject report. Toodaloo,

Belugaboy535136 ^contribs

01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like they violating the terms of use for content[2] so they should be sent a

talk · contribs

) 18:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Would like to see what the response from Empire is. And remind them of the First Rule of Fight Club in the violation letter... Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Collectonian. I submitted the GFDL violation letter to them through the comment page. I would email them directly but cannot find a specific email address to use. I think what makes this situation unfortunate is that it is a feature article by Empire. Like here, we see comments like "Excellent feature Empire!" and "Great article Empire." The latter commenter even said, "I think it is definitely worth considering this as a regular column every issue; to tell the story of a film being made, beginning to end and how it was finally considered." Excuse me, that's what we at WikiProject Films have been trying to do, in encyclopedia form. :P Erik (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those. I was tempted to register and leave a comment about how the kudos should go to the editors at Wikipedia versus the so called author who plagiarized :-P --

talk · contribs

) 19:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the magazine and under their contact details they give their email address as "[email protected]". I like Empire, they gave me a free holiday to Cannes a few years ago, and another time they gave me some free videos. It's a shame if this is true, and most likely the doing of a lazy journalist rather the magazine itself. If you don't get a satisfactory response my advice would be to register for their forum and post a message in the section dedicated to the magazine because their writers often respond to questions and concerns online. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the email address! I will send the GFDL violation letter to it, too. I will obviously update everyone about the outcome of this situation. Erik (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. It almost makes us think that you got a hold of this article before printing and used it to create a great FA... It definitely would have been better for them to credit Wikipedia for the content. Although, because the article is so well-sourced, they could argue that they researched the sources themselves to write the article. But I would be very surprised if that was the case and they didn't use Wikipedia as a starting point. Now we have to ask if this would be a reliable source for adding to the article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The first comment I submitted to Empire (before the letters) was a link to the Wikipedia article from October 2008, a year before the film's 10th anniversary, containing the information in the Empire article. In addition, I don't think it's possible to argue that they did the research themselves... nowhere else is the same information compiled about the film, especially in such a consistent manner. I don't think it is a usable reference because the referencing is circuitous and thus invalid. Erik (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know we can't use it as a source, I was just kidding. That's the hard part about sourcing articles on here. If we find an unreliable source to cite something, it may be picked up by a reliable source, so that when we do search for a more reliable source we may unintentionally use something like this. Fortunately, Fight Club is in such good shape we wouldn't have to worry about that. Definitely keep us posted on their response. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No response from Empire and no change to the online article. I'm going to send a followup. I ask others to send a standard license violation letter to [email protected] or via contact page. Use this as your template. Erik (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I've seen some of my pink film work pop up uncredited in the Extras on DVDs or on DVD covers. (And Marty Scorsese used a bit of my work on Kim Ki-young here, though he gives credit.) I just take it as a compliment. Far as I'm concerned, this is a hobby, and I've done the work for the free use of anyone who wishes to partake in the little bit of the "sum of human knowledge" to which I've contributed. If someone's going to slap wrists or sue, it's whoever is in charge of Wikipedia. And I'll be damned if I can figure out who that is... Dekkappai (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The practice of lifting WP material uncredited by publications is really a poor reflection on the publication, not really a WP issue. As Dekkappai points out, we do the work here for free, for anyone's use. As a teacher, I struggle daily with students not crediting sources (or worse) when using WP and other sites, and if the Empire writer is using too much of the WP article and creating the perception it is her own product, then that's an issue between her and her employer and its readers. By notifying Empire, what we are doing is alerting it to potential unprofessional behavior of one of its staff. It is up to them to take appropriate action and readers can judge for themselves. It's not really a WP issue per se.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you had any reply Eric? --BelovedFreak 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not heard anything from them. Not sure if my messages were lost in the shuffle or if they just want to avoid dealing with the issue. Erik (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox film#Unhelpful language linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Now while I agree that linking to English language might not be that helpful, having 3 users agree and for the change to happen within 11 hours is exactly what other people have said about a "consensus" on here... Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This. While I also agree, if people expect consensus to be taken seriously, give at least enough time for full discussion before enacting it. --

talk · contribs

) 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In aid of that process, I simplified the verb tenses. They weren't consistent, and were unnecessarily complicated.

The hidden comment about IMBb being unreliable ... it usually *is* considered reliable for certain things such as actor's TV and movie appearances.

The information about 3D needs to be collected in one place (and not repeated). Piano non troppo (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting, I'm confused about the verb tenses, especially when the it's in the middle of being filmed, so I didn't know if "will be" was appropriate for the directing, "was" since it already been written, and "will star" since they haven't starred yet. The thing about the IMDb in this instance is, official casting details have not been announced yet (for the minor characters), and probably won't until the summer, early fall. Some names were added just last month to IMDb, which turned out to be false. When official casting is announced, then I would feel comfortable adding them in, while including the source(s). When the film is released, then sources are really not needed in the cast list (well the cast list will probably be removed all together), and then can go by IMDb. :-) —Mike Allen 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My 2-cents about a future film/GA review: Personally, I wouldn't put a future film through the GA process. I'd wait till after the release, at which time much more info will come out, and the article will be greatly changed/expanded. After that work had been done, I'd think about GA. There's lots of other work that can be done in the meantime, no rush. Dekkappai (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and IPs/users that keep adding unsourced information; I have a feeling it's going to be time consuming keeping the article clean. Once IPs go at it, they just won't stop and that's one thing a GA grades for. Also, what about the Horror and Toronto project, aren't you "supposed" to go through them to get assessed or if one project grades, then it's obviously the same for all projects (same guidelines for all)? —Mike Allen 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one to ask about policy/procedure-- one of the others can give better advice in that area. But what I've done in my limited experience with GA/FA is to ask a trusted editor (one who has a lot of experience with GA/FA review) to go through it before submitting it... I actually find ISPs pretty easy to deal with. Once I've got an article pretty well set (all sourced, I mean), if anything unsourced is added, I just see if I can source it, and if I can't, I zap it out. If an ISP gets persistent, notify an Admin. Dekkappai (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually MikeAllen, one of the glories and faults of Wikipedia is that most anyone can edit anything, any time. An exception is when an article is protected against excessive vandalism, but so far

Saw VII

isn't quite getting that much. Close, but it's still livable.

For outright vandalism, there are anti-vandalism patrollers (such as me). I also have this page watchlisted now. So the chances of serious, long-standing vandalism are fairly remote. At worst, hopefully, something massively incorrect will just stay up for a few hours.

The Wiki projects are just there as guidelines as far details of content are concerned. Nor do articles need to be rated. Someone may tell me differently, but my belief as a former webmaster for major companies is that the ratings, as such, have no effect on the number of readers, and are often ignored even by frequent editors (such as myself). I've written a few dozen articles, but not made any changes specifically to affect rating. (It can take a LOT of time to raise an article to GA or FA status.)Piano non troppo (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yes I 'anti-vandalize' too, so I see them in action every day, that's why I made that comment. :P Most of the times they just come in waves and then simply leave, until next time. LOL. Oh, I know that ratings aren't that important. But, let's face it, that's what a lot of editors aim for, to make a good article and get it featured on the main page. I've been here almost 6 months, I think it's time for my GA, even if the articles aren't very popular among many editors, that's just icing on the proverbial cake. :-) Thanks for you comments and adding the article to your watchlist. —Mike Allen 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have assessed the article as C class. As the film has yet to be released, it does not provide sufficient coverage to warrant B class. For example, there are no details on reception, box office, accolades, home media, etc. For future films, they should not be nominated for GA until after the film has been released (usually a few weeks to help with stability issues). In the future, requests for article assessments can be placed at

Thank you for checking it. I understand about there needs to be more coverage, that makes sense. I guess I got overzealous. :-P —Mike Allen 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a question over listing minor film characters in the "starring" field of {{Infobox film}} on film articles. Please see Talk:Inchon (film).

I had been under the impression that the "starring" field for {{Infobox film}} on film articles was not to list all actors for all minor characters in the film, but rather simply the top two or maybe three major starring actors in the film.

Comments from

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox should only list the main stars of the film, usually the "head liners" highlighted in the theatrical poster or DVD cover. Minor appearances should pretty much never be in the infobox unless they were specifically highlighted as noted. --

talk · contribs

) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian - I have to strongly agree with you. Unfortunately, another user does not. Please see [3], followed by [4], and then again by [5]. What to do now? Cirt (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not letting me know of this, Cirt. What a good courtesy. The problem is when the additional credit was removed by Cirt and I was accused by him for adding "unsourced" credit info. Regardless of the IMDB being already there, I provided reliable sources, so there would be no problem for the edit. But he reverted again the improvement with another reason; he thinks the credit is unncessary. I think the second revert is

Nam Koong Won should stay as a compromise.--Caspian blue

03:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article as well, before seeing this response. If their roles were so minor as to not warrant mention in the plot, they certainly should not be in the infobox. Remember, the infobox is for summarizing the major points of the film. --

talk · contribs

) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

talk · contribs), thank you for your help in this matter. Collectonian, above you mentioned, "usually the "head liners" highlighted in the theatrical poster". FWIW, please note which five individual actors are highlighted on the promotional film poster. Cheers, Cirt (talk

) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you misread my comment. Their roles were already mentioned in the plot, but not with the actors' original names. Their role were not so minor as opposed to Cirt false claim.--Caspian blue 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If the roles are in the plot, why not just their names there? I'd also urge you to focus on the issue itself rather than on the editor involved, as it seems as if you may be taking the situation somewhat personally. Rather than focusing on whether you feel Cirt was right, let's just look at the issue from the guideline perspective. Are the actors listed in the theatrical poster? If not, they should not be in the infobox. Being mentioned in the plot with the actors names is fine. If their is some sourced content on their appearances, mentioning in casting is also fine. They just should not be included in the infobox. --

talk · contribs

) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Collectonian again. You also failed to show me the guideline that you cite. Since you did not read his messages to my talk page, I try to understand your lack of understanding why Cirt and I were arguing over the really frivolous issue. I felt Cirt took the issue "personally" first due to his inconsistent argument for his reverts, accusations and his unpleasant messages to my talk page. I indeed can care less about whether the credit be included in the list. As far as I've known, we do not have "strict number of the credit in the infobox". Cirt and I have a some sort of history, so my original intention was just to add the credit because I thought they were not listed just because the articles of the actors were not created yet. So I knew they were mentioned in the plot, that means I have to alter his wording a bit which potentially conflict with him since I know his character. So please do not mispresent my stance.--Caspian blue 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The user

No idea what is with him and his mass removal. He reminds me of someone else who tried that, but I can't remember who at the moment. I've reverted a few more of his removals and left him a warning. Also left a note at the spam report that it should be rejected. Both are reliable sources and his seeming personal issue with those sites is odd, at best. --

talk · contribs

) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was supposed to be going to bed last night, until I saw him removing "spam" from 3 articles on my watchlist. I checked his contributions and saw his report to WP:SPAM and was flabbergasted. It sounds like he may be an editor for one of their competitive websites, and is upset that those sites always get news first. LOL. It is strange. —Mike Allen 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation today, and I think both sides are being wholesale in their actions. First, consensus is that the horror websites are reliable sources. Xsmasher seems to have taken an undiscriminating approach with his removals where a more discriminatory approach is warranted. For example, I do not think The Crazies (2010 film) needs references from these websites to verify the credits of the film's cast and crew. We should review the different ways that the websites are being referenced, like if it is in context or not, or about using them for release dates or reviews. Erik (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed there are several articles like

Do we need these articles in the first place? Most of them just seem to list the changes that have been made to the films for television broadcast, something that happens to all the films out there, everywhere in the world. Creating extra articles for that seems odd to me. --Conti|✉ 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're to have these articles, then sure, categorize them. I agree with Conti though-- I see no reason to have separate articles for television broadcasts. Anything significant (sourced) about the TV broadcasts should almost always fit perfectly well in a section in the article on the film. There may be the rare exception which generates a lot of commentary, of course. A glance at Rambo films on television shows that this is not the case here. Dekkappai (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me these articles have absolutely no purpose nor use. Most movies are aired on television, but it rarely is worth nothing even in the main article, much less in separate articles like this. --

talk · contribs

) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Along with the comments above it needs to be noted that the parts of a film that are edited out will vary from network to network, and even within the same network (I remember seeing a show on A&E back in the late 80's that had different edits between its 10am and 4pm showings.) Except for language and nudity edits the people who edit these films are usually only doing so to fit a given time bracket. They don't care whether their edits to anything to the overall narrative. Add to this the fact that these articles will quickly become lists that can only be based on

Original research and there value is minimal to nonexistent. They probably should be listed for discussion/deletion. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Steveprutz. MarnetteD | Talk

23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles are not very popular either. [7], [8], [9]. Should these go through AfD based on the above comments or be merged in their main film series/franchise articles? —Mike Allen 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just prod them as there doesn't seem to be anything to merge. AfD if its controversial, though so far no one seems to disagree with their lack of utility or appropriateness. --

talk · contribs

) 23:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these articles are really interesting, but I don't know if they should be separate from their movie page. In a related story, Comparison of Dawn of the Dead versions exists... maybe this method could be adapted to these articles. StevePrutz (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these articles do not work and recommend redirecting them to the film series articles. The fact that IMDb is the basis for the content of these articles certainly give me pause. I think such editing differences should be noted by a reliable source and not be so indiscriminate, particularly the obvious toning down of language and violence. Erik (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm deprodding them, because I think they should get a full discussion in a more general venue. I suggest trying one of them at AfD, but I feel a little silly bringing to AfD something I don;t think should be deleted. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've searched

General consensus is that movie trailers are pretty much never acceptable in ELs because even legit sites fail

talk · contribs

) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there's general consensus. Links to trailers exist in relation to the general notion of linking to official sites. Just because the trailer is not hosted at an official site does not mean it can't be linked from Apple.com or wherever. Erik (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I generally include links to trailers for upcoming films because it gives readers access to some kind of film-related media before the film itself comes out. There tends to be strong interest on the readers' part to see trailers or have them accessible. At some point after the film has come out, though, I do not find such links as critical to keep. The film is out, and after that fact, such links may be too promotional for a permanent stay. If the official site contains the trailer, though, then great, keep the link to that site and indicate that the trailer is there. Erik (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply, both. I'm curious, Collectonian, which part of

WP:EL do you believe it fails? And Erik, I would generally be editing / making suggestions about upcoming films; if they are OK to add in that context, makes sense to me if they are removed after the film is no longer current. Is it better to link Apple Trailers than an official page? Is the trailer more likely to last at Apple.com? NMS Bill (talk

) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The official website is generally a permanent external link, so if the trailer exists there, that is a bonus. So if you can avoid another EL like Apple.com, you should do so. I am not sure about the longevity of trailer links, but I doubt they would expire so early. It's more likely that the time will come to remove a trailer link because the film is now accessible and not because the link expired. Erik (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC

Yahoo! Movies site is a good place for official trailers also. —Mike Allen 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Official trailers would meet all three

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Putting_Production_before_Plot SilkTork *^YES! 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here. I hope to work on the article later, certaintly to remove some of the unsourced ones! Lugnuts (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The same person who nommed it is the same one who was

talk · contribs

) 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Who the nominator is should not have any bearing on the AfD. Just the deletion argument and the appropriate responses to it, based on policies and guidelines. Erik (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the sources (the ones that are sourced anyway) are from DC and BD. I asked if that had anything to do with his decision. —Mike Allen 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For info - I've removed any redlink titles that had no source from the list. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf nominated dozens of film templates of trilogies and quadrilogies for deletion today. Link to all the templates nominated for deletion. Some discussion was started regarding the template for David Wain here but no concensus was reached. I use these templates all the time navigating back and forth but I think WP films as a consensus needs to address this issue. Please move this conversation where ever necessary to discuss the issue Andman8 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, the consensus has been that a film series with only 2-4 films doesn't need a navigation template. --

talk · contribs

) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd think a template for a series running only 2-3 films is pretty much redundant to the "Followed by / Preceded by" fields in the infobox... 4 would seem to be about the lower limit for a series template. Not worked up enough on it either way to go rant at the Deletion discussions though... Dekkappai (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The same user has nominated several director navboxes for deletion (see today's TFD), with the rationale that two/three linked films isn't enough to warrant creating a template. I'm not sure what WP:FILM's policy is on this, especially for directors still making films, so could someone from the project weigh in? Bradley0110 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have sort of standard set for this as well. Personally I think it's more relevant whether it's a director who makes director-driven films than whether there is a certain number of titles. And there should be more than one article with some actual content to navigate between. Smetanahue (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there are different navigational possibilities for a set of films within a series and a set of films by the same director. Films by the same director are less likely to be interlinked than films in a series, so I think the case for minimal director templates is stronger than for minimal film series templates. I really think that it is an aesthetic argument for bare-bones templates like these; I doubt that the templates cause page loading issues. It's a matter of if the set of articles is a big enough set for a formal arrangement, the template. Otherwise, if we try to interlink them through the article body, the related links may not necessarily be readily discoverable. For example, two films in a series will very likely reference each other in their lead sections. When there's three films, I think the attempt to include in the article body becomes a little more forced. "Foo 3 is the third film in the Foo series, following Foo and Foo 2." That kind of writeup just feels like the links are horning in on the prose where the focus should be on the displayed topic. Erik (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely about series. What I'm hesitant about, is whether films with the same director should motivate a navbox by default. Director-driven movies tend to be what at least I enjoy most, but it's not unusual that the director is used as a technician like any other. The studio, producer, art director and cinematographer sometimes have a larger role in the creative decisions, and thus are more relevant for a film's relation to other films (and the reason that there shouldn't be templates for every technician is the same as why there shouldn't be any for actors - the articles would get cluttered). Of course it would be a bit arbitrary to decide who qualifies as an auteur and who doesn't, and I'm aware that it's a cosmetic concern. But there are also obvious cases, and some recent examples have just been ridiculous. Smetanahue (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Auteur" was exactly the word that came to mind about this discussion. There are surely directors who just serve as technicians, but I think it is kind of hard to judge that. I think that film conversation nowadays usually includes the director's name, for better or for worse. I daresay that navigation templates of films by director are more interesting to readers than navigation templates of films by studio. At the end of the day, though, it is just a navigation template. I think that directors who are "technicians" under the studio tend to be part of non-franchise films, so navigation templates of their works are likely to be the only ones in the articles' footer. I don't think that's really a problem. Erik (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that some film articles that previously had their release year linked in the lead have now had the link removed, but I'm not clear on whether that's due to editing or a policy change...are we no longer linking the release year? Thanks for the clarification. Doniago (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we have reached solid consensus one way or another. There is an argument that the link is useful to readers because the film in question is one of those that came out that year. I don't disagree, but I don't think that it needs to be an up-front link. We're supposed to provide links that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context. Linking from the onset to all the other films in a year does not really give the reader a better understanding of the topic; mentioning the year is more of a basic characteristic of the film to give the reader an idea of how long ago it was, so the reader can combine this characteristics and others and go through the article with certain expectations. Erik (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions about this. The most recent one that I can remember can be found

here. Hopefully it can provide further insight into the issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is a stronger case for linking to "<year> in film" in the lead sentence than in the infobox's date field. In the sentence, there is context in the adjectives that precede the "film" noun. WP:EGG says that links should be intuitive, and it depends on if the context is enough to label them as intuitive. For example, if we write "science fiction comedy film", what is a reader's expectations in terms of linking? Would it be "[[science fiction]] [[comedy film]]" or "[[science fiction film|science fiction]] [[comedy film]]"? It's hard to tell what passerby readers expect in these lead sentences, as opposed to us conditioned editors. I just think that the WP:EGG argument in the context of such a sentence is not so easy to apply. It is more applicable to discuss what links are useful or not. Erik (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the <year in film> note in the lede is fairly standard, as is the infobox note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Standard does not necessarily mean that it's the right approach. For example, a film article with "February 18, [[2010 in film|2010]]" would violate the

WP:EGG principle. You can't tell if it's "February 18, 2010" or "February 18, 2010" until you get there. General dates were linked on Wikipedia for a very long time, so I don't think it's so intuitive that a piped link for the year would clearly lead to the "<year> in film" article. Erik (talk

) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, per

WP:CCC, even if consensus had earlier existed to link dates and film years, recent trend has been towards a fairly clear general consensus to not link these anymore due to recognized lack of benefit to the reader. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So...based on this it sounds like current consensus is not to link. I'm fine either way, just wanted to know going forward. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for this noob (aka me) since there's a stub I want to go play with this week (maybe, sources are a problem and it may go afd); the consensus then is to not link to the <year in #> except in possibly the info box (but not article lead), or not to link to it at all (or to provide said link elsewhere and I fail at reading comprehension)? If anyone knows of an obvious example of how-to and how-not-to-anymore flicks, that might help. Sorry for being dense. Millahnna (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal preference, I like to place the year of the film's release along with a link to "Cinema of [country of origin]" in the "See also" section. See this example. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. From my experience as a wiki reader, that's where links to categories (e.g.sci fi or horror) would go also, so that makes perfect sense to me. Millahnna (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) Also the first sentence tends to be a row of blue links. Blah is a

Hah! Never knew about mountain film. Thanks for sharing! Erik (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this conversation, I've seen a few pages on my watchlist have the date links added in (along the lines of the "Blah" example MikeAllen provides). So far they've been fixed by others but I'm wondering if there's a styleguide link we can provide to explain the change (beyond linking to this conversation that is). Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion

I'd tend to think that Flickr would meet the definition of a self-published source and a reliably published source would better serve the article. Plus, while there's no reason to suspect so, an eager person could conceivably doctor the uploaded photos and there are the problems with copyright if the linked photos aren't properly released. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, as all photos on Flickr are self-published. A photographer can claim anything they like on their photos, and a photograph is not a reliable source (can be doctored). --

talk · contribs

) 15:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, in the case of the example given above, sans doctoring, the image alone would prove the contention that the film location was as stated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Not really. It is a self-published claim. Without reliable sources saying the film location was X, the photo is useless. Now, if a reliable source says it was filmed at X, then on good faith the photo (if released under the right license) can be used as an illustration in the photo of a reliable sourced fact. By itself, however, it cannot be used to source or confirm anything. --

talk · contribs

) 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You must keep in mind, Bzuk, how much easier it is to docter doctor a photo than it is to doctor text... ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the image would show film crew and location and although not a primary source could be a back-up for anyone trying to establish the film location. I agree that verifiable sources are the more reliable references. FWiW, I do quite a bit of photoshop editing myself (for publications) so I know that a photo can be altered in a very realistic way to create a completely new image. Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A discussion was started at the Village Pump suggesting MPAA ratings be added to all articles. I've already noted the consensus that MPAA ratings are not appropriate, but it would probably be helpful to have additional views from those of us who actually work with film articles. The discussion is at

Slightly related question; is it appropriate to leave MPAA ratings in film articles if there is something notable about the rating (such as a fight to get a different rating or first rating of it's kind)? Just happened by the article for Basic Instinct and that made me wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millahnna (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's usually the exception, yes. —Mike Allen 06:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone always removes television film from the infobox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wolfgang_Petersen. Why wouldn't we include them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.235.45 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion

here where it was suggested that all films should be included and I happen to agree with that. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 13:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my last comment, the editors removing the television films from the template are defending their removal based on the fact that articles don't exist for the television films, not that they should be excluded simply for being a TV film. I agree films should be listed even when they don't yet have an article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the removal if none of the TV films had an article - surely it wouldn't hurt to include them then either, but there would be no navigational purpose. But in this case several of the films have articles and obviously fit under the navbox' title. Smetanahue (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could any of these red links plausibly sustain an article? If we can be bold here and have the references, we can just create stubs. Erik (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that most of the redlinks have corresponding articles on the German wikipedia, what indicates that this is something worth looking into. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Read This:

But some of the TV movies are blue. You can't ignore part of his filmography just based on which window it was shown in. They are films directed by Wolfgang Petersen, and the template is misleading if some films are excluded for no apparent reason. I don't know why some titles are black and some red though, none of them is exactly famous so I suppose they would be better off as black. Smetanahue (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The template you are pointing out is a navigation box, not a filmography. Filmographies are located in articles while Navigation boxes collect article links in a convenient template. They are not the same thing. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it is a navigation box for his filmography. The alternative to including everything as I see it is to only include titles with an article. This has not been general practice before but could of course be discussed. To exclude television movies just because they premiered on television is what I am opposing here, although I do support the inclusion of movies without an article too since an incomplete filmography in the navbox would confuse many readers. Smetanahue (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of navigation boxes is not to have a complete list, that is what an article is for. Navboxes should only contain blue links. This hasn't been popular practice, but that doesn't make it right. It isn't that television films should be excluded, but those without articles should, as should theatrical films without articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We should not exclude red links just because they are red. Especially considering this director's notoriety and how a couple of his television films are blue links, there is potential for red links to become blue links. Since the television films are German in origin, reliable sources will be German-language. If we can create even just stub articles from these blue links, we'll significantly improve navigation among Petersen's works and possibly give future editors an opportunity to improve on these stubs. Now if there only was a German-speaking editor at this WikiProject who can do the research... Erik (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In an article or list, yes, but I don't that is the case for a navigation box. But even so, they shouldn't be plaintext either. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've come across an IP that keeps inserting content in the Julie Andrews pertaining to the box office success of the film Tooth Fairy. At first he added "it has, so far, made a very small profit (with an estimated budget of 48 million dollars, the movie after four weeks from its release had earned $49,721,400). He sourced the "very small profit" to Variety, which only shows the past week's box office, and the budget to Box office mojo, although that page also shows domestic and worldwide receipts. While that much is accurate, in fact, Box Office Mojo reports worldwide box office receipts in excess of $82 million against the budget. I changed that to say it was successful, since it has profited in excess of $34 million. He came back to call that "deceptive" and changed it to say it "has gathered modest box office profits in the US and in some of the other countries where it has been released so far. To me, that's extrapolating from what is presented. The film has, to date, profited over 70% over budget and "some of the other countries where it has been released so far is vague. The Box Office Mojo page doesn't break down country analysis to how many theatres where it is run, etc. Who's to say that if the film had $512,473 in Chile that it wasn't less successful than where it had $442,633, depending on the theatre count? I can't see the rationale for his conclusions, and why it is so important to denigrate the result of worldwide box office receipts. He came back to call what I wrote a "non specific generalization". Can someone help me here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that unless a reliable source called it a success or failure, that either position is

talk · contribs

) 01:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not leave the film's box office performance at the film's article itself? I notice other films in Julie Andrews's article that don't get this kind of detail, like Enchanted and the Shrek films and older ones. Erik (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But when you're invested in a certain turn of phrase, nothing else counts?! LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

A couple things. The box office changes constantly right now. And this editor is quite invested in painting this entire film as negatively as possible. He keeps adding this content and fighting about it. Granted I haven't seen it, and I know it's a critical flop that I probably would never see, but this is over the top. It's only on Andrews' article that this is happening. Not on The Rock or anyone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how

Anyway, since every single movie article insists on quoting RT and metacritic (often without any scrap of written review by a critic) it is probably worth noting if the film was a financial success or not in the reception section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if its reliably sourcable. --

talk · contribs

) 04:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think readers can determine by looking at the films' production budget and worldwide gross if it was successful or not, but if there's a reliable source that verifies that, then by all means add it. Also, just because the critics opinion were that they didn't like a certain film, doesn't mean everybody won't like it. What's wrong with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? It's the best we've got, unless you can find something else (which I doubt). Thank yooou. —Mike Allen 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems good enough to include the budget and gross amounts in the infobox and let the reader infer the rest.

talk

) 05:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated

Regarding the typical film article format on Wikipedia: No synopsis at all, but plenty of gory plot details. Who requested such a format? Ever take a poll of users? I'll bet 99% would request a synopsis. Rtdrury (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See

talk · contribs

) 04:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? —Mike Allen 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sounds like you should take a look at

talk

) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are probably in the one place where all editors know WP:SPOILER by heart. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have started a GA reassessment for Pee-wee's Big Adventure, you can view my comments here. Also could someone fix the subst text at the top? I thought I followed the instructions.. —Mike Allen 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In cases where a film has multiple release dates (say, a festival release in 2007 followed by a general US release in 2008, and perhaps an international release date of 2009), what is the appropriate year to use in an actors filmography? I've tried looking through relevant guides, including

I'm inclined to say the date of first release, so the festival if that was first, the same as the film guidelines. --

talk · contribs

) 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was started last week with no input from the project's participants. Some input from FILM members familiar with the subject might be helpful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to know if the revenue from the release of Toy Story/Toy Story II double feature is included in the gross revenue of the films (in Toy Story and Toy Story 2 pages) also should that be added to both articles or like devided in half or something? this is the link that has gross revenue from double feature? Gman124 ^talk 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Toy Story article includes a separate section detailing the earnings for its release. It is mentioned that both films combined earned the $30 million in its re-release. The box office section of the regular release does not include the revenue from the re-release (especially since it was two films tied into one). Box Office Mojo also keeps them separate, as although they are the same films, it is a double feature. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thoiugh the same section is also in toy story 2. So, can i move those to toy story sries page, then there noone will need to edit two things, if they wanted to fix that section up Gman124 ^talk 14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(This notice has been posted at

I started a discussion here about the current size of the article. Please share your thoughts. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is for films. Try posting to

Discussion is relevant to both WikiProjects. Excessive information about each film appears at an actor/filmmaker's article. Erik (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A

Hello to the members of the project. As most of you no doubt know Mar 23rd is the 100th anniversary of Akira Kurosawa's birth. Turner Classic Movies is featuring his films on Mar 9, 16 and 23. This gives us the potential for increased test edits and or vandalism on his page. I don't know how many editors have his page on their watchlist but if a few of you could add it to yours it would be much appreciated. Now, my worries may be unfounded as I don't have any evidence that problems on the page will increase, but, forewarned is forearmed or some such cliche like that ;-). My thanks in advance for any of you that can help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the pages for his films. I don't expect anyone to add all 30 films to their watchlist but if you could check on a few of them it would also be a help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use this to keep up with changes on the film articles. I also added Akira Kurosawa to my watchlist. Erik (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the link Erik. It will be a big help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 16:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A year ago this month, Bride of Frankenstein was promoted as a Featured Article. I would like to conduct an annual review of Featured Articles and possibly Good Articles to ensure their quality. Older Featured and Good Articles have fallen by the wayside because of lack of attention. Here are the changes that have taken place since it was promoted as a Featured Article. I have started an annual review of the film here. I invite other editors to weigh in. Erik (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Annual review of Good Article I Not Stupid Too
• Annual review for Good Article White Dog
• Annual review for Good Article Valkyrie (film)

Above are annual reviews for Good Articles promoted in March 2009. I was not sure what older Good Articles (promoted ~2008) under WikiProject Films were undergoing GA Sweeps? I'd like to avoid overlap. In addition, there were no Featured Articles in March 2008, but Battlefield Earth (film) and Transformers (film) were promoted the month before. Is anyone interested in annual reviews of these? If we can get into the routine of annual reviews, the process will become simpler and articles will not degrade in quality. Erik (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if folks have the energy. More editing is welcome, especially when knowledge about the topic may have improved. Also, it's frustrating dealing with editors who have the perception that anything written in an article that was *once* assessed as GA is inarguable. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea and hope more projects take a cue from us, as it is sorely needed. --

talk · contribs

) 18:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor is requesting that List of films based on war books — peace is moved to List of films based on war books — peacetime. Other editors are invited to comment; discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For once, I decided to follow links to Adventure film and Comedy horror film". Oh deary deary me: have a look. They are linked as a matter of formula at the top of so many film articles, but see what you get—openings to bare stubs, such as:

"Adventure films are a genre of film. They hang on adventurous themes and try to be full of dramatic scences and suspense."

Gee whiz. Sorry to be rude, but that is a total embarrassment. There's precious little more. If the point is to show readers a list of other films in the genre, this is already much better accomplished via the category and "List of ..." articles. However, I don't see the point in linking to any such list at the top of a film article; perhaps in the "See also" section.

Here's another:

"Comedy horror, also known as horror comedy, is a literary and film genre, combining elements of comedy and horror fiction."

Just one short para.

I think we should stop linking these genres and others unless there is a serious intention to create targets that are worthy of massive numbers of links at the openings of film articles. That or find better targets for the purpose. Tony (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and again as just above with the succession boxes, a big reason not to have them is that such links are very rarely used, and they create maintenance overhead for regular editors.[10] Not to harp, I know some people enjoy the orderly aspect of this. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. An article being in bad shape is no reason to avoid linking to it, Tony and Piano. These articles need to be improved, not hidden from sight. I will see what I can do and hope others can help. This is a good start for adventure film at least. Erik (talk

) 15:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some work on comedy horror. I'm mulling over a new approach to action film and adventure film, considering we're lacking any discussion on "action-adventure film", for which plenty of references exist. Erik (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I was reading into Tony's comment that editors imagine that links are so critical that they'll even put weak ones in. (When in fact, even "solid" links will often be unused or counterproductive.) I'll shut up about this now. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well ... it is a good reason not to link it. It's been there for ages. Is there a literature on it? The

crime drama article is more than a stub, to be sure, but it reads like an essay, without references. This is unacceptable. Tony (talk)

00:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, all you have to do is say, "I found an oft-linked article that could be improved so there is more value to link to. Can anyone make it better?" I'll see what I can find for Crime film. Erik (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per this recent change to Template:Infobox film removing automatic linking of English language (which itself was a result of this discussion), I made this change to the documentation subpage for the template. Does anyone disagree with my addition or have thoughts on how to improve the wording? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording is fine, but I would rather keep it temporary. At some point in the future, everyone will be used to the idea of not linking to the language article. Erik (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with removing the 'English language' link! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ohconfucius. Tony (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this project decide that the use of succession boxes were redundant to the awards template? If so, perhaps a task force could address removing them. I had removed them from Shakespeare in Love and someone returned them because other best picture articles have them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was just for box office succession boxes. We had a discussion

MOS:FILM about navigation templates but held off on mentioning awards succession boxes because I didn't feel that we had really discussed enough to ensure the consensus. Erik (talk

) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we should. For the preponderance of these awards succession boxes, there are already templates for that award present (e.g., Academy Awards, Golden Globes) and the succession boxes contain the same information in a much poorer mode of presentation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. There is no need for both on the same article and honestly, the navigation boxes contain more information in less space. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed succession boxes in the similar situation of book awards, after successfully arguing the point.

There's a confusion between situations. With elected officials, for example, one displaces the other. It's a contest, a reflection on the performance of the official and perhaps the environment of the decision. The situation with book awards is different: There is no relation between the books or the authors. A reader interested in the all the award-winners would probably seek a dedicated page to the award.

The "Best Picture" succession is similar to book awards. There's no strong logical connection between the pictures. An interested reader would be best served by a dedicated page listing all the best pictures.

There's also a pragmatic consideration, which is whether the boxes are used. Whether they are just obtrusive noise. My experience as a webmaster for large web sites suggests that the vast majority of links between articles are not used.[11] I.e., yes, they are highly redundant. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that we deprecate awards succession boxes, is there anything we can do to ensure smart linking for awards listed in the article body? For example, we obviously link to specific award categories, but perhaps we should ensure some way of linking to the general award and the specific award ceremony (e.g.,

Academy Award vs. 82nd Academy Awards). While we would not have successions in the article itself, we can provide proper linking to let readers navigate to the appropriate article. That way, they are only a stone's skip away, rather than having to go through multiple articles to find the "dedicated page" that Piano mentions. Erik (talk

) 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, the succession boxes are to awards like Academy Awards, Golden Globes and some critics awards which are already nav templated. The only one that comes to mind that isn't represented by such a template is BAFTA Awards, which are wikilinked in the article already. If they aren't, then whoever removes the boxes should ensure that they are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines or essays available for succession boxes? When I discuss navigation templates, I refer to templates in the article footer that link to related articles. I thought succession boxes fell under navigation templates. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "already nav templated". Do you mean something like the Best Pictures at the Academy Awards for the 1980s and such? If so, why have these, either? Erik (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any essays or guidelines although I've seen comments that refer to such boxes as improperly used in these circumstances. They are supposed to designate proper succession to offices and not for such things as awards. The navigation boxes to which I refer are like AcademyAwardBestPicture 1981-2000 or GoldenGlobeBestMotionPictureMusicalComedy 1981-2000. I didn't create those and can't really craft a defense of them, except to say they convey the same information in a more concise and well-crafted manner than the globbed together succession boxes that are used. Does that answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to renew my question as why RT or MC are added to each and every movie. This discussion is a little bit old, but after reading the archives it seems to me that there is never any sort of resolution. A lot of people agree that it is not really smart to mention RT in an article, but nothing actually is done. Meanwhile some guy's, mostly IPs it seems, add RT ratings to each page about a movie, not caring if it is a movie from/for the USA or for example Africa, where RT-ratings have no meaning whats so ever. Metacritic is a bit better I think, but not really perfect. Another fact is that RT is a profit orginization and there seems to be correlation between profits and RT votings . I personally would say that we should keep Metacritic as it is write now (link to mc article + how many critics found the movie good compared to how many wrote about it) but remove RT because it is a site focussing on profit, marketing, is biased due to focussing on the USA (yet editing every movie page) and based upon amateur critics which have no encyclopedic qualification what so ever. But mainly I'd like to see this discussed with a resolution, not like previous once were the discussion just faded and, if I may say so, the RT staff continuing to edit the individual sites. 136.199.201.80 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be reliable sources for gauging critical consensus, and like any other source, they can be abused. The websites are best used for films released in the

2000s; before then, the aggregation is not as accurate. I don't think that RT and MC would be completely useless in articles about African films, but the context should be clarified in these articles. When you ask about a resolution, are you asking about guidelines for using these? Erik (talk

) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've written a possible essay at User:Erik/Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic based on my impressions of how they are best used and what their limitations are. What do others think? Erik (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a really good summary. I sometimes can't be bothered to type up an explanation of Rotten Tomatoes' limitations of use for the 15th time. Now all I have to do is point at the essay. :-) One comment for now: it might be useful to include an example of the pre-2000 problem. The site sometimes does collect dozens of reviews for older films; readers of the essay may think that the site is OK to cite when this is the case. However, as we've discovered in the past, it's not. For example, Alien gets 97% even though plenty of sources say that critics' reaction to it at the time was pretty mixed. Might be a useful example, or maybe the Fight Club one you sometimes use would be good. Steve ^T • C 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the

Wikipedia:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, seeing that there's at least one endorsement? I'm oblivious how much consensus is required for essays in the wiki-space as opposed to guidelines. Hopefully the IP will respond at some point this week. Erik (talk

) 13:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, too. I don't think there's any particular precedent to follow, so I say move it. And if we are out of process, then what's the worst that can happen? It gets moved back and we jump through whatever hoops are required. Steve ^T • C 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of

talk · contribs

) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; it is now at

WP:RTMC. I'm not sure about a shortcut with WP:ROTTENCRITIC, though? It's a mouthful for a shortcut. Also, I was wondering about another section for the essay, "Similar websites", mentioning other websites that aggregate film reviews. I'm thinking about saying that RT and MC are the most well-established and typically suffice, especially with different scoring systems. I don't want to say that similar websites are forbidden, just that they are not as authoritative. Erik (talk

) 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good section to add, since it is a fairly frequently brought up question. --

talk · contribs

) 13:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On

WP:ROTTEN? Steve ^T • C

14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Recently, a vast number of changes to film articles have involved removing the year in film template such as {{fy|1939}} with the note that this is due to an "Orphan template per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion". Can someone point me to this discussion? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

MOS discussion and TfD. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's actually linked on the {{fy}} page, which points to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Filmyear. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Just noticed that my response is redundant :| ) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has created more than a dozen lists of films based on books of different topics, such as List of films based on sports books and List of films based on war books — peace. Another editor has expressed concern about the quality of these lists. Editors are invited to review and comment on the discussion here. Erik (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As most of you may know, there is a project-wide co-ordinated effort each year to have some fun on April 1 (otherwise known as

I think they're too EGG-y and I'd like to see their use deprecated though I would like to figure out a way to keep automatic categorization. The way it currently stands and from the perspective of Easter Eggs, it's no different placing {{FilmUS}} in the infobox that it would be placing it in the lead sentence. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the templates do not provide links that are intuitive for readers to follow. The question is, do we want to proliferate "Cinema of <country>" links on individual film articles in any way? It seems excessive to provide these links indiscriminately because in 99% of the cases, no greater understanding is achieved.

WP:LINK#What generally should be linked says, "In general, links should be created to... relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully [or] articles with relevant information". The templates encourage a more indiscriminate practice, and I think we should be without them to avoid this proliferation. Instead, "Cinema of <country>" links are best used in articles of films that are historically significant in that country's cinema. Erik (talk

) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So would it be beneficial to just delink the template, effectively keeping the category while getting rid of the EGG, or put them up for deletion? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The templates do multiple things: They link to the cinema of x article. WP:EGG insults user intelligence. If I'm on a film article, I expect to have like-minded links to film/cinemea articles. People who blindly click links without hovering over them deserve all they get (maybe they should all link to the Goatse site instead). Tooltips exist for a reason! Virtually no one will click a link to Spain or Australia, but I bet more people do if it went to the cinema of Spain article. Which it does, so that's OK.

Ever wondered why most of the cinema of x articles are in such poor shape? Because no bugger visits them. Increasing their profile via the template can only be a good thing. I love reading about the cinema of Romania, Chile, France, or any other country (well, maybe not that really bad country. You know the one). Secondly, they also auto-populate the country category (much like the langauge parameter does). Believe it or not, not all articles have the correct categories when it comes to the country. Maybe this can become an epic trivial debate, like bolding cast lists, while really important things DONT GET DONE. They exist to make navigation easier between film and cinema articles. It's wrong to assume that the average WP READER knows anything about the cinema of articles and might find a refreshing article when clicking the link. Who knows, they may even go away and edit said article to improve it. Navigation is the key to this whole site. Sometimes it's good to find something a little unexpected.

Deletion is a weak way out (haven't you got some misguided page move disambigs to fix)? The solution if linking to cinema of is so, so bad, is to simply change the template so it doesn't hyperlink anywhere, orphaning off all those articles *sniff*, but retaining the country population category function. Enough ranting, time to buy the bullets from eBay and record the Youtube videos. Happy editing! Lugnuts (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the tooltip argument applies; if it did, then we would not have guidelines on making links intuitive. If we link to either the country or "Cinema of <country>" in "American", "Spanish", and "Australian", the first impression is that they are related to the nationality. The tooltip argument holds less water here; why would a reader hover the pointer over what appears to be a straightforward link? How would they know to question it before clicking through?

We have to strike a balance when it comes to linking. We cannot just link for the sake of linking, especially to the end of raising page views in hopes that the articles will somehow improve. Film genre articles have long been linked without issue, but I do not see many high-quality articles among them. The most popular thing to do at such articles is to provide examples of films in a particular genre. "Cinema" articles require a much more academic touch. So I disagree that quantity of links will translate into quality of content. If there is interest from multiple editors in having "Cinema" links, then we could discuss making "See also" sections standard practice. That way, such a "Cinema" link is not valueless in the lead sentence in direct relation to the individual film, but it has value as a tangential topic at the bottom of a film article.

Lastly, I don't buy the "things don't get done" argument. Our contributions are multi-faceted. We take the time to make a comment, then we go make edits elsewhere. "Cinema of <country>" links organically grew out of deprecating direct country links, and we can use part of our time to make standard our implementation of such links. Standard practices are part of Wikipedia's growing pains. The practices allow us to focus on article content, of which we will always need more. Erik (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Bovineboy's original post, I'd like to propose a solution. The code of {{FilmUS}} et al. can be modified in such a way that inserting {{FilmUS}} into the infobox generates an entry of "United States" (unlinked to anything, just plain text) while still generating a category listing. Basically, the current code of:

[[Cinema of the United States|United States]]{{{category|[[Category:American films<noinclude>|*</noinclude>]]}}}<noinclude>

can just be modified to read:

United States{{{category|[[Category:American films<noinclude>|*</noinclude>]]}}}<noinclude>

This way, the templates are retained for ease of use and are not deleted in case consensus changes in the future. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the ideal solution. I'd support this change as long as others agree. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I am okay with this arrangement. I'm hesitant, though, because I am not sure if there is precedent for using templates this way in the article body. Does anyone know anything about that? Erik (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using them in what way? To display text without a link, you mean? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using inline templates in the article body invisibly, yes. Erik (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Their use should be limited to the infobox. I don't think they should be used in the prose at all. Is that what you are hesitant about? Could documentation explain this? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I've seen some templates do that before.

Template:Redirect3, as used in this version of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, generates a hatnote of plain text without any links. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 20:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I missed the part where Big bird said to make the change in the infobox. For some reason, I was thinking an invisible template behind "American" in every American film article's lead sentence... carry on, then. :) Erik (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The change has been made. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why is their use retained in infoboxes? I believe they should be deprecated. Tony (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're talking about populating film articles with the proper categories based on what is entered in the field. There would not be any linking in the field. Erik (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The link violates

The category declaration is okay per

Allincluded}} template mentioned in that section of the category guidelines. This point may need to be made clear on the WikiProject's departmental page. Erik (talk

) 13:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

These templates don't really make make any sense now that they have been delinked. It would be better to do the categorisation in the infobox template automatically and just type |country=US in the article. Of course this would require the help of a bot, but I could help with the changes to the template if you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the templates are more helpful how that they're de-linked because they still serve a useful purpose but don't provide any useless

Egg-y links. However, I think you did bring up a valid point about doing this (by this I mean automatic categorization by country) via automated process from the infobox. It certainly could be done in a similar fashion that a language entered into the infobox generates an automated category listing of "<language> language films". This could work. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)