Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For those championing the cause of independent film, I give you Category:Independent film stubs and {{indie-film-stub}}. Kudos to Bjones for suggesting it. Her Pegship 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion on whether or not to add metareview #s (like Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic) into the INFOBOX. If you have an opinion on this, please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. Your opinions would be appreciated.

See today's log; I have listed Category:Anti-Military Movies and Category:Anti-Capitalism Movies, which I'm not crazy about, but I'm willing to live with as long as they conform to naming conventions. Cheers, Her Pegship 03:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

I just did a presentation on Out of Africa in my postgrad class and it states in the article that the DVD bonus material suggests, that Karen Blixen got Syphilis from her father as a genetic condition. Well, you can't "inherit" this illness from your parents, it's not a genetic condition. This should be changed, I just don't have access to the DVD. Maybe she got it from her mother (because if her dad had it, maybe her mum did as well) when she was in embryo stage, but that's not genetic then.

Can someone who is adept at citations please help me clean up this page? I've written the bulk of the article and have literally hundreds of sources, but I need someone who is good at picking out facts that need to be verified to be so kind as to read the article and leave citation needed headers. I would leave this at the WikiCite project, but this is more of a film related thing and I need a film buff who has a background in both citations and film to help me out here. Thanks! The Photoplayer 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big contributor to the film posters here, but can we agree (if we haven't already) which stage to use in the main infobox. I passionately think the original teaser or FIRST run poster should be used. These generally more artistic posters are usually lost in the marketing mix as time progresses and are lost to the mass public, who may never see them again. I like the idea of a poster section in the body with additional later poster runs, but believe the first run should be in the info box. Tertiary7 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The regular "style A" one-sheet should be the poster to respresent the film since that is the most common style and the one seen by the most people. Other posters (inserts, lobby cards, etc) can augment the page from there. The Photoplayer 00:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree and disagree at the same time. I have noticed Tertiary7 changing some posters. I'd say that the Da Vinci Code teaser is better than the one with Hanks and Tatou but the MI:III one of a match striking isn't as good as the one with Cruise on the front. I believe that the poster in the infobox should be the marquis one that everybody recognises but all posters should be put in the body. (Pally01 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm note sure we can put all posters in the body? Do you mean in a gallery? I don't think this would fit in with fair use, which dictates a limited number of FU images to identify a subject. For a film, one film poster will do the job. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the main poster and the teaser poster. If we put all the posters from X-Men 3 in, for example, then the article would just be posters. (Pally01 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

This is why I'm looking for some agreement for consistency. Some teasers look better than the later runs, some don't. Either way.. there should be some consistency. I believe the benefit of the teaser or early run posters is that it offers readers more than a later run, since these are usually reused or altered for DVD. A downside would be: for films that are still in release, a teaser or first run would be used.. and then someone would replace it with a 2nd, 3rd, 4th.. version. This could perhaps cause the earlier work to become lost. - As for gallery, any fair use advocates care to comment? I'd hate to put work into a gallery and have it taken away. I hope to reach a consensus on this to aid in the infobox guidelines. Tertiary7 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What "looks better" is a matter of opinion, and one thing is for certain-- teaser posters are distributed to theaters and sometimes displayed even when a film is not played at that particular location (although usually not). It is my opinion, that whenever possible, the infobox uses the One-Sheet "Style-A" as the primary poster. The teaser poster may be added into the article as an example of the ad campaign.

Obviously, in terms of classic films, this becomes a difficult subject because you have an entire slew of poster sizes and independent artwork to choose from-- window card, insert card, one sheet, three sheet, six sheet, 24-sheet, usually two style half-sheets, heralds, etc, etc, etc. In the 1920s, it wasn't uncommon to see at least six styles of each size! But as a standardization issue, the Style A poster is considered the "primary one sheet", and thus, is the poster that the studio feels will best represent the film (others can replace it or augment it at the theater's discretion). It is my opinion that this style poster become the "standard" image that is displayed in the infobox. The Photoplayer 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else's 2 cents?Tertiary7 07:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading the wiki article on Leni Riefenstahl's "Olympia" I came across a comment suggesting that her earlier film "Triumph of the Will" is considered an unquestionable example of propaganda. Whether or not Triumph of the Will is propaganda is a question that has been argued for a long time, but to say that its status as a piece of propaganda is unquestionable is rather one sided. There are many factors that must be considered when attempting to classify triumph of the will, such as Leni's personal motivations, and her later response. I would suggest that this area be further researched in order to improve the accuracy of this article, because as it stands it is slightly biased.

first of all, im not clear at all how im supposed to comment about a particular film since the discussion page directs to the Films project, so im putting it here. if this is the wrong place i appologize.

i edited the end of the intro paragraphe for the movie Godsend which read "TThe movie was poorly received by critics, and the one plot twist towards the end of the movie is noted for being technically impossible."

i changed it to read "The movie was poorly received by critics, and is noted for implausible plot devices."

in a movie which has a technically impossible premis (human cloning and genetic memory), it's extranious/silly to point out that a plot twist is impossible. also, saying that there is an impossible plot twist before the spoiler warning is just bad form. 66.116.16.108 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with a fellow editor here. A person is editing out the infoboxes I am putting on film pages. Desert Fury and Man With My Face are two examples. I was under the assumption that film pages should include the infobox. Am I correct? I put the infobox back on the Man With My Face page only to have it removed again. The writer called the info redundent, which it is. But the point of the infoboxes are for quick access to info that may indeed be in the article. Anyone wanna help me with this? I don't want to start an editing war.

I've reinstated both infoboxes and left a note on FredR's talk page. I see no reason why the infoboxes shouldn't be removed. They standardise the articles. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone is trying to get this list canned, and even though I didn't create it and only added one item, I do feel that since we have List of film trilogies and List of film series, List of film duologies has a place. So, hopefully this will spur some of you to go and support this list.

In a similar vein, how would we go about asking people to check the lower film count list to make sure that if a duology becomes a trilogy that the series is removed from duologies? The same from when trilogies become quadrilogies and above so that when they are included on the film series list, they are removed from the trilogies list?

Lady Aleena 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the duologies list is a bad idea. Mainly because all you'll have are movies and their unnecessary sequels. —The preceding

FYI, the list is staying. Lady Aleena 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the comment included in the link below about the real Mahree Bok, who was a character in the Disney film film, "The Color of Friendship," true?

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=487&t=3134993

68.66.182.201 02:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to help, Rear Window (1998 film) is up for deletion as nn unless it gets expanded pdq. I added a stub tag and a "keep" vote. It may not have been a great film, but it was Chris Reeve's chance to prove that a quadriplegic can still work in his chosen profession (well, OK, he had advantages, but still!). Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the AFD discussion was speedy keep. --Muchness 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Will other people please join me in engorcing the naming convention. I CAN NOT do this alone. I renamed all of the disaster artciles to Disaster films and someone went behind me and reverted them. I am so angry and frusterated right now. Where are all of the people on the sign up list? Why aren't you all going through articles and enforcing the naming convention? Am I the only person who cares?

-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. I spent an entire morning on the Disaster film articles and all of the articles that were linked to those blasted "movie" pages. Now all of that work wasted for nothing. I am on dial up and because wikipedia doesn't have true thumbnails of its images, it takes forever to load the pages. I am not pleased. --LA

I sometimes go through cats and stubs and move pages from {movie} to (stub). Generally, I'd say that "movie" artilces are in need of attention anyway. I wouldn't worry so much about correcting redirects, so long as they go to the right article. I've done it in the past and I'm not sure how effective it was. Keep an eye on Simpsons pages -- they tend to list films without any formatting or disambiguation. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My anger and annoyance comes from the fact that I renamed all of the articles for the Disaster genre of films to Disaster films and List of Disaster films and someone came behind me and changed them back. This after spending an entire morning making sure that the links in articles go right to the article without having to be redirected. Now, all of that work is down the tubes because someone is of the opinion that our current naming convention doesn't mean anything. I have NEVER heard of an official name for the films in the Disaster genre. So, in good faith, I changed the name of Disaster movies to Disaster films, and List of Disaster movies to List of Disaster films. I am tired of seeing hours upon hours of work go down the drain. There were over 100 articles that I went through and relinked to the new name of the article. I just want to break down and cry right now for the wasted time. I am not about to try to rename them again and be told that I am edit warring. I would like to have some people back me up before I do it again.

I am also getting flack over the CfRs to rename Fair use movie posters to Fair use film posters and Road movies to Road films. Others in this project worked hard to come up with a naming convention that I am now trying to dutifully impliment whenever I see it. I want to know if I should continue or quit fighting. How will all of those others feel who argued back and forth over a naming convention that others purposefully ignore? I know I would be outraged. The others did very good work on the naming convention, and I would like to see them honored by having it strictly followed.

-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The disaster film/movie CfR is here. The other discussions are (I believe) all at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23. Please come and lend your voice. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We can always point to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). I'll support you, in most cases (I can see the case for 'road movies'). The JPS^{talk to me} 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help out with some trouble on the X-Men: The Last Stand and Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Neutrality pages.

I assert the following paragraph contains multiple violations of

Variety said the film is "a wham-bam sequel noticeably lacking in the pop gravitas, moody atmospherics and emotional weight that made the first two Marvel comicbook [sic] adaptations so rousingly successful" [1]. The Hollywood Reporter stated, "Though the picture is not without its wow-inducing, SFX-driven moments, that potent X-factor is considerably diminished in Singer's absence" [2]. Rich Cline of the British movie e-zine Shadows on the Wall said, "At least Ratner knows how to handle both action and drama on screen, even if subtlety and substance fall by the wayside". [3]. Critic and former comic-book writer Frank Lovece of Film Journal International said, "A risk-taking script with genuine consequences elevates this ... above the lackluster direction of Brett Ratner, whose competent mechanics move the story efficiently but with very little soul" [4].

It is simply abusive and biased against Director Ratner. Do you think it belongs in the article?

Article body The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced.

[edit] Reception Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([5]) and Metacritic ([6]) collect professional film reviews and calculate a numerical score from them for each film. In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo ([7]) and Box Office Guru ([8]).

The guideline does not mention including personal attacks against a director, right? Facto 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the three disc edition of Dances with Wolves not mentioned on the page, when 1 and 2 disc versions are? — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone give me some guidance on notability criteria for films? I want to write an article about a film I came across, but unsure if it might end up as deletion fodder. It was written and directed by a 15-year old in the UK on mini-DV, screened in a few UK theatres, and then released on DVD. It has a couple of reviews, mentioned on IMDB, not much other press. Any opinions? The film's IMDB page is here. Aguerriero (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that the article would become deletion fodder. I've had a similar discussion with someone else. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The advice on the project page says that plot summaries should be brief, but this seems to refer just to the introductory lines about the premise of a film. I've noticed a lot of film articles end up with long, long, long blow-by-blow accounts of practically every scene, often without much wikification (and even if you did, there might not be that much point, because of repeated uses of the same items such as character names). I guess we can call this the Television-Without-Pity approach. Does anyone want to work on making a stricter guideline that we can point to so that these sorts of things can be trimmed to a reasonable length? In almost no case, for example, do I think that more than 8 paragraphs is encyclopedic; at that point it's fancruft. In terms of being encyclopedic summary for someone who hasn't seen the movie, it's lots to wade through. [similar posted at WikiProject Television] --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people think they're writing a book. One film has a forked page for a synopsis that's longer than its root page!! I think the ratio should be 1 paragraph for every 10 to 20 minutes. The Photoplayer 05:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with The Photoplayer, leaning toward 1 paragraph per 20 minutes. (That's still six paragraphs for a typical modern movie — quite enough room to summarize. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A user has made substantial edits to Blade Runner; a featured article, I have reverted them all but I'd like feedback if any specific edits should be kept. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

At first glance I don't think I would keep any of their edits. They would be fine as a starting point for a new article, but I wouldn't make substantive changes to a featured article without discussing it first. Will review more in detail later. Aguerriero (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a novel. A movie was considered by George Pal, but never made, so I don't understand why it is in this category. Clarityfiend 05:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the film was never actually made, it's a part of movie history. Anyway, this isn't a "category". A Wikiproject is designed to bring attention to articles on common topics. Attention is always good. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Because silent film is a technology that uses variable speed, I'm finding the number of minutes in each listing to be, of course, variable. And because film speed for some films is subjective, even noting that a film might be 73 minutes at 24 frames per second or 80 minutes at 18 frames per second may be misleading to readers as being "the speed" that these films should be run at.

My suggestion is to leave a footage count-- feet, rather than minutes. In that case, an exact representation of how long the film is can be gathered by some simple math. Ideas? Comments? The Photoplayer 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's probably a good discussion of this somewhere. I think the proper way to do it isn't to be original, but to follow conventions in other film resources, and point (via footnote?) to the problems in determining running time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Can you footnote an infobox? This problem came to my attention last night when I was adding infoboxes on all of the Chaplin Mutual comedies. These films were originally two-reelers, but because they only exist in various states of condition today, it's impossible to say what the original running time or footage count was. The Photoplayer 09:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a range, then? It just seems to me that footage lengths are of primary interest to collectors, whereas those with academic or recreational interest would be nonplussed to see it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay to use Template:Infobox Film rating on film pages or is this not recommended yet? --Thorpe | talk 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so... ratings in the sense of reviews (such as IMDb) were rejected on the grounds they change often, and ratings in the sense of classification (PG, etc.) has been discussed to death. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just moved the above box from the project page. I'm not sure if it adds that much value, and in fact, I think it just clutters up the important lead section. Much better introduction, I think, is to jump right into what the project is about and state our goals and objectives. (Feel free to reintroduce the box, if you disagree). It's ok with me.--P-Chan 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. it always looked sort of awkward there. Maybe place it at the bottom, like a footer. Aguerriero (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the collaboration of the week thing since no one is really updating it anymore? Aguerriero (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe a user by the name of User:Jun-Dai created it about a year ago. You may want to ask him. Another option of course, is that you can lead it yourself! But in anycase, yes I agree. If the project remains inactive, it should definetly be removed.--P-Chan 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a section devoted to film quotes acceptable? I ask because I discovered such a section on Galaxy Quest. The IMDb has quotes and so does Wikiquote, so I expect that it isn't acceptable, but thought I'd ask here before removing it. If you reply here please inform me on my talk page that you have. Cheers.  -- Run!  16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, so feel free to move ahead with your plans to remove them. They should be moved into a wikiquotes article. Cheers.--P-Chan 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually necessary to be a hard and fast policy? A few iconic lines from a movie doesn't seem like it should be an issue, e.g.

Casablanca (movie) and "Play it, Sam!" Indeed, that's an example where a quotation is expanded encyclopedically. Obviously the extensive list in the GQ article was excessive (and I didn't even think some of them were that notable out of context), but having an S&D on Quotes sections doesn't seem generally needed. --Dhartung | Talk

07:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some films, such as those mentioned above, that have iconic lines. But massive sections, I think, should be removed on sight. They are usually pasted from the IMDb anyway. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject Films main page seems to suggest putting a link to the IMDb (and amg) both in the infobox and the "External links" section. This seems redundant, yet some pages use it, such as

I don't know if it's covered anywhere, but I support the inclusion of the Imdb and AMG links in both the info box and the external links. The info boxes carry lots of information that is duplicated in the main body of the article, such as the name of the directors, the stars, etc. The idea is to encapsulate some basic information about the film in one spot on the page. It's a summary. The Imdb links should then still be included in a longer list of external links.Wisekwai 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Dar-Ape 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Users with an interest in film categorisation may wish to comment on the discussion on CFD regarding the proposed renaming of Category:Disaster movies to Category:Disaster films. The discussion can be found here. Valiantis 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie certificates, for international movie ratings, was a little template I found and started improving (it was very big and chunky at first), then I found only one article used it. So I listed it for TfD, simply because it was pretty much an orphan, but people there seemed to like it and the majority went for a keep. So I improved it some more, and then some others started improving it, and it's not a bad little infobox now.

I noticed there's been much debate about ratings in the main film infobox, and made the suggestion there (

I have tried to get these two categories Category:Disaster movies and Category:Road movies renamed to follow the naming convention, but those who wander the Categories for deletion adamantly wish to ignore the naming convention set out by this project. There may be other categories that need renaming as well that I have yet to find, but those two are the biggest eyesores at the moment. Those two need to renamed, yet without more support, they will remain misnamed, and your naming convention ignored. Those of us who support your naming convention can not do this alone.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 00:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The naming convention should be changed to films (as opposed to movies) for those categories.--P-Chan 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! We at the

Apparently our project does not have a Worklist setup. Because of the quantity and diversity of the entries in the Wikifilms project, I highly recommend that we set one up. It would really help in the sorting and evaluation of key articles. What do we have to do in order to request one made? (I've posted this message on your project page already).--P-Chan 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just looking over the various worklist formats these two formats seem to be most applicable to the WikiProject Films.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Worklist

--P-Chan 06:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a possible deficiency in the Wikifilms project. Neither Wikifilms, nor any other project on Wikipedia, covers articles concerning Actors, Directors, Screenwriters, etc. So far, we've just focused on films. (Notice that the CVG and Book projects compensate for this scoping problem. Books ---> Authors, Games---> Developers.)

This means that we don't have a way to quality control articles like:

• Steven Spielberg
• William Shatner

I can't seem to find in the archive any mention this issue. We may want to consider expanding the project beyond just films... in order to cover these essential articles. Even if we don't, we should most definetly include articles on actors, directors, etc into the project's worklist. That's my 2 cents. Any comments? --P-Chan 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is so much a deficiency as it is just something outside the scope of the project. This project covers films. There is a WikiProject for music albums, but a seperate one for songs, and another one for musicians - simply because that is too much scope for one project. I think there may have been a WikiProject Directors at one time, but it went inactive. Maybe you should see if there is sufficient interest to start a WikiProject Filmmakers or similar? Aguerriero (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. Let's hope that more interest builds. If there isn't though, we could just go with a temporary incorporation into this project, of directors, etc for the purposes of Wiki 1.0--P-Chan 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with P-Chan. There is no other project set-up for such a task. I would say that this project is the only project around that even makes sense! Yet, if there was going to be another project created it has to cover all essential parts that are used to create a film from actors & directors to film studios and producers. But if this other project was created what would it be called? Is there another name that we could use to cover all these aspects like film industry or would that name exclude people and only pertain to companies? If anything these aspects should be included for Wiki 1.0 and then we should figure out what to do afterwards! -- UKPhoenix79 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While I at the moment am concerned with my Star Wars film articles, and WikiProject Machinima. I agree with P-Chan that such a project should be implemented either by having WikiProject Films govern films and it's creators, or by creating a new WikiProject altogether. However my two cents are that you create two new WikiProjects. One for actors and one for all crewmembers on films. The reason I say that actors deserve their own WikiProject is that you must cover all actors of film, television, and stage. None should be left out as it would be if WikiProject Filmmakers only governed film actors. So I suggest you create WikiProject Filmmakers (governing crewmembers from directors to writers to cinematographers) and WikiProject Actors & Actresses (governing all actors and actresses through film, television, stage, and even commercials). The Filmaker 05:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't a clue as to what Wiki 1.0's schedule is, but I have a feeling that getting either of the proposed projects off the group would mean resources that aren't available. (We may be some of the first people to request these projects). To echo UKphoenix, I have a feeling that we'll have to do a temporary adoption for now, and when a motivated group of people come in, we'll just pass them those articles. I've included on the Main project page, some redlinked project links to some of the projects proposed here, filmmakers and acters/actresses. Good advice guys.--P-Chan 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a Wiki 1.0 issue, so I'm promoting the section. I would also just call it WikiProject Actors following the generic use of the term e.g. Screen Actors Guild and Category:Actors. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again I think that we need to be careful not to limit the scope of this to only Actors and another for directors... if we do that then we will have a flurishing one for actors and a dead project for directors, film studios, producers, film scorers, film writers, etc... It has to contain all the above to propery sustain them all. I think that we all know that there is enough people out there that would be interusted in actors but the others would be left in the cold. Wiki Films is a great place to put this in and I think it is only natural to be placed here... but if that idea falls through then we would have to make sure that a new group wont exclude parts of the film industry. One for all... All for One! -- UKPhoenix79 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If people aren't interested in maintaining director articles (and I highly doubt that nobody is), then it won't happen regardless of whether there's a project for them or a project for all "film people". The point of a Wikiproject is to gather together people with a common interest. Technically, they are all now contained within this one project, and there are gaps. Obviously the inclusion philosophy hasn't worked at this level, why would it work at a lower level? --Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing terribly original, just thought I'd throw in my support, and offer any assistance I can, for the new Wikiprojects. I would also say that it's important that have seperate projects. With our celebrity-obsessed culture, I would imagine there would be many many people interested in writing about Brad Pitt who couldn't care less about wiriting about screenwriters and cinematographers (and likely vice versa). As for naming, I support Dhartung's suggestion that the actor project should be called WikiProject Actors, and not Actors and Acressess. As for the other one, I suppose WikiProject Filmmakers isn't a bad name, as long as the description makes it clear that it goes beyond directors. I also think both of these projects could benefit from significant input from WikiProject Television. Many cast and crew members would overlap significantly. --Gpollock 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point guys. The Actors and Actresses Wikiproject will be renamed just "Actors". --P-Chan 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I'd like to see is a WikiProject Filmmaking, mainly about the techniques and technology of the behind-the-scenes work. Not that films and personalities aren't interesting (on the contrary...), but I tend to work on the tech stuff as it's what I do for a living, and the level of misinformation and duplicated articles with similar names is often just plain frustrating. I know that there are a few of us out there, and not all of us work in the same departments - though there is some overlap. I spent most of today looking at organizing a WikiProject, but I feel that the actual putting together the first page and everything is too much for my meager design abilities (and it should look good, not just boring text that drives people away). Anyway, am I crazy or does this sound like a good idea? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When I say skeleton, I mean skeleton. I just created new film quality categories for the two traditional quality categories for wikipedia articles. Feel free to fill in the blanks in each of the FA and GA status film articles on Wikipedia. Help and advice on designing the worklist would be appreciated.

• Category_talk:FA-Class_film_articles
• Category_talk:GA-Class_film_articles

--P-Chan 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just added the other categories. I wouldn't take the quality reviews too seriously as I just added one article in each of the other categories for testing purposes.

All film categories

--P-Chan 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The bot for the Film Project Worklist has been setup. (It was pretty easy). Here is the output for those who are interested.

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Film_articles_by_quality

Just by itself, I think this link would be great for communicating to people quickly what some of the quality differences and expectations for film articles are.--P-Chan 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How often does the bot update, do you know? Also, are we responsible for coming up with our own criteria for what defines the different classes of film articles, or do we just use the criteria laid down at Category:Film_articles_by_quality? Aguerriero (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The criteria can be found

here and are standardized for all articles, not just ones for particular categories. Girolamo Savonarola

13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have graded several articles, starting with some random ones and then moving on to films in the AFI Top 100 list to prepare for our worklist. I have run across several articles that are either failed FA candidates or just generally good articles that I will be trying to promote to GA status. Aguerriero (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments are needed for our massive decentralized project of over 10,000 articles. Please check this out.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Worklist
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Worklist

--P-Chan 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put some time into expanding and editing the worklist. Please review. Aguerriero (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As editors from this project put considerable effort into this article its only reasonable to notify the group of changes to its GA status. This article has been subject to review as a GA article and failed for lack of references and NPOV statements.. Gnangarra 12:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about putting

Bueller...Bueller...? Aguerriero (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a sub-cat for Category:Films by source: Category:Films based on Greco-Roman mythology? I know I could find plenty to fill it; I keep sticking them into "drama films" or "films based on plays", but I'd really rather have a nice tidy category for all of them. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it girl! :) --P-Chan 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to mention this, but Marie Antoinette, the 2006 film by Sofia Coppola, has got a dash in between in its wiki-page, while there is not a dash in any promotional material or in its IMDb page. Just so you know.

I apologize if this is somehow considered spamming or vandalism, but I thought this might be of interest to people who contribute to the Film Portal. If this should be deleted, by all means do so. I've created a filmmaking wiki, at http://wikifilmschool.com. My aim is not to duplicate the efforts of the Film Portal or any other project that seeks to catalogue films themselves (though, in truth, that may be an eventual effect if the project grows as large as I hope it will), but rather focus on the art and craft of how films and movies are actually made; cataloguing technique, terms, resources, and all knowledge that is related to how one would actually put together a motion picture. My goal is to cross the spectrum of filmmaking, from informing on the arcana of names and terms used in professional filmmaking that are only generally privy to professionals and people who have accumulated schooling and/or experience to cataloguing every possible way to achieve professional level results with as little money and as little "industry standard" equipment as conceivable. I hope some people will be interested in contributting, as Wikifilmschool could benefit from people with general wiki experience (formatting, templates, community building, etc.) as much as actual content. I intend to post this in a few other spots related to film, so I apologize in advance to anyone who comes across this message more than once. HamillianActor 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Just wanted to make a brief announcement that I have currently

Are you and HamilionActor somehow related in some way?? (I'm asking this because of the post he/she made that is right above yours).--P-Chan 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(Oh BTW, I'm totally supporting you on this.)--P-Chan 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not him. (Don't think I'd have the energy to do both a WikiProject and a totally separate wiki on another site!) But if you need any evidence, I actually have talked to him on Talk:Film, IIRC (about wikispam). Any case, good question considering the above section, thanks to help clarify. Girolamo Savonarola 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking if you WERE him, but was wondering instead if you two were RELATED. Meaning from a similar organization, or have met in the past somehow. In any case, just curious. :) --P-Chan 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe increasing the quality of an article like this one Film could be your first major project.  :) --P-Chan 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the project could have a subgoal of providing information on songs used in the films. --Easyas12c 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote an essay discussing the notability of films and how to decide when an artcle about an unreleased film doesn't violate

Could you provide a link to where the essay is?--P-Chan 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone replaced the cover art originally at Image:nightmare.jpg with what appears like some rap music DVD cover. Does anyone have any idea how to revert that? AdamSmithee 07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the image back to the previous version. Below the image and its description is a section titled "File History". Next to each version (apart from the current) is a link marked (rev) to revert to that version. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I didn't see it. TX a lot for the help&info AdamSmithee 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

anybody here into visconti? the article about his movie the Damned (film) needs some major attention, there is almost no general information except the infobox. instead there is something that starts like this:'Through an analysis of The Damned (1969) with some detailed comparative work ofThe Leopard (1962) this article argues that the work of Visconti is overdue critical revision.' , is lenghty and to the average reader probably not very readable. --trueblood 07:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)