Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 40

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.

A discussion [and ultimate vote] of interest to members is taking place at Talk:Bande à part (film). —Roman Spinner (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

At

Hi. I'm here because we have a little debate over at Paranormal Activity. Thing is, the film was created by an independent director in 2007, and released independently at Screamfest that year. Paramount representatives attended that screening, and decided to acquire the film, modify it (ending included) and re-release it two years later, in 2009. Now, currently the article describes the film as being released in 2007, which would lead to think it's about the independent film, which later happened to have been acquired by some studio and re-released, which is what I personally think is right, since it reflects the actual course of events. But other editors insist that the article should cover mainly the theatrical release, with the original version getting only a passing mention. I will appreciate it if people could drop by and leave their opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention of both the festival and theatrical releases of films is quite common - the only difference here being the film was apparently significantly changed after the festival screening. In such a case, the theatrical release date trumps the festival release, as festivals are short term and have less significance and long-term impact than theatricals, such as box office totals, general critical response, length of run, etc. Film festival release information usually only involves which studio bought it, and if it won any awards, and in this case, if it was changed significantly, which deserves mention if noteworthy enough, but the overall focus should be on the theatrical release. However, IMO only general theatrical release dates should appear in the infobox and not the festival showing, unless the film never got picked up by a studio and went straight to video, which is not the case here. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The first release date is notable, whether it be theatrical or at a film festival. This is the first time the film was shown and is technically the release date. You should be mentioning both, but it should be considered released with the first showing. This is what

WP:FILMRELEASE describes. BOVINEBOY2008

14:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since

WP:FILMRELEASE calls for "the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film", both dates should appear in the infobox. If we follow that, there are an awful lot of infoboxes that need to be changed, including Reservoir Dogs and every other film that was first shown in a festival to maintain consistency. Shirtwaist ☎

22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well they're only project guidelines; ideally the article should document the first public exhibition, but it's not really a big deal if general release date is recorded instead. The main point of including the date is so a reader can instantly work out the age of the film. I would say leave the guideline as it stands, and if any of these articles come up for review then these various MOS issues can be fixed then. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But I think the OP's point relates not to the infobox, but to mention of the release date in the lead. If, as in this case, the festival and general releases were not in the same year, which date becomes the "official release date" mentioned in the lead? Shouldn't it be the general theatrical release date? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The single most important date to most people is the day/weekend it opened in theaters, but the festival debut should be noted as well. Listing both years in the lead is a little awkward, but it's probably the best and most accurate solution when the dates are two years apart, like here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think from a consumer point of view this is true, but since films are released in different regions on different dates I don't think it's that important after the event in an encyclopedic context. I mean, Gone with the Wind premiered in 1939 and went on general release in 1940 but film literature documents it as a 1939 film. If we went with the 1940 release date it would seem counter-intuitive. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Dec 1939 GWTW release was not the equivalent of a film festival release. It was a limited theatrical release which later went wide. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about the infobox or the lead. That's easily solved by mentioning both, but I'm more concerned by what the plot description should be. Should it describe the original film+ending, or the modified commercial version? Also, to the people who said that if we were to follow the guidelines then there would be too many other articles to change, there's

It's not unusual for films to be edited after a festival screening, so I'd go with the theatrical version for the main plot. Films like 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia were withdrawn during release and re-edited, and presumably we use the plots of the 'final' theatrical version. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Wasn't Citizen Kane previewed somewhere in the boonies, after which it was edited down to its final form? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to mention the edit in that section. That is also where post-theatrical release edits/director's cuts probably belong. It is part of the editing process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had come to terms with the article describing the commercial version and not the original one. In fact, I made the change myself. Problem is, now an editor insists that despite the fact that the article's Plot section describes the ending from the theatrical version, released in 2009, the lead and infobox for some reason should bear the release date from the original version, which is 2007. I'd say we should make our minds here. Either the article is about the original one or the theatrical. If it's to be about the theatrical, fine, the ending is the new one and the date is the new one, with the info on the original presented later. If it's about the original, so be it too, but it's ridiculous to mix things up like that. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The above conversation reminded me that some articles still don't have a plot. Films such as J. Edgar and Jack and Jill still have a huge blank between the lead and cast. RAP (talk) 14:47 25 January 2012 (UTC)

{{noplot}} would seem like a good intermediate step to take in such cases. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to struggle to find anyone who has seen Jack and Jill and wants to spend time improving its article. Anyone who has 70 minutes to burn should watch the Red Letter Media review of the film here, I found it very interesting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Without being rude,

WP:SOFIXIT! The Artist didn't have a plot until I added it. Took about 5 to 10 minutes to do a baisc overview, and since then, others have helped to flesh it out. Lugnuts (talk

) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, i can't because i haven't seen the films yet, so hopefully someone who did will. RAP (talk) 1:33 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that adding noplot would be best, so I've done that, in an empty section, which usually encourages anonymous editors to add something.

scripts

) 04:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently also encourages them to copy and paste from other websites. —Mike Allen 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that person added the plot header themselves, not after I added it.

scripts

) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Would YOU want to watch Jack and Jill to get the plot? I suggest we each take it upon ourselves to go and watch 2 minutes each of the film, someone takes 0:00-2:00 and so on and then in a collaborative effort we piece together what happened, so as to avoid any of us experiencing all of it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I am pressed for time today I thought that I would ask any of you that are interested to take a look at this new article

I've follow all the links used as references and can confirm that all are related to the sequel and not first film. jonkerz ♠talk 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Im the creator of the page, all links are related to all the informations stated in the article. jmarkfrancia (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_(film)#Awards

As seen here, what are thoughts on it? I like it and think it would be useful on articles with lengthy award tables that aren't big enough to justify an individual article but long enough that they seem kind of awkward on the page, but I also thought we could use them on actor/actress articles to hide the sometimes massive filmography tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I think there is potential to adapt it and use it on actors and filmmakers bio pages as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this hide/show technique. As I've said before regarding the page-bottom templates, the casual, infrequent reader won't be looking for them and may not even realize they're there. And I especially would be against using them for hiding filmography tables. That's one of the main elements I want easily accessible on a bio page, and I don't want to have to click show all the time to see it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you don't have to use it on everything, you'd use it where necessary. For instance I don't think Michael Caine really needs a separate article just for his filmography. With that table you could put it in the same article and its now more immediately accessible to a reader htan it was before. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that - Michael Caine could use such a table. It's probably worth doing, but either way you have to click a link, so would it really be that much more accessible? My main point is I wouldn't want to see filmography tables currently showing on pages made hidden. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Checked on my phone to make sure it's compatible with the Wapedia app, and it just shows the full table by default. I don't see any reason to not use it.--Remurmur (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think filmographies should be hidden because they are primary data, although collapsible tables could be utilised in compacting secondary data so it doesn't dominate an article. We seem to be getting more and more sub-articles for things like box-office records and soundtracks which can fragment the article over 2/3 pages, and maybe a collapsible table can be considered as an alternative to a sub-article in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just to clarify I am not advocating these be used in general, only in cases where you have a table that is two-three times longer than the prose presented in the article, it might be that the list is pretty long and is a hindrance to getting to lower areas of the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just implemented this over at The Artist (film)--Remurmur (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, could use prose, but I don't see it as any different than the album table or any other hideable tables. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Film will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles (no pun intended!) in film, movies and related areas. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here:

This addition of a line producer seems like an

MOS:FILM is silent on this because no-one actually agrees on it. My personal view is that only the actual credited producers should automatically be listed, but no doubt someone will be along shortly with an opposing view. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rostz, I think that regardless, no one other than a "Producer" should be in the "Producer" field. That isn't a general category, it's specifically for people credited as "Producer". If they were credited as a "Line producer" or "Associate producer" or even an "Executive producer" then they do not belong strictly on the grounds that they are in the wrong category. We don't put "2nd unit director" in the "Directed by" field, because it isn't the same job, just like those are not the same job as "Producer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did actually start a discussion on the Film Infobox about this, that we once and for all make a decision about this. So far only betty, Gothicfilm and RingCinema have participated. I urge everyone to go here and have a say so that we no longer have to keep having this same discussion and can just say "See Infobox:Film" . Discussion is hereDarkwarriorblake (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion is still rumbling on over at Infobox:Film, and the dispute seems to be more over the producer/executive producer credit; there is no-one arguing for the inclusion of "line producer", so I think it is reasonable to assume there is a tacit consensus for not including the line producer in the infobox. If anyone disagrees with this assessment just strike out this comment. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An AfD is going on

Doniago has been deleting entire sections from older film articles on the grounds they're unsourced. He's not the only one, but I have to point to a specific example of something that's bothered me for some time. Now, I do wish whoever built these older articles up had listed their sources, but turning articles into stumps is not good policy, and I would like to see it modified. As said by another editor at his talkpage, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help WP.

Doniago's response was I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile. I would rather see a smaller Wikipedia with more reliable content than a large Wikipedia with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation. Then he said I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter. So let's take him up on that.

I restored the Production section to Black Sunday (1977 film) after he put it on the talk page, in a hidden template. I added a ref from IMDb, which is better than nothing, but he reverted me anyway, deleting it again. Having read a good deal on film history over the years, I can say the info on this page looks valid and accurate to me. I don't have time to go looking for better sources on this over 30-year-old film. Until someone does, the section should be restored and perhaps tagged as lacking all the refs one would wish it to have. But it shouldn't be eviscerated. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If information looks like it could be sourced with a bit of work, it's much better to just mark it out as needing citations with {{citation needed}} than to just erase it entirely. I'd find it much easier to fix up an article if I had essentially a checklist of information to look for than a whole blank slate to fill. GRAPPLE X 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith on the part of editors is assumed. Unless Doniago believes the material is incorrect, he's out of bounds deleting it. In fact, it is more often the case that new material is added first, then sourced later. This is not a question of the rules, it's a matter of the usual practices of Wikipedia, which are a little bit more significant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The film article in question was tagged for needing sources in June of 2011. No effort was made to furnish such references for over six months. At that point, removing the unsourced content is a legitimate challenge to it regardless of whether it is believed to be accurate...in fact, removing unsourced content is a legitimate form of challenging it regardless of the amount of time it was unsourced for, per

WP:RS/IMDb. Doniago (talk

) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

FWIW

If it's BLP related, Doniago's method is correct if the material is contentious. Otherwise the general guideline is to tag it, source it, or remove it with a link to a source showing the information is fictitious. If it is already tagged, and has been for a reasonable length of time - IMO 3-6+ months - a statement is fair game for removal.

- J Greb (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is not contentious. It is merely not sourced, beyond IMDb. This is a 35-year-old film. WP FILM editors are not going to put it high on their priority list of articles to go source-hunting for. So I see nothing wrong with letting good info remain in the article, tagged, for well over 6 months. That is much better than having a stump. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely not, but I was referring to things like "Actor X (still alive) did this demeaning thing or that bad thing during production." Even in an article on a film that's going counter BLP and would get removed point blank without a source.

Beyond that, the maintenance tags for unsourced statements, sections, and articles have a reason for being there. (And it would have been nice if it had been mentioned that the article had such a tag off the hop. That stops people from assuming that Doniago pruned the article instead of doing the tagging.) At some point an article's, section's, or statement's lack of sources must be addressed not just tagged. Somewhere between 3 and 6 months seems to be the norm for that depending on profile of the article and the editor(s) involved. Other wise that tag becomes blunt statement "This article is what it is and we don't care. Having verifiable information isn't as important as we make it out to be." And as far as "good info" goes... it has to be asked "Based on what?" An editor's imprison of the information? Sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia? Reliable sources that the editor is looking at? Something else?

If it's based on an editor's impression or belief that the info is good, then why bother even thinking about finding sources? The article can stay in a poor shape based on guidelines simply on faith. There's no need to get it right.

If it's sources like IMDb, then why bother applying any standards to where the info comes from? Based on guidelines that can actually be seen as hurting the article since it implies that nothing reliable and verifiable can be found.

If it's based on a reliable source... well... add it. Take away the reason for the tag or at least one of them.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! As the "other editor" being quoted above, let me say two things here. 1 - Doniago and I agreed that we disagreed on this finer point of interpreting policy as regards deleting/tagging, and 2 - we agreed that in any case, the best solution was to set about finding references. The discussion being referred to that we had ended with an agreement that I would use his deletions as a guide for reinstating correctly sourced material.

Doniago and I also mutually recognised that we are both committed to building the encyclopedia. Hence rather than embark on this ridiculous flamewar, why not just find a reference and reinstate the deleted material? That is much easier than creating this sort of grief. Manning (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He did not agree that he was going to go looking for missing sources. And as I said, I did restore the material to Black Sunday, with a ref, and he deleted it again anyway on the grounds it wasn't good enough. He did this after his "agreement" with you. It seems to me he would rather the article be a stump if I don't have the time to track down better sources for a 1977 film, and he's going to keep on with the same behavior. So I took it here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The ref you used was IMDb, which is not considered reliable per

WP:RS/IMDb. You're right that, after 6 months of the article being tagged, I would rather the unsourced material be moved out of the article proper and the tag removed, but it would be facetious to claim that I wish it weren't there at all...if that were the case I would not have relocated it to the Talk page. I note that you didn't come here asking for help with finding reliable sources for the article or asking that someone else do what you don't have the time to do, rather you came here to complain about my removing unsourced material, despite the fact that what I did is within the bounds of policy, if perhaps not "best practice"...but then, the latter seems to vary depending on what editor you're talking to at the time. You also, notably, came here without even waiting for me to respond to the note you left on my Talk page, which frankly makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part, especially when you bring in selected excerpts of a discussion I had with another editor without presenting the full context and negelect to mention that the article had been tagged long-term. Doniago (talk

) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That was an oversight I did not intend. Had I realized people might assume I was referring to untagged articles I would have corrected it. I did provide the links. It's not like I was hiding anything. I didn't ask someone else to go source hunting because I thought no one would. (And watch - no one will now either.) No one else cares enough about that article to go on a research expedition to back up material unknown past contributors put in. And how was that supposed to happen with you literally hiding it in a template on the talk page? Who's going to see it there? My good faith is demonstrated by my months of trying to improve articles, especially on less travelled older films. These older articles often have interesting, unsourced info. Sometimes I'll tag it. Change or delete it if I know it to be wrong. I've added refs when I could. But I never would take something out unless it looked inaccurate. What do you do? It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Much easier to destroy rather than create. Because of you, the Black Sunday article is now a stub - it wasn't that great yesterday, and now it's even less. You admit what you're doing is perhaps not "best practice", but you're clearly determined to keep doing it. I knew engaging you would be futile. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If nobody cares enough to dig up sources, the pertinent material will remain in violation of

WP:V

and most certainly is not appropriate for inclusion. Your accusation that I am "literally hiding it" is ludicrous. The section is clearly marked as "Unsourced Material" with the pertinent information collapsed to avoid filling the page...in fact I've been asked to collapse such things in the past. Any editor interested enough in the article to view the Talk page will see the information...bluntly, it's not as though that Talk page is a hot-bed of activity. If you really feel that I'm "hiding it" (how nefarious of me!), might I ask why you didn't simply re-post the information without the collapse? Additionally, if you have a problem with it being there, might I ask where you would suggest I put it instead, other than back into the article? That your practice is not to remove something unless it looks inaccurate is well and good, but other editors are not bound by your practices, and as other editors have already noted policy allows for how I approached the situation.

Since you asked - if I can identify the contributor of recent unsourced information, I remove it and point them to the relevant sourcing guidelines, as generally I believe the contributor themselves is best suited to locate the source, and knowing how to source information is a good thing...my doing "their work" for them won't help anything. If I can't identify the contributor I'll tag...and if the information has been tagged long-term, I have no compunctions against removing it. If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them.

As noted, the material was moved to the Talk page. Your claim that it would take someone "a hundred times longer to restore" it is without merit. It's called copy-and-paste.

The next time you essentially accuse me of vandalism, I will consider it a personal attack. I had every right based on policy to behave in the manner I did. You have every right to disagree with my perspective on how to handle unsourced material, but if you're not willing to do anything about the problem other than come here and complain about me, and ignore the editors who agree that I had the right to take the action I did, then I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve.

As for the "I knew engaging you would be futile" - perhaps if you'd approached me in the spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation you would have seen more positive results. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said It only takes a fraction of a minute to delete material from articles - it would take someone a hundred times longer to restore and back up what you removed. Did you miss the part about restore and back up? You're not deleting material that's unsourced? You didn't revert me when I restored material, with an IMDb source? Any bad faith there?

And how would you have collaborated?

You say I have to question what you're actually hoping to achieve. I was trying to save the article from being gutted. Obviously.

You say If you have a problem with this approach, I suggest you look into getting the relevant policies modified so that my approach is no longer in accordance with them. That is obviously what I was trying to do when I posted here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have sympathies for Donagio's stance, but we have to be careful not to become out of step with the natural evolution of articles. There is a reason we have an article grading system. Unsourced material should be removed from FA and GA articles because they have to meet a standard. B-class articles are a judgement call, but generally unsourced material should be removed or the article should be demoted, because the guidelines do explicitly state that any material that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. C-class articles are expected to have sourcing issues among other things, they represent a work in progress. The emphasis on C-class and Start class articles should be development rather than consistency with guidelines IMO, so having unsourced material in them is par for the course. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your viewpoint may have merit, but again, there's nothing in policy that recommends reviewing that aspect of an article, and I don't think it's realistic to try mandating that editors review that information before deciding whether or not it's okay to remove unsourced material from an article, especially material that's been tagged for it long-term with no evident attempts at improvement. Doniago (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for references is much better than wholesale deletion. There is no

deadline. There are articles on here unref'd for over 6 years, let alone 6 months. Lugnuts (talk

) 08:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging references is indeed a lot better than wholesale deletion, man. The wholesale deletion on articles is not one of the better solutions. BattleshipMan (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is an opinion piece, not policy. You're all entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. And as noted above, the removed information had already been tagged...it did no good. Say what you'd like, but at least my "deletion" ("relocation" would be a more accurate and less inflammatory term) of the information actually got it some notice. "The extreme always makes an impression", apparently. Doniago (talk

) 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy, and lazy, to remove something than take the time to reference it. Just my opinion. Lugnuts (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly constructive. Just my opinion. Doniago (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst everything must be

talk

) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can google it, or you can ask the editor who made the addition if they know what they're talking about. Since good faith is assumed, I think it's fair to say that if there is no reason to believe that the article text is wrong, it's destructive to delete it. Clearly, not everything in an article will have a reference. If it's not false, our default is to keep it in, right? So it's going over the line to delete first and double check later, no matter how much time has elapsed. That's definitely not how we operate. Disrespect for other editors' contributions is a no-no. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I knew who the contributing editor(s) was/were, I most certainly would have asked them whether they knew what they were talking about. As it was the information had been unsourced for months and I'll admit I'm not invested enough to go digging through an article's history to determine who may have originally added unsourced material, especially if there may be multiple parties involved. As already noted, nothing was deleted; the text was moved to the Talk page, which I would call a specific effort not to have it deleted. Also, as the information was unsourced, I was unable to determine whether or not it was false; kudos to editors who were or are able to confirm this. As noted, nothing I did was in violation of policy, so while you may not like how I operated, your claims that I was disrespectful and that "that's definitely not how we operate" appear to be matters of opinion rather than fact.

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we're spending this amount of time putting me on trial for acting in accordance with policy, if perhaps not in a "nice" or "best practice" manner, rather than actually bothering to improve the article or change policy so that the concerns being expressed here become moot points going forward? Doniago (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that entire articles are reduced to stubs because of an "opinion" that unsourced material should be excised is ludicrous. Tag the sections as needing work, and ask for help. Using WP:Bold as an excuse for making arbitrary and non-consensual actions, is at the root of this issue; not the canard of "helping" the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Mmm, yes, and the current state of the article, with IMDb used as a reference and no maintenance tags, is certainly an improvement, even if it violates

WP:RS/IMDB. Doniago (talk

) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Doniago, your respect for policy is admirable, however I don't see your actions in line with our normal practice. Policy can be read tendentiously or it can be read with a comparison to usual means and methods that reflect it. I'm not completely clear on your motive. Are you taking out something you doubt on a subject about which you have some knowledge or are you deleting something no one ever formally sourced? The difference is critical, since there will be no references for 1+1=2. I don't see in your defense anything about your belief the material is false. That seems to indicate a lack of appreciation that the editors on a page are at least as likely to know the subject better than you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I should say that I appreciate your tone in the above note. A lot of what has been said here has struck me as less well-worded than it perhaps could have been. So, thank you for that.

I'm deleting something that no one ever formally sourced, after it was tagged long-term for needing sources and none were provided. I don't particularly have any reason to believe it's inaccurate, but as Big Bird noted below, whether or not I believe the material to be accurate isn't pertinent to its appropriateness for inclusion (granted I'd likely pounce faster on material I was 100% certain was inaccurate).

Lastly, if we allowed Wikipedia content to be guided by the apparent knowledge level of its contributors rather than reliable sourcing, then there would seem to be no reason to have verifiability policies in the first place, as "contributing editor knows what they're talking about" would then be grounds for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to carefully selected deletion of material that is unsourced and tagged as such for some time. I don't believe in the status quo that we should leave text in the article simply because it's already there. What differentiates us from blogs and "uncyclopedias" is that we

burden of proof in verifiability lies upon the editor adding the text rather than the editor removing the text. But I also do believe in being careful in what is deleted and how it is deleted. If a section stands tagged as unreferenced for a year, I search for sources verifying the statements made. If I find them, I add them and remove the tag. If I'm unable to find any sources myself and I decide that the likelihood exists that the statement is incorrect, then yes, I do consider it appropriate to delete the material. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Big Bird. I'm glad someone else seems to understand where I'm coming from. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As an editor that has come across this in the past, I have to say that I would probably side with Doniago here. If the material itself was tagged as requiring a source for over 6 months, and no one has even bothered to try and source any aspect of it, then clearly either no one cares to try or there are no sources for the information period. As such, if there are no reliable sources to the information then how can be be sure it is even true (or verifiable as is really the case). IMDb is user submitted so we cannot use them, because anyone can add something to their production and trivia sections who is registered to do so. We don't operate on the basis of "well, it looks legitimate to me", because we as editors are not authorities on "what looks legitimate" (only exceptions are when an editors is established as a legitimate authority - e.g., identity is known and said identity is authority in real life). In the end, 7 to 8 months of being tagged as needing a source is plenty of time. I would understand a complaint if Don was deleting stuff that was just recently tagged, but that is not the case here. The standard practice IS to eventually remove material that has been tagged for a significant amount of time and place it in a location so that it can be accessed and eventually sourced. Putting it on the talk page is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with  BIGNOLE . The whole idea of an encyclopedia is to have information that is as concrete and verified as humanly possible — when researchers and others come to any encyclopedia, they quite reasonably expect it to contain unimpeachable facts. Six months is more than enough time to source something, and I believe Doniago is right to removed tagged, unverified material after that.

Is hunting for a cite better? I believe so. But this has to be balanced with the fact that, more and more, I see some magazines, newspaper and books citing Wikipedia — no major publications, but small-press publishers — and this should be of great concern to all of us, since Wikipedia (by nature of having an astronomical amount of articles all written mostly by non-professional volunteers) carries so much inaccurate material. The safest course may well be to prioritize keeping unverified material out of Wikipedia.

And I believe the title of this section is a misnomer: If information isn't verified, there is no way of knowing whether it's worthwhile. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be speaking a little bit at cross purposes. Doniago's personal beliefs about the material's veracity is germane. For example, I don't know about Beyonce, so I don't edit the page on Beyonce. Beyonce experts don't question that she sings, so there won't be a reference on that. There is a continuum from obvious to arcane and the way to negotiate that is to bring to bear personal knowledge. Again, unless you believe material is false, there's nothing heroic about deleting it. If anything, it undermines the encyclopedia and the work of the other editors. Assuming good faith, the absence of a reference is not evidence it is false. That is the wrong inference. Wikipedia has an excellent record, and editors who came before us are at least as diligent as we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not even comparing the same things here. The details about the production of a film and the fact that a worldwide known singer is in fact a singer are not even relatable. If it's a matter of challenging stuff, then this statement from Black Sunday in the production section is one that I am challenging: "The final attack on the stadium was filmed later, using a mock-up of the forward section of the blimp and 10,000 extras supplied for free by The United Way charity, in exchange for Frankenheimer directing a promotional film for them, which Shaw would narrate." - There is no general knowledge surrounding this that would excuse it from requiring a source. It's a very specific claim on the production and requires a source. What is interesting is that the article now has several sources, only 2 of which are currently being cited to IMDb (which should be rectified) and only one statement at this moment (the one I just pointed out) that is completely unsourced. Why does it always take the removal of something to force people to actually follow through with a simple expectation of sourcing content? If it was this easy, why did we need these discussion in the first place? All I heard at the start was this was a 35 year old film and it was hard to find sources, yet Bzuk appears to have found some in a grand total of about 3 hours. It shows that the sourcing tag never should have needed 7 months before someone removed the content, because editors following that page should have saw the tag and done some simple research liek Bzuk did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the absence of a reference is no evidence that something is false and I think others in this discussion agree with that as well. A statement that is true should be verifiable. If an editor cannot verify on their own a statement that's been unsourced for an extended period of time, I don't think the encyclopedia loses anything by shedding this unverifiable material. Although I'm a bit more lenient in its application, I've always considered appropriate the principles laid out in this statement and as somewhat of a guiding principle for the way I edit. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually the encyclopedia would lose a lot. Many true statements are not sourced. Many, many, many. The word that is used here is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. So, something that you personally know is false can't ever be verified, so it's unverifiable and you should delete it. But unless an editor thinks some material is false (or, in rare cases, can't by definition be verified), it is counterproductive to remove it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You nailed it. That is the heart of the matter. I would like to see policy modified to express that. Good, verifiable information should not be removed. Especially on the less-traveled articles of older films, where it could be some time before a qualified editor discovers the tags and is able and willing to put in the time to find sources for someone else's earlier entries. (A time-consuming task, especially if you have to go into offline sources like books and older film publications...) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank Bzuk for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like he said in his edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. Someone may want to take a crack at The Cassandra Crossing, where Doniago also reverted my attempts to restore production material he deleted. I added an IMDb ref, but of course, it wasn't good enough. Of particular interest, the bridge depicted in the film is actually the Garabit viaduct in southern France. Until recently, both articles referred and linked to each other. I'm taking a risk in mentioning that, as none of Garabit Viaduct in fiction is currently backed up by refs, and Doniago might go over and delete that entire section as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but I will tag it for needing sources. Charming attitude by the way...it really fosters a desire to work with you and AGF. In any event, I also commend Bzuk for their work on Black Sunday. The article's looking pretty darn awesome. Glad someone was able and willing to work on digging up and utilizing references.

If the above thread didn't make it clear why IMDb is not considered sufficient as a reference, I'm at a loss to explain it any further. Doniago (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's all drop the subject since it is considered widely talked about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and kudos again to Bzuk for swinging into action a second time, tracking down refs and restoring an article, this time The Cassandra Crossing. Again, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like this make WP a better site. I placed two refs into the Garabit viaduct article as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - All of this started when I has a discussion with Doniago about deletion of worthwhile content. The two of us concluded by agreeing that we disagreed on the best approach. Although I still prefer the "tag, don't erase' option, I cannot help but note that Doniago's original (and admittedly provocative) actions have now led to at least two articles being correctly sourced. So in my best 'crusty old-timer' voice, let me just say that we're ALL good people and we're all committed to the project. Occasional disagreement on how best to go about things will always happen, but let's not start firebombing the good guys. I still don't endorse Doniago's approach, but hey, like seriously, whatever. Peace, out. Manning (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually this started when my efforts to restore those above articles were reverted. I went to the page of the one responsible, and found someone else already complaining about his practice. But I would have next taken it here once I found the responsible party was determined to keep doing the same behavior, regardless of what was or was not on his talk page. And this isn't much of a wrap-up, as he's going to keep on doing it, and the policy is not being addressed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material on first story proposals for Beneath the Planet of the Apes

On August 9, 2011‎ User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section of this 1970 sequel's article, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer

This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.

I only found this by looking back in the article's history. I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save it from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the film's talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from, source it, and then adapt it into the article. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrap-up - Wrap up this discussion. It's been widely discussed and let's settle it down. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented on the article's talk page. GRAPPLE X 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother engaging with someone that far off the mark; not only do a mountain of RS cover it people like Sandra Bullock and Halle Berry have even accepted their razzies. If he's serious let him afd it where it will be shot down in flames. Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be a deletion monkey, but does

We could do with a discussion on the term epic in general because fanboys seem to just add it to their favourite films regardless of whether or not they are epic, because they think epic means awesome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article on

Epic films needs a major re-write or clean-up. Andrzejbanas (talk

) 22:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you needed to add citation tags or perform other edits - wholesale removals like this when you're in the middle of a content dispute on those very issues is very

WP:POINTy, and you should know better than to pull a stunt like that. MikeWazowski (talk

) 04:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was removing it, because it was uncited. If people such as yourself are reverting it without even asking why I've done it or discussing it on the talk page. That is far greater of a problem. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think virtually any movie that runs over 3 hours can be considered an epic. It seems self-evident to me. Do you need a citation that it's a sci-fi too? In any case, it's quoted and cited as an epic twice within the text, so your removal was unfounded.--Remurmur (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even

this?! Lugnuts (talk

) 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Epics are by definition 3 hours? Best add that to the article then! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, epics are, by definition, categorized by their length (i.e. the "grand scale"). You can't have an epic short film, and while the exact time length is debatable, +3 hours is clearly "epic" length. Epics, as a genre, do no necessarily have thematic criteria as much as they have tropes.--Remurmur (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, genre's so subjective isn't it. The article definitely needs a good tidy-up. As far as examples go, anything that isn't cited as being described as "epic" in a couple of reliable sources should be removed. The

talk

) 14:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think more than that, 'epic' isn't even a genre! MOSFILM instructs us to identify the genre in the lead, but no film catalogue I know of (AFI/IMDB/NYTimes) has an 'epic' genre. There are plenty of sources describing 2001 as epic, but that is not the same as identifying the genre. What is next? 'Slapstick' comedy? 'Torture porn' horror? I'm with Andrzejbanas on this, I think it opens the door on subjective PEACOCK language, we're much better just sticking with the genre that the AFI or some other authoritative source has down. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you, but I'm biased, as I don't like pigeon-holing anything into a particular genre. There are bona fide "epic" films, however (the later works of David Lean, etc.,) that should be discussed on the relevant article page. --

talk

) 15:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the AFI's top ten epics. --

talk

) 15:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AllRovi classifies Cleopatra as an historic epic and I find it hard to argue with that assessment, but we could do with finding out what exactly the definition of epic is. Having a big budget is not it. I wouldn't call Terminator 2 an epic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes the meaning of the term, it's just the context of the usage. Take that AFI list for example, it has Lawrence of Arabia as its number 1 epic, but on its catalogue entry it explicitly states its genres as Adventure/Biography. There is obviously a reason why the AFI catalogue doesn't list 'epic' as a genre for these epics. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When the term "epic" is used by film critics et al., it's a description and not a categorization. Transformers was described as "loud" by many critics yet loud is not a genre nor should we add the term to the lead sentence. I agree with Betty, context is very important here and I think the term epic is often misinterpreted and inappropriately applied in lead sentences of film articles. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay - yes - I see the point: Even if "epic" is referenced, it still shouldn't be used as a genre. Seems fair enough to me. What about the article and the category though? --

talk

) 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence about the category's existence in general but I would leave the category alone for the time being. It's best left for a separate discussion so as to not add confusion or disagreement to the issue of calling the film epic in genre and stating that in the lead sentence. Better to handle one issue at a time. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well as that AFI list shows, 'epic' films are a valid grouping so there really isn't any problem with the category, because we can demonstrate an analogous grouping of films and to be fair film sources don't come much better than the AFI. We're in danger of making this more complicated than it needs to be; basically we just have to make sure its application here on Wikipedia matches its application in RS usage. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Like I said, I did not even want to get involved in a discussion re: the categories. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I can't stand it when a film's lead paragraph states genre, at least in most cases. For one thing, no two people seem to agree on which genre a film should be in (except in some very specific cases) and because, for some time now, filmmakers have been working in what one could call a cross-genre sort of way, and it can get ridiculous with "horror-comedy-noir with touches of sci-fi" (I just made that up, but I've seen some that come close). In most cases, I prefer the sentence simply say "film" and to let the body of the article describe it enough that people get it. On the Secretary article, I have to keep taking out the supposed genre "Sadomasochistic film", a genre that doesn't exist outside of porn. As a former filmmaker, I find all genres to be a very limiting description. And I've certainly never seen "epic" as a genre. Film institutes make lists all the time, as in "Ten Sexiest Films", "Ten Greatest Women's Movies", etc., but that doesn't mean their list category has been declared a genuine genre. --TEHodson 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

These are good points. If there is a question, it should be sourced. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, "

talk

) 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's about time we come in on these ridiculous genre descriptions. We should limit it to the most commonly applied genre or sub-genre. I can see the value in proclaiming Alien as a sci-fi horror film, but beyond a couple of labels it becomes vacuous. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And I personally would outlaw the use of the non-word "dramedy" (or however you spell it). It makes me cringe. Even the above example of Alien as a sci-fi horror film is inaccurate, technically, as sci-fi and horror are two separate genres (though you have proved my "cross-genre" filmmaking point). And I personally know people who would object to that film, which is poetic in the extreme, being labeled with either word, but especially with "horror", as that's also used for slasher movies and so is very misleading about Alien (especially since the fright factor is a very small part of the overall film--it just happens to be the moment everyone remembers). It's not possible to go through all the extant film articles and take all the genre labels out, but we should be very, very conservative in applying them, I believe, and take them out as we encounter them, or at least really examine them for accuracy. Stick to the word "film" and let the article itself explain the nature of the film. In film school we certainly learn Noir, Screwball Comedy, even Horror (which is meant to fulfill certain kinds of cinematic requirements) as genres, but really, current cinema is much more difficult to pin down in that way.--TEHodson 09:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually change "dramedy" to "

talk

) 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Late Spring

I would like to invite anyone with a knowledge of and interest in Japanese cinema to review the article I have edited on Yasujiro Ozu's Late Spring. I have worked on the article for about eight months, beginning on June 12, 2011. Although it is quite long, I believe that the importance of Late Spring both within the career of Ozu and within the overall history of Japanese cinema more than justifies the length. Indeed, there is quite a bit of detail that I felt I needed to omit.

I wanted the reader with little or no knowledge of Japanese film history to understand: a) the significance of the

Kôgo Noda and the actress Setsuko Hara on this film and on the director's late period films in general; d) the importance of the theme of tradition versus modernity in this film; e) the central importance to the movie of the Noh

play scene (which actually gave the film its title, as is explained there); f) Ozu's complex and subtle approach to characterization, and the relationship of the characters to traditional Japanese archetypes (e.g., the patriarchal father); g) the uniqueness of Ozu's visual style; and h) the ambiguous nature of what he achieved, which is open to many (and contradictory) interpretations.

What I'd like to request do is that anyone who reviews this may: a) suggest possible improvements to the article and b) after corrections, possibly support my attempt to promote the article as a Featured Article, which I intend to do quite soon.

I hope that I can get the article on Late Spring to the point where it sets some kind of standard for a Wikipedia cinema article.

Regards,

Dylanexpert (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the

talk

) 15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am consulting with several of its participants now. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch

Hey, I just ran into

WP:PLOT? I wasn't really sure why WP:FILM was tagged on this article so I figured I'd ask here. No need to bring something up for PROD or AfD if it meets a standard I'm not aware of. Nomader (talk

) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New article - Film censorship

I created Film censorship with prose from List of banned films. The article was well overdue for creation. I will need a lot of work to get it up to scratch. There are bare urls, missing sources and there is a lot of content that will have to be written. Can I leave it with the experts? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea for a page! :) — Cirt (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New article on film director Oliver Blackburn

• Oliver Blackburn

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyio mess on articles on individual Our Gang films.

I reported this on Wikipedia:Cleanup waaaaaay back in 2008, and no one did anything about it. Virtually all of the articles on individual entires in the

New York Times

website. I've tried to cleanup some of them, but I have a full time job and there are two hundred and twenty of these shorts, so I c an't do this thing myself.

Is there anyone who can assist with this before someone stumbles across them, emails the New York Times and the whole thing becomes a bigger issue than it needs to be? You don't need to write new synopses if you don't have time - just help delete the old ones. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll help on this. I started a lot of these off (probably back in '08), and noticed plots were added on most of them. Thanks for raising it. Lugnuts (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Following a CfD completed yesterday, most of these appeared on my watchlist last night. I've gone through most of them and removed the obvious copyvios (most of these had the plot referenced from NYT). Lugnuts (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

• Portal:Arts

I've nominated

Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk

) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A question about the term "unofficial remake"

I have seen the term "unofficial remake" used sometimes to describe a film (like Main Aisa Hi Hoon, for example). But isn't "unofficial remake" just a nicer way of saying "rip-off"? If the film producers have legal permission to remake a film, then it is not an "unofficial" remake. So that only leaves illegal copying of a film for something to be an "unofficial remake". If that's right, then it would seem that to call a film an "unofficial remake" is to state that the producers of the film have broken copyright law, and therefore such claims should have strong, reliable sources or not be made at all. Am I right, or did I miss something? 99.192.48.193 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the example pointed to... I'd rather see it cited that the film is a "remake" - official or otherwise - if the term is going to be used. And "rip-off" is definitely to be avoided except in a cited, direct quote from a reliable source. - J Greb (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but (1) my question is a general one about what to do whenever the term "unofficial remake" is used. It does seem to happen a lot particularly with films from Asia; and (2) Can the film really be called a "remake" without some source verifying that it is one? Without a source it would just be the opinion of an editor adding the claim that two films are similar enough that it must be a remake, but that's either original research or synthesis. 99.192.70.108 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.48.193)

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was looking at the example as just that - an example of a larger group. Not as an isolated case.

On the whole, "remake", "based on/off", "adapted from", etc need to be sourced on some way. Even comparing films would need to source back to someone else's work such as reviews, analysis, or court filings.

- J Greb (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, "unofficial remake" is just a nice way of saying something was plagiarized, which definitely needs to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the comments. Unless someone comes along soon with a compelling argument against, I will take a look for articles using the phrase and make a change. Google tells me that there are 44 such pages right now. Cheers! 99.192.88.112 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.48.193)

New article on music composer François-Eudes Chanfrault

• François-Eudes Chanfrault

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

What should I do if I want an article, which I recently lifted to GA, published in the newsletter?

X.One ^SOS

06:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently the newsletter is about a month late, so the best first step might be to start writing it. I guess we should really get off our asses and sort it out (unless we want to procrastinate a little longer by declaring it quarterly instead of monthly now?); I think there's a template or preload that sets up the basic framework for it. I'll have a look but the only thing I can promise is that I'll most likely not end up writing the whole thing. GRAPPLE X 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've bitten the bullet and started this. Which article is it you've had promoted? GRAPPLE X 06:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

HERE is what I've got so far. I made the decision to fold January and February together since both months are now over (fuck you leap day). There's room for a few more stories to be added, and I'm in no doubt that I've missed relevant FA/GA/etc promotions in the past two months which can be added. Since I live in a country which routinely gets fucked over for releases I've not added the recent releases yet either. If no one attends to any of these before I get lunch this afternoon (it's half seven AM now) I'll come back and finish them, but any help would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 07:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"fuck you leap day" - hehe, that made my morning. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The article I was referring to is

X.One ^SOS

08:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Added. Let me know if there's any other ones I've missed. GRAPPLE X 08:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm finished writing the bugger, the only thing left to do is distribute it. Somewhat confused by how I'm supposed to actually do that though. GRAPPLE X 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrietty page move discussion

There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Let Me In (film) problem

User:DavisJune has been trying to remove any mention of this film being based on the Swedish film Let the Right One In but just the original book despite the fact that (in addition to numerous comments from cast and crew) the closing credits explicitly say that it's based off of the Swedish film's screenplay.

He's insisting that there's no proof for it being a remake despite being told otherwise and is calling any edit referring to it as such 'vandalism'. I'm bringing it over here for attention because he's ignoring the rest of us, not a lot of people visit the talk page at the moment, and if I persist I'll just get blocked for 3RR eventually.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The American Film Institute clearly identify the Swedish screenplay as a source along with the book: [2]. At the moment the editor is removing unsourced content, which he is entitled to do, so I suggest re-adding the claim with a reference to the AFI entry. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that link. Hopefully that will be good enough to convince him.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Film credits are a reliable source. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: they often are, as in this case where they state what can probably be backed up by reliable sources (I haven't looked). However, it can be problematic to rely on them too much, or always take their word as gospel. Most mainstream American films, for example, will rely on the WGA to make a determination of a film's writing credit. Ostensibly, this is a fair way of ensuring that writers get their due, but an unfortunate by-product is that sometimes writers who contributed nothing to the final shooting script will receive a credit, and in other cases those who wrote every page are denied on-screen attribution. Mostly, it's not a problem, but there are usually a few high-profile cases per year that are variations on one of these scenarios, and probably a hell of a lot more that fly under the radar. So, be wary is all; had there been a lack of any other information to back it up, it's very easy to imagine a scenario where the credit for this film was mandated by the rules of the industry, instead of being a reflection of what actually occurred. Steve ^T • C 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is where the distinction between primary and secondary sources come in. The film itself is a primary source, and acceptable in that capacity, whereas something like the AFI is a secondary source, and preferable according to our policies. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. I have not come across a case of the AFI Catalog contradicting a film's writing credits, so it agrees with the WGA determinations (as it should). Disputes over credits should be explained in an article's prose, but we should not override or ignore the film's official credits in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should reflect the (hopefully sourced) body text just as much as the lead does; Leatherheads, for example, only has screen credit for Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly, yet the infobox rightly includes George Clooney because it's well-known (and well-sourced) that he rewrote significant portions, despite being denied such at WGA arbitration (don't ask me how Soderbergh got in there). Why should the infobox ignore this fact? It's not, and never has been, intended as a simple reproduction of the on-screen credits (interesting note: it does appear the AFI goes with screen credit). Steve ^T • C 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue in this case, but one scenario where a film's credits could be inaccurate would be in the case of blacklisted writers from the 50s, many of which continued scripting films but weren't actually given a credit in the film itself. Secondary sources can address this retrospectively where the primary source i.e. the film retain the error; I agree that film credits are a good starting point, and you can't just ignore film credits, but a secondary source is preferred—and this is why Wikipedia has a clear policy preference for secondary sources over primary sources—because they review and interpret information in a way primary sources don't. I haven't looked at the AFI catalog that closely, but it would be interesting to see how it deals with blacklisted writers. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it's noted. Leatherheads, right now, makes no distinction between the original writers and the uncredited re-writers. That is not putting out good information. Plus they're in the wrong order. Even Clooney said "they deserved the first position credit". Worse, it looks like someone added in Steven Soderbergh and Stephen Schiff with no sourcing - I think I will address this... Done. -- Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source may be mistaken. That's a given. References of all kinds have errors. Film credits are a reliable source, but like any RS may have something wrong and suffer from the lack of revisability. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again to everyone who helped on this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

African Film Festival of Cordoba - FCAT

African Film Festival of Cordoba-FCAT (formerly African Film Festival of Tarifa) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see right column on website) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM).

I'm going to upload texts from their website in this category. --M.casanova (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues at the Whisper of the Heart article

There is an issue going on at the

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 18:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection given the suspicions over an IP hopper. There are so many issues going on the best course of action would be to get the article protected, and then work through it section by section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As a note, the IP in question has posted insults towards me and Edward321 on the article's talk page ([5], [6]).

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's being abusive you can always ANI him, but personally I'd wait and see if the semi-protection request gets sanctioned first and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And this again since the RFPP has been declined... Take it to ANI?

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 23:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion is

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More incivility has been shown yet again by the IP in question despite the ANI discussion.

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple external link items to be aware of

Hello to all project members. In my editing over the last year or so I keep coming upon the following two things in the EL sections. Many of you are probably already aware of these but I thought I would post this for those who aren't and for any suggestions as to where we might put these in our style guide.

1. "Official websites" Some (many?) of these from 4 or more years ago (and even some more recent then that) have gone dead. On some of the major studio sites they have removed info about the specific film and now have items about upcoming releases. On other articles the link is just 404 or goes to a clearinghouse page for Centurylink or some such. Please note that this can also apply to other ELs like interviews, reviews, locations etc. that were added years ago
2. Some Amg - now Allrovi - links have been entered thus {{amg movie|1:5776}}. If you click on them you go do go to their website but you go to an error page with a pic of Wilson the volleyball from Castaway telling you that something is wrong. I discovered that if you remove the 1: you then go directly to their page for the film. I don't know if the problem is caused by the updates to our EL template or by their change to Allrovi - and it is possible that the link never worked at all with the 1: in it - and the "why" of it probably isn't important in the long run.

Now I don't think that either of these is a major problem requiring any special attention. I mention them so that, as you are working on articles that already exist, you might take a second to go and check the EL section and clean these up if they are there. I am also wondering if their is any place in our style guide that we might add these so that future editors can fix the problems also. If not please don't worry about it and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. As for the official websites for 4 or more years ago, they should be removed if they are dead.

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 03:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Sjones. I agree entirely and that is what I have been doing as I come across them. I appreciate your time in responding to my post and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York plot summary

Despite the relevant policies at

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, the edit was made by a sockpuppet.

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New article on British actress Sian Breckin

• Sian Breckin

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Image handling in the infobox

Another riviting discussion around infobox field parameters can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean riveting?

It is bewildering, isn't it?

Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the one. I'm all out of medals though. Lugnuts (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good man. Can manage without the decoration.

When I say "bewildering", I am referring to the discussion, not the spelling!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Year specific anime films at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

film+country template

Probably an old question. Why there isn't the flag icon and the link inside the film (country name) templates? Thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Per

Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Flags with the section "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". Thanks. Lugnuts (talk

) 11:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A Free Ride

This article is a GA nominee. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Question concerning whether or not news article counts as copyviolation

The film Cry Baby Lane aired only once on Nickelodeon and was considered to be somewhat of a lost film given that no one could find anything about it. A decade after it was aired, someone on Reddit found a copy and uploaded it onto the internet. This got quite a bit of buzz on the internet.

This information was later attributed to in an article by The Daily seen here. It gives a brief history of the film as well as interviewing the director. This article is already cited in the article for other information.

User:George Ho removed the mention that it was found on Reddit as it "may violate copyrights" [10].

It's now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cry_Baby_Lane and while I admittedly don't understand everything that's going on, my guess is that George's problem (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "the secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies" and that the "secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies".

I'm not an expert on Wiki policy so if someone could clarify what the rules are in situations like this I would appreciate it. As my understanding goes, I don't think writing about something that would constitute as a copyright violation (someone finding a lost film and uploading it online) would count as being a copyright violation in and out of itself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AFI Honors - Yes or No?

Regarding the removal of sourced AFI honors from The Towering Inferno, is this an appropriate edit? I would think these would be appropriate for inclusion, but obviously the removing editor feels otherwise. I did a brief search of the archives but didn't find anything pertinent. Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The way these things are constantly added as lists as though they merit their own little section is too much; however, if they were integrated into the article's prose as is standard for other critical listings (cf The Terminator) then I see no problem with them. GRAPPLE X 15:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the restoration of the content was the right move per

talk

) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oy. IllaZilla removed a huge list of these, apparently unilaterally. I'm restoring with a note that there's a Talk discussion going to see how consensus pans out here and restore if appropriate; they can always be removed again later, and I agree that it would be better to refactor than remove, especially without a clear indication of what's being removed. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to go about restoring these, could you at least put it in prose? It's not much more effort, and I'll pitch in with you this evening when I get back from work; if they're just restored as standalone lists then they're likely to be removed again very quickly as several editors, myself included, are hugely opposed to having information formatted as trivia lists like this. GRAPPLE X 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I'm holding off on taking any strong action pending further discussion here; in particular I'd like to hear from IllaZilla (noted on their Talk page that there is a discussion here and that summary reversion of the listings is currently against consensus). Given the number of articles involved I might suggest that in the short-term we revert and in the longer-term we proseify. While it might not be a lot more effort in general, for the scope of the articles involved, it would be a significant effort for me, in any case. Doniago (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The AFI is a notable institution (as indeed is the BFI) and so are the awards they present. They received press and TV attention and were widely discussed (positive and negative which was the point I think) in many venues at the time and, thus, they meet

WP:NOTABILITY requirements so to remove them as "trivia" is a mistake. Most award sections are presented as lists especially those that have been placed in a table so there is little need to remove them just because they aren't in prose. As we move towards a consensus mark me down as keep them in the articles in either form. MarnetteD | Talk

16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for removing these lists can be found here. It wasn't out of prejudice against AFI, it was objection User:Ldavid1985's method of indiscriminately adding lists to dozens and dozens of film articles: Sometimes he sourced them, other times not. Sometimes he added list sections when the AFI list rankings were already discussed in prose, other times he took well-written prose and turned it into a bulleted list. While I agree that mentioning a film's placement on AFI's anniversary lists is pertinent, it should be done in prose form rather than as a bulleted list, and it should be restricted to films that actually made the lists (which equates to 1,300 mentions) rather than including every nominee (which equates to many thousands more). Marnette, though these lists are certainly worth mentioning in the context of a film's legacy and cultural influence, they aren't awards. They're lists the AFI made for a series of TV specials celebrating its anniversary, there were no awards associated with them. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and for straightening out my misuse of the term awards (that came from the fact that some articles have them in that section) - that makes sense. I completely agree that "it should be restricted to films that actually made the lists". Moving them and turning them into prose, hopefully, won't be too much of a hassle. Thanks again for taking the time to explain everything. MarnetteD | Talk 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say this is more a

WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue then anything else. Are they notable? Yes. Are they relevant? It depends. At the end of the day we can probably hunt down loads of lists that the classic films have been listed on, I mean, if we listed all the lists that something like Citizen Kane or Casablanca had been listed on then it would probably double the length of the article. In that sense there is inherently no reason to add an AFI list over the many other lists out there. The best way to handle these types of lists is just as another form of critical review. We don't add every review to the article, we use a selection to try and present a balanced overview of how the film was received. Take Some Like It Hot for instance, I think it's clearly worth noting that the AFI have it topping the number 1 'laughs' list, but does it really tell us anything about the film by saying that it was nominated for the top 100 'passions' list. I don't think the 'quotes' list is all that significant either, but if you are discussing the film's dialogue within the article then it may be contextually relevant. It's all about picking and choosing the bits that actually tell the reader about the importance of the film and in what way. Betty Logan (talk

) 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I just had the horrifying thought that in similar cases I'd say we should limit mentions of, in this case AFI, to ones where a third-party took note of it, but I'm wondering how common it is for third-parties to take note of films receiving AFI nods. Doniago (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Although skepticism is warranted, perhaps that goes a bit too far. The awards come from a jury, and I don't find on Google any particular skepticism or accusations of bias. Their lists, though, seem like faint praise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there is, sadly, no compromise from Illazilla in this situation lets get a few things on the record. Per this section

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Accolades

1. There is nothing stated that these Accolade sections need to be in prose. Indeed, all the instructions are for various presentations other than prose. The removal of AFI mentions from based on the fact that they aren't presented in prose when the whole section is not presented that way is disingenuous and
   WP:POINTy
   at the very least.
2. The AFI lists are specifically mentioned in the second sentence, thus, the continued classification of them as "trivial" in edit summaries belies the reasoning presented above.
3. Sourcing for these is quite easy as all of the lists exist are the AFI website somewhere. But as they are being removed from accolade sections while numerous other unsourced awards are not this again belies the reasoning given above.
4. These accolade sections have listings for Satellite, Genie and numerous other awards without
   WP:CONSENSUS
   for that has changed we need to put it in writing.

There have been other discussions about updating the filmproject styleguide before and they often seem to drift away. I don't know if anything will change this time but it certainly is a good illustration of why

WP:IAR is still of value. MarnetteD | Talk

04:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you saying I'm unwilling to compromise? I already agreed that mentioning a film's placement on these AFI lists can be a good addition to a section on the film's impact and significance. But they should be in prose rather than a list. There is ample precedent for having tables for awards and nominations like Oscars, BAFTAs, etc., but not list sections for miscellaneous list mentions. And of course the information has to be sourced.

some good guidance on how to handle these kinds of lists: "Lists can be considered as another source of reviews as to notability but due to their proliferation and the dubious value of some lists, they are to be held to a higher standard. Lists should not be a simple enumeration but to be cited should include prose." If you're calling me uncompromising because I reverted you on a few articles, I did so because the information was unsourced. If you want to fix that by adding sources, by all means do. --IllaZilla (talk

) 05:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the upshot of the discussion thus far is that if a list of AFI nods is added to an article, it should ideally be sourced and proseified, or at least sourced if possible and proseified later. Reverting a sourced list, though, doesn't seem to make sense as the information is essentially lost at that point; far better to just spend the time to proseify it, or leave it alone...possibly notifying the adding editor that ideally they should be adding the information in prose. Doniago (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granite Hotel

Could use additional eyes on this AFD. Debate ongoing between myself and another editor. Thanks. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

African Films deletions

A user (user:Gaijin42) sent me many nominations for deletion of African films (see my talk page). On the other hand I got an original barnstar "For your efforts starting missing articles on African films" (by user:Dr. Blofeld). --M.casanova (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started a post here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#possible_violation_of_Wikipedia:Bot_policy_specifically_WP:MASSCREATION to discuss this issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Late Spring

We are trying to get

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I created

talk

) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I've retained both found footage and collage film, with a clearer delineation between the found object that has multiple uses, and a certain genre of film created from such material.
  talk
  ) 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the film about?

A few weeks ago I asked

talk

) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection. Why do the reviews sites prefer no mention of the film subject? (I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead section could mention something about the film's contents without spoilers. That would serve our purposes just as well in almost any case.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My initial post was facetious in that people looking up the Wikipedia articles of films they wondered about watching wouldn't get a clue from reading the first few paragraphs and thus would be encouraged to go to the commercial movie sites instead. __

talk

) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to relay the basic premise of the film in the lead, the MOS clearly requests this. Articles promoted to GA status generally will do, but developing articles will often omit many details that are requested by the MOS. I don't see this as a project problem though, unless articles are being passed at GA and perhaps B class level without adhering to the MOS. Lead issues are usually addressed throughout the natural course of article development. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's just that what a film's about is kinda the first thing that should go into an article, and when it's there, there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section. __

talk

) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you have a crack at trying to do just that for this article? Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Fisheye lens

This article contains a list of the FEW fisheye lenses. I´m sure its:

• not too long
• has its value especially because it includes nearly all 35mm fisheyes
• is currently removed by one editor, also former talks show that the list is wanted.

Please help or talk. Tagremover (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Directing and acting styles and production

Hi, guys! I am working on Gran Torino. When talking about the director's filming style and method of acting of the actors, that goes into "Production," correct? Do some film articles have entire sections dedicated to them? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! All that goes under the production section. Filming section under the Production section to be precise. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cars 2 review discussion

I've started a discussion for the Cars 2 reviews at

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival

African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival (Milan, Italy) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see footer) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM). OTRS declaration sent.

I'm going to upload texts from their website like this one. --M.casanova (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Casanova. I've made some slight tweaks to the above article such as adding the country in the lead ("a 2011 Egyptian film" instead of "a 2011 film"), the word minutes in the infobox and moving the CC BY-SA link to the External links section. If you could base your templates on this layout, that would help. Keep up the good work! Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil War motion picture hoax?

On YouTube, some joker has posted what he claims is film of Civil War soldiers marching in 1863, shot by a "Léon-Alexandre Cànular." This film supposedly has been preserved by the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. But there's nothing about this Canular on Wikipedia, no reliable sources turn up in a Google search, nor in Google Books. The YouTube poster, OnlyJasonere, apparently has his post rigged so nobody can leave a comment contradicting him. Just wondered if anyone on this project knows anything about this hoax? Google reveals at least one newspaper, in Winston-Salem NC, has reposted it as a genuine motion picture from 1863 - but of course it's not. (More likely a clip from

Birth of a Nation, IMO.) Wonder if Wikipedia needs an article on the hoax itself? Textorus (talk

) 08:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that fact OR fiction, you can find almost anyhthing eventually being posted on YouTube. Hoax or not, we might have an article on the film if it received significant coverage in multiple relible sources. Just as you, I note that the youtube clip is discussed in Salem News, as does My Local News without them calling it a hoax. These two seems to be the totality available coverage. While a no-longer-available non-RS Facebook posting speculates that it might in fact be a hoax, the so named Leon-Alexandre Cànular is unsouracble as a period photographer, and so hoax or not, we do not have enough proper souces speaking about it to merit an article on the topic one way or the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely a hoax even if there are sources out there that have been sucked in. The first "motion picture" was a galloping horse many years after the civil war, and that was done by having a series of cameras lined up to take multiple pictures because film cameras didn't exist at the time. They came much later (1890s I think), and as you can see the civil war footage is made by just one camera, so is certainly a re-enactment of some kind. If reliable sources document the hoax we can add it to the List of hoaxes, but we do need secondary sources documenting it as a hoax. Secondary sources documenting it as real footage are not establishing its notability as a hoax, they are mistakenly establishing is notability as real footage; the real problem is if the sources document it as genuine and no sources document it as a hoax, because an editor could quite legitimately create an article documenting it as genuine footage under our rules of verifiability, and if no sources counter that claim we can't prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend agree with your conclusions, but as not enough sources cover it in any sort of detail, hoax or not, an article would not survive an AFD. And the two sources that do dicuss it, do not do so in any detail. And when sources DO discuss it as a hoax, then perhaps it might be added to List of hoaxes. For instance, the Dell Fart Art Video HAS been somewhat more widely discussed... but even IT is not notable enough for an article or inclusion on the list. So until we have more sources, we really should not lend it credence one way or the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Total hoax. Taken from a clip of reenactment footage from one of the Gettysburg reenactments. Both clips and some commentary available here: http://lotu2.blogspot.com/2011/03/confederate-soldiers-marching-1863.html Surprised it fooled anyone, they are clearly reenactors, even with all the film effect to make it look old. Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.165.136 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Split up List of banned films

I have converted the List of banned films from an awful mish-mash of bulleted lists and random tables into one big sortable table. Took a long time I hafta tell ya! I had already split out some of the longer lists on a country basis to separate articles. I would like to continue with splitting the list on a country basis where it is justified. The remainder, liting of five or so per country, should then go to Film censorship and the List of banned films page is then set up as a disambiguation page for all the separate articles. Does that sound like a good plan? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me - nice work on cleaning this mess up in the first place! Lugnuts (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Looks good to me" to split or "looks good to me" as it is? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha, sorry - the split looks good. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all - nice work, fella. That must have taken ages to do. I've taken the liberty of adding some table formatting to the main list.

Secondly, I can see an argument for re-merging the list rather than splitting it any further. Now that the list is in a sortable table, it's possible with one click and a search to not only answer e.g. "What films were banned in Burma ?", but also "In what countries was A Clockwork Orange banned ?" or "What films were banned in the 1920s ?" If a list is sortable, does it really matter how long it gets ? Further entries can simply be added at the end of the table. Just a thought. Barry Wom (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, I just had a look at the list of films banned in Chile and I can understand leaving it as a separate list. Blimey. The censors have been busy down there. I wonder what was so bad about Superstar of Lesbianism numbers 5, 8, 9 and 13-15 when the rest of the series seems to have been allowed ? Mental note: some research required. Barry Wom (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Piano Teacher page moves

Please see discussion

here and here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk

) 13:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Roscoe Arbuckle page move discussion

This discussion may interest some people. Lugnuts (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Year discrepancy

Dead Man's Shoes (1939 film) is a bit confused. The infobox and IMDb say 1940, while BFI, the title and category say 1939. Clarityfiend (talk

) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The American FIlm Institute says 1939 too, per this. Lugnuts (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe we decide the year is the first year the film premiered. I think AFI and BFI declare the year as when the film was registered with the institute. Can we find a source of its premier? BOVINEBOY2008 21:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For now, I've put in both dates, with their respective sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Comeback Kid (film)

Does The Comeback Kid (film) meet notability guidelines for films? It is a made for tv movie and I can't find many sources other than ones like IMDB that just list the cast and plot. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian film naming conventions

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Classic zombie films disputed move

There is a move proposal

Zombie (fictional) probably should be part of this project, despite its unfortunate name. LaTeeDa (talk

) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be about merging the popular fiction article with an article about the Voodoo/Haitian zombie beliefs, and you are the one that proposed the merge. Maybe I'm missing something here but no-one is suggesting removing the films from the

Zombie_(fictional) with the article about zombie spirtual practices? You have either got your pages mixed up here or you have proposed a merge you don't actually want. Betty Logan (talk

) 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I may have confused things some but if you read my posts there, I am arguing for a unified

Zombie (fictional) - which was changed in 2011 to become oddly unchronological in an effort to make that page exclusively about Romero/contemporary zombie pop culture, and put the classic movie content off the beaten path in an article about nonfiction Voodoo zombie practices. Thanks for giving this your attention. LaTeeDa (talk

) 15:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Paprika reception section

I've started a discussion over at

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Western films

I think members of this project need to take a look at this category, which I think is very problematic. Is "Neo-Western" an established term in use by critics? The description on the category page, which is very long, looks to be entirely original research. A discussion needs to commence as to whether this category should remain. ---

TheFortyFive

03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd call myself a cineaste (not in public though, Christ...), and I've honestly never heard the term. GRAPPLE X 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the actual list, a lot of those are either straight westerns, or that lovely crossover between westerns and noir (Bad Day at Black Rock for example). I'm also suspicious of the fact that the category contains an actual paragraph of explanatory text, rather than having a parent article. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, straight westerns, western-noirs, or revisionist westerns describes all of these, I think.

TheFortyFive

22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard the term either, but it seems to pop up quite a lot in film books, so while it doesn't really exist as a genre term it is frequently used in analysis: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=neo+westerns. Betty Logan (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that enough to justify the existence of this category? Looking at that list of titles, and the brief excerpts provided, it is not clear that all of those critics are using the term in the same way, or in reference to the same films. This still seems, as I said, problematic. A good rule of thumb for me, though this might not be policy, is that if there is not enough in the way of reliable sources to justify a main article on the subject, there is not enough basis to justify the existence of a category. In the absence of a clear definition, supported by reliable sources, it is left to the judgement of editors whether or not a film should be thus categorized, and that is unacceptable. ---

TheFortyFive

22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that without a genre article which can be supported with sources, this category could probably be done away with. GRAPPLE X 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar debate recently in regards to 'epic' as a genre rather than as a descriptive term, and the consensus was that to group films that were not explictly recognized under those genres constituted original research. I think a similar argument applies here and would have no problem with the category being pulled from the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had a quick scan of the list. Removed

No Country for Old Men (film) a thriller ... but (neo-)Westerns? Not in my estimation. I agree that, first, the category should be pulled from all the films listed, and then that there is no justification for the existence of the category. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk

) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If references were found (and I agree that the name is obviously a less-than-good choice), this might not be a bad list. But yes, I could see this easily being deleted at CfD. - jc37 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many examples of this term's usage. Its definition may be a problem, but it is recognized as a genre. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Recognized as a genre by whom? Are there reliable sources that can be used to create an article? As it stands, the films listed in this category seem arbitrary, as does the definition given on the category page. ---

TheFortyFive

16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of your Google search on the term indicate to you that it is not? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, for example, listal.com list only two:- "Kid" (1990) and "The Brave" (1997)

Mubi (Europe) list just eight. Of course, Wikipedia has first mention on Google but that has to be discounted here in this discussion. In my opinion, it is not a genre and is unworthy of inclusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but based on what? What does it lack that a genre or subgenre has? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up briefly: although I share Gareth's skepticism, No Country for Old Men (e.g.) -- both the film and the McCarthy novel -- has been called 'Neo-Western'. To have a definition means to know why and that's not clear. However, the term is widely in use, so apparently it refers to something to some writers. I don't have my mind made up. Jacobite's thoughts, too, I find entirely valid, but I don't see what the standard is. Are Neo-Westerns just Westerns or are they not Westerns? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As the usual definition of neo is new or revived, and as I am certain that nobody has a problem with western, there are in my mind the films referred to as a spaghetti western. The present list strays a long way from that. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think our issue here is how the prefix combination applies. Instead, my perception is that we have a term that is in use by different writers who may have all arrived at the term via examples but with possibly different notions of how to apply it. It is used by English speakers writing about film, so prima facie they are not mistaken. Is it a figurative expression? Is it industry argot? Is it in some cases defined, or is it defined in a family concept way? Genres themselves are all family concepts (I mean, no exception comes to mind). There was just added to the article on No Country for Old Men, this passage:

William J, Devlin categorized No Country... in the “neo-western” genre, and further explained how it is different from the classic western. “No Country for Old Men demonstrates a decline, or decay, of the traditional western ideal,” he said. “The moral framework of the West-or the country, or the world-is changing. The traditional western framework that contained innocent and wholesome westerners striving to live out the American Dream, typical villains driven by greed and power, and the heroes who fought for what is right, is fading. The villains, or the criminals, act in such a way that the traditional hero cannot make sense of their criminal behavior. While the traditional villains, such as Ryker and Wilson [in the traditional western Shane], are immoral and clearly 'bad guys', we can understand them because their actions are rational. We can see their actions are based on moral egoism, measured by their own self interests. But in the world of No Country for Old Men, the 'bad guys' act irrationally. They don’t even act with criminal passion. As such, Bell cannot comprehend the enemies he should be confronting as the hero of today-for him, 'it’s hard to even take measure.'"

Okay, so that's one writer's take on what the difference is about. I don't think it betrays anything seriously amiss on the genre page. Sorry, this is a long post. Ring Cinema (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed A Perfect World (1993) which is another "road movie" and not a western, "neo" or otherwise. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed Urban Cowboy a "romantic-drama" and in no way neo-western, unless the inclusion of a mechanical bull counts!? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, but computer problems prevented me from going online. But, to rejoin the discussion, it seems to me that we are still at the same impasse: are there reliable sources for the term "neo-western" and are those sources in agreement as to a definition? If so, at least a stub article could be written that would provide some justification for the category. Not to repeat myself, but my concern all along has been arbitrary categorization that results from the lack of a solid definition. ---

TheFortyFive

15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the term, and that is the justification (although of course RS can mislead). Usage usually precedes definition and inconsistent usage does not vitiate the concept or the term. But I agree that skepticism is warranted regarding this category. Is it a reference to a revisiting or a remodeling of the western? I'm not convinced that a lot of care is taken by those who use the term, and that's another problem. Surely it is a family concept, but that is still a concept. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess the question is, "what next?" Take the category to CfD? Or, remove the obviously inappropriate films, and keep an eye on it for the time being? ---

TheFortyFive

04:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent! The Godfather ... again!

Urgent! The Godfather ... again!

Take a look at The Godfather. A new editor has made close on 200 uninterrupted edits over the past two days, and is still doing so. No edit summaries.

Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Make him an offer he can't refuse. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a discernable problem with his edits, or are you just objecting to him not supplying edit summaries? Ultimately edit summaries are a courtesy not a requirement, so as a Project we cannot really address that. As for the edits themselves, well if there is an actual problem with them then just revert him. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine whether there is a discernible problem when there are so many edits in a row, and no edit summaries to explain what he is doing. Yes, edit summaries are a courtesy, but they are especially important if one is going to make wholesale changes to an article. Gareth's intention in bringing this matter here is to get other film project editors to take a look at the edits and see if they pass muster. I think that is an appropriate step. ---

TheFortyFive

04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

List of biggest box office bombs

Hello! The

List of biggest box office bombs has recently caught my attention (due to the publicity around John Carter, which now tops the list). I have concerns regarding the list, which I have brought up on the talk page, as well as at the No Original Research noticeboard (see this thread). The list's main (and almost only) contributor is Clicklander (talk · contribs), who has been reverting removal of what I believe is original research. Comments from experience editors would be appreciated! :-) Mlm42 (talk

) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It definitely needs a well-defined scope, as I see films listed there that made 80% of their budget back, while I can think of films that lost around half their budget off the top of my head that are absent. If third-party sources define a threshold for what is or isn't a "bomb" (sort of like how "serial killer" has a technical definition) then that should definitely go in. The "statistics" section is technically okay as it just collates simple calculations based on the table's information, but whether or not such a number-crunching section is really that big a deal is another matter. I'd rather see things like what the biggest percentage loss or actual loss was in prose, rather than just needing to sort the table to find out, and perhaps a by-decade breakdown instead of by studio would be better. Could do with work but I think its only serious issue is that it doesn't actually set itself a properly-defined scope. GRAPPLE X 17:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My problem with the statistics section is that since the scope isn't well-defined, it's meaningless information. Maybe the only reason Eddie Murphy appears five times in the list, is because Clicklander looked specifically for bad Eddie Murphy films (I'm not actually suggesting that happened). You see my point? Mlm42 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the 5 Eddie Murphy movies in the list was added by me. Eddie Murphy appears that much in the list because he simply has participated many times in his career in Box office bombs. Of course he has also made many other successful films, however this doesn't change some facts.Clicklander (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I felt that using different statistics but keeping the general spirit of the section would be better. Unless a scope is defined then poorly-performing films connected to anyone could be added to skew the appearance of being unsuccessful; whereas mentioning things such as the biggest actual cash loss or the largest percentage of the budget lost would be much more concrete things to mention, plus they would serve to summarise the table in prose rather than presenting out-of-context summaries of individual people and their contributions to poorly-performing films. I mean, without a hard limit, I could stick

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (55-60% loss) and Lost Highway (lost over 60% of its budget) in there and make David Lynch seem like box office poison. I don't wanna, though. But I could. So you watch yourself, Davy. GRAPPLE X

17:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Grapple, the list needs to have a clearly defined scope. The main problem is its title, sometimes films are referred to as 'bombs' even when they make their money back (Cleopatra ironically was the most successful film of the year and still labelled a bomb on release) i.e. it is a subjective label. We should rename the article as List of biggest box-office losers along the lines of a similar chart at [[11]] (see the two charts at the bottom of the page); that way films can be ranked on a simple cost:gross differential. I don't have a problem with the "statistics" section per se, it is just summarising the content of the table i.e. it is not saying that Warner Bros produces more flops than anyone else, just that it is the most represented on the table, so in that sense it is not original research, provided it doesn't extend its observations beyond the contents of the table. My other problem is the poor referencing of the table; fair enough, you might be able to hunt down grosses and budgets from the film articles, but the list should stand as an independent article in its own right—if you look at the box office articles such as List of highest-grossing films‎, every single amount is sourced, and that should be the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT:

Box office bomb is a standard term, so I think the title is actually ok in respect of that, but my other points stand. The criteria for inclusion should be a clear cost/gross differential, and the table should be ordered on that basis with clear sourcing for each amount. Betty Logan (talk

) 18:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for your comments, and that source. What do you think about the length of the list? Maybe it would be better to split it into two shorter lists, like the last to lists of [12]. Mlm42 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two types of flop, those that lose a load of money and those with a low ROI, so I think splitting the two types like The Numbers has done is a good idea, because they are two different types of information that can be ranked by two different criteria. At the moment the chart is trying to do both and it isn't really working. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should follow the example of List of highest-grossing films‎ and only list the top 50 biggest flops (possibly different lists for different criteria). How does that sound? Mlm42 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all since Mlm42 is mentioning me, I do not find it fair to delete my comments from this discussion. Secondly, to determin whether or not this list should be split or shrink, you should look at the definition of a bomb. According to the definition a bomb has nothing to do with return on investment. What defines a bomb is simply the huge amount of money it looses. I do not see why you should make two lists for one unique definition.Clicklander (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Clicklander, I didn't delete any of your comments (except for redundant ones that you posted simultaneously to my talk page and your talk page). But I'm concerned that you are claiming

WP:OWNership of this list.. you would be wise to take into account the opinions of others. Mlm42 (talk

) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that you deleted my post. I Just saw that my post was deleted. I also do not claim ownership for any wikipedia article in noways. The article

List of biggest box office bombs started from me but many other wikipedia editors contribute it as well to be as it is today. The fact that we disagree in some aspects does not mean that I do not respect other’s opinions.Clicklander (talk

) 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Any criteria you use still has to be objective. At the moment there are films that only lost $7–8 million on the list, and there are clearly many other films that lost more than that not on the list. If the criteria you wish to apply is simply how much the film lost in absolute terms, then I suggest re-ordering the table to reflect that rationale, and removing films that only lost small amounts of money. At the moment the inclusion criteria looks like it is being applied selectively to certain films, which makes the whole thing pointless as a list, because it doesn't make it clear which films are the biggest money losers. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't se any film that lost only $7–8 million. Could you show me one? If there is any it should be removed. If there are other films that lost more that any in the list, then they should be added. That simple!Clicklander (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, it's adjusted for inflation; even so it is still very arbitrary isn't it? For the record I think it's a pretty interesting list, it's just a bit unfocussed and unwieldy, and the inclusion criteria isn't clear. I still don't understand what the criteria is for adding a film? Does it simply have be perceived as a flop, or does it just have to lose a certain amount of money? Could I add any film that has lost $40 million? How about $20 million? According to the box office bomb article the film has to lose a significant amount of money to be a bomb, so the ROI does seem to come into it regardless of what you say above. For instance, a film that costs $50 million and only makes $10 million only loses as much as a film that costs $200 million and only makes $160 million, but I would question whether the latter actually meets the definition, since it made most of its money back. For example, on what basis does a film like Alexander qualify for the list, when it made most of its money back? It's this kind of fuzzy application that is the problem, because if there is no hard criteria then it comes down to editors deciding what should go on the list. If the films were simply ranked by how much money they had lost, and limited to a top 50 or a loss threshold (such as $50 million or $100 million), and the lede explicitly stated the inclusion criteria then the whole thing would be much clearer and less wishy-washy. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read again the definition carefully. A poor ROI does not necessarily mean big losses. The two examples of films you gave, one with $50 million and the other with $200 budget, meet the definition exactly in the same level since they lost the same regardless the initial investment. Regarding Alexander, it is a flop as it didn't meet the expectations in the box office, but according to the definition it is not a bomb, as it didn’t generate losses in the end. In the opposite way, a film with very poor ROI but with very low investment cost cannot be considered as bomb either. All films in the list have been chosen to be there because of their huge loss. That’s the only criterion! As for your question up to what amount of loss a bomb should be added in the list, my answer is, I do not know! To limit the number of the bombs to a top 50 could be an option or another option could be to put a threshold for the losses. For the time being losses under $30 million are considered from the editors as minor bombs but this can be under discussion.Clicklander (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthiness and being screened at a film festival

Is it always worthy to note in an article if a film has been screened at a film festival?

The Living Daylights was screened at a September 1987 film festival in Deauville, France with 39 other films (apparently the 13th Deauville American Film Festival - the Spanish source says "El Festival de Cine de Deauville, Francia"). The El Nuevo Herald said "En el programa del festival figuran unos cuarenta filmes, la mayoria de los cuales seran presentados en primicia mundial, entre los que se cuentan Man on Fire, de Elie Chouraqui, interpretado por Scott Glenn y Jade Malle, y The Living Daylights, en el que actuan Timothy Dalton y Maryam d'Albo."

A user pointed out that the premiere of The Living Daylights was held on June 29, 1987, and it had already screened across the US and Europe before the Deauville festival.

But at the same time the Deauville film festival is Wikipedia notable. Is is it still worthy to say in the article that the film screened there? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No other screenings at other festivals are mentioned in the article and a screening three months after the premiere at one of the 'lesser' festivals isn't really that big a deal. -

^ • @

) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

About other screenings not being mentioned, has anyone tried to find out if the film was screened at other film festivals? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say probably not, except when the screening constitutes a premiere or the film's selection is noteworthy in itself (e.f. being your country's entry at Cannes). Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the Spanish text several world premieres were made at that Deauville festival, but apparently Living Daylights isn't one of them... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bog Standard (film)

Anyone else think that this film simply isn't notable? Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's questionable isn't it? I'll prod it, and then if the author or another project member disagrees they can take the notice off. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, all the refs seem to be self-promotional or Youtube links. Lugnuts (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the editors other "short film" article Invisible Bullets (short film) may also have notability problems. What do the rest of you think? MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've prodded it. Looks like someone has posted up their cv, but if these films have been covered in reliable publications then the tags can be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues with Star Wars articles

In

WT:STARWARS i mentioned a large number of articles that had no third party reliable source. The wikiproject seems to be slightly inactive and only got one approval to redirect the articles. As a start to gain attention, i only redirected the documentary articles. A certain Editor reverted them saying i ddn't have a good reason, however in the project's talk page, did not make it clear why. So in effort to avoid an edit war, i come here in help of getting a stronger consensus.Lucia Black (talk

) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally a film article should have its notability established via reliable sources, but this isn't an absolute requirement. It may be worth checking

WP:AFD where their notability can be objectively assessed. The 'certain editor' may be wrong about the notability in regards to these articles, but he is correct in reverting the redirects, since some of them are substantial articles so the AfD procedure shouldn't be circumvented by turning them into redirects. Betty Logan (talk

) 00:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How are they substantial? These are documentaries on the development of Star Wars, it's quite difficult to prove how substantial it is in their current state.All of these articles are in the same state at the moment. So individually AfDing each documentary of the given film, it would be better to discuss it. So here's our chance to have a consensus for merge or not merge.Lucia Black (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting all the articles wasn't a proposal for a merge it was just a backdoor deletion, so what I was saying was that if you wanted to delete the articles then they should go through AFD. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The information it has isn't mergable. Its called a speedy deletion. Not everything has to be AFD.Lucia Black (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Article and discussion that could use more input

If anyone who is interested could add their thoughts here Talk:Titanic (1943 film)#Edits of April 2012 it would be appreciated. This article does not seem to be on many watchlists and if any of the items involved could be improved that would be great. On a side note with the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic coming up next week it is possible that articles for all of the film adaptations could see higher than normal traffic so it anyone wants to add them to their watchlist that would be most helpful. Thanks for your time and input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese films by year

Recently created categories of Japanese films by various years have been created (eg, Category:1999 Japanese films). I've raised these at CfD here. Input is welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else care to add to this? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

There is a split proposal at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series that could really benefit from the consideration of the project. This article receives 200,000 hits a month and is ranked in the top 700 articles on Wikipedia, as well as being a featured list. It is obviously a key article within the Film Project so it is important that major alterations to it are carefully considered. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Indian language films

While reviewing new articles, I have tagged some Indian

talk), is asking me why I tagged these films. He plans to write articles on many Indian films, including all category National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi

films. Since I am not at all an expert on foreign language films, but I did have doubts about notability of these films, I am posting here to ask for comments.

Are all the films awarded the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi, and beyond those, all the films in the Indian category:National Film Awards notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, any film which has been recognised with an industry award like that seems perfectly fine within our notability guidelines. GRAPPLE X 21:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Marathi films which have no industry awards at all?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Take them on a case-by-case basis based on how wide a release and how critically-discussed they've been. If something opens at a small festival and recieves no coverage, it's not worth having here no matter what its language. If it's significantly mentioned in secondary sources then it's fine to keep. GRAPPLE X 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If a

Marathi film receives an national award, its off-course notable. Bollywood rules in Mumbai, otherwise it must have been Marathi films. They are very popular in the interior of Maharashtra state. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

08:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we still want to list "Coordinators" on our main page?

I know that things have changed over the years and that the number of participants in the film project has fluctuated. There is nothing wrong with that and this has happened in several other projects. I am wondering of we should just remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Coordinators section on our projects main page. Per this User talk:Erik#Are you there Erik hasn't edited since last November and I miss his input. The other editors listed are all still active but I think they are pursuing regular editing rather specific project items. If there are any other sections of our main page that you think should be updated please fell free to suggest them. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The role of co-ordinator is a complete chocolate fireguard. However, the people appointed to this are useful. I did the role for a year or two, and there was nothing I couldn't do if I wasn't a co-ordinator. People generally head to the article talkpage for help, or here and don't need a group of five or six people to contact on the off-chance. Lugnuts (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Five days later and no reply from any of the elected co-ordinators. I've left a note on the talkpage of all of them, apart from Erik. Maybe they can give a detailed update of what they've each done for the Film Project over the last 6 months in their role as co-ordinator. Lugnuts (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did not check in until notified... been somewhat busy in real life. While the role of co-ordinator does not require any special tools, having the admin tools is quite valuable in the instances where someone wishes a film article usefied, or undeleted and moved to a userspace for further work. I see the role of co-ordinator more in being able to set a good example to other members, being able to knowlegdably answer film related questions when posed, and to be able to guide and counsel others in the creation and editing of film articles. I have had many folks track me down and ask such questions on my user talk page... more in the last six moths than previously... which I believe was encouraged by my name being on the co-ordinator list. Pretty much, I have tried to continue the same editorial work in the last six months as I have the previous six. This includes the creation of at least four new film-related articles, the improvement of perhaps three or four dozen film-related articles that were slated for deletion, and the continued counseling and mentorship of quite a few new editors. We're not empowered bosses. We simply "lead" by example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts Lugnuts and for your reply MQS. I do appreciate your time in responding. Looks like there may be some value to leaving that section there - though I might suggest removing Erik's for the time being. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinators are very important for setting up drives to keep the project clean such as Spotlight cleanup, Tag & Assess 2009-2010 and the ongoing drive to improve all core articles to start or above. Let's not forget about the anniversary collaboration on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Full Metal Jacket. The coordinators are usually the most dedicated in getting these projects completed which leads other people to get excited about the project too. That said we could probably be more focused on the current drive but it ain't easy. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to echo a lot of what MQS and Peppage have already said. I have been very busy in real life the last month or so and thus haven't had a lot of time to contribute to the project. However, I do think coordinators can play a role that is more a "lead by example" or a point person for various drives and cleanups. While the distinction is not something too important, it is beneficial to have a list of users as go-to people on the Project for new (or experienced) editors looking for support. BOVINEBOY2008 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still quite roaming around in editing. I still wonder whats gonna be my task in the absence of Erik. However, what I have done these days is assessing the articles under the project lead by

WikiProject Film. My Contributions will confirm my work; so have a look at it :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize that I couldn't inform you one such thing.

WP FIlm. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tag & Assess doesn't need anyone to lead it, just a bot to do the flagging, which anyone can request. Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But ya, we preferred assessing by humans! Unassessed and Unknown film articles together equals to almost 10K articles. So thats wat I'm doing right now :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But human resources would better be used in creation and expansion of articles. I'll make a note of that for when I get back to my home planet... Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As a relative newb - it is refreshing to see a project that has point persons around. I'm more inclined to contribute to a project where individuals care enough to be identified as leaders. For many projects, going to the project talk page is a cold experience - it takes a while to get oriented, and you wonder if it is actually a ghost project, and here, that is not the case. From a recruitment perspective alone, this might be useful. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And this is another reason why having "coordinators" is a bad idea -- this token job may get confused with actually leading anything. We do not have any leaders, neither formal or informal. A list of highly active editors willing to answer questions would be better. jonkerz ♠talk 06:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that all those "identified as leaders" had to notified of this very discussion before a single one of them contributed to it. Any co-ordinator care to reply? No, of course not. They don't even check this page out. Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people". Is this it? Because then we really need to stop this trend. The coordinators haven't coordinated anything so far, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators does not mention anything about "leading by example" (the page has no real substance whatsoever -- it sounds like something a politician may say). But let's say the coordinators actually coordinated stuff, then we do still not need to hold elections. In order to hold elections and add elevated user roles, there must exist some justification. In this case, there is none, unless you count "'Lead' by example", "spotlight cleanup, tag and assess", "a list of go-to people" which any editor can do.

A horror example of this trend can be found at

WP:HORROR

, a project with 25 members and 4 coordinator positions: Coordinator, Deputy Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator and Editor-in-Chief. Seriously?!?!?

We tried it, it didn't work, now get rid of it. jonkerz ♠talk 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jonkerz hit the nail on the head. Anyone fancy being the lead fireguard...? Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I quit the position after becoming the target of some rabid WP:OWN editors, now both gone (or in hibernation) but the damage was done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

Titanic in 3D

Resolved

 – Articles merged

An editor had created a completely new article for the 3D release of Titanic:

Titanic in 3D. I redirected this article to the 3D release section of the main article at Titanic_(1997_film)#3-D_conversion_and_2012_re-release

, because generally we don't create new articles about re-releases or 3D versions but he reverted it. For example, the Star Wars special editions, The Avatar Special Edition, and the Phantom Menace and Lion King 3D releases are all covered on the main article. What is more, most of the content is actually copied over from the main article, there is virtually no distinct content.

Does anyone else agree with the content fork, or do you think we should cover the 3D release on the main Titanic (1997 film) article? My view on this in regards to all film articles, is that all re-releases should be covered on the main article, and only if the re-release section becomes too big should we consider forking the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A variant is usually covered in the main article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't think there should be a fork at all; if the relevant section of the parent article grows too large it doesn't seem likely that all of said growth would be viable material—only anything specific to the rerelease (the 3D, its gross, that's probably it) would need to be added anew, anything else is going to be largely duplicative of the original release. GRAPPLE X 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple films of RMS Titanic in 3D: When I created the article "
  astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Also, my intention was to expand the new article to cover "how they did the 3D" based on numerous sources explaining the 60-month process, and using the extra space in the new article to really clarify the "depth map" and other concepts used for the 3D conversion. Several major websites have reviewed the results as impressive, despite the darkened polarized light. Anyway, there are multiple problems to solve, since a redirect to the original film does not handle the other Titanic films in 3D. There are some other 3D underwater films which I have not researched fully, due to limited time and the focus on the remake, which readers seemed more interested in, as evidenced by high pageviews for the new article, since 4 April 2012. Meanwhile, readers are finding the article due to being a separate page listed in search engines Google/Bing, and when the title was redirected to the 1997-film article, then "Titanic in 3D" no longer matched any Wikipedia page in the search-results. Likewise, outside searches for "Titanic 3D" did not match to Wikipedia. Does anyone know what major 3rd film is about the Titanic in 3D, and when was it made? -Wikid77 (talk
  ) 14:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The point stands there is very little content that is unique to the article. How many 3D films about Titanic are there? If the films themselves are notable, then 3D releases can and should be covered on the main film articles, and this should be turned into a redirect or a disambiguation page. The main Titanic article can adequately cover the 3D release of the current film.

Titanic in 3D offers beyond our current articles offer. Betty Logan (talk

) 14:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• It currently is a 2-way disambiguation to handle the title "Titanic in 3D" which also referred to 3D maps, not just films. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The only way a separate article would be necessary is where discussing the development behind it requires too much space for it to fit comfortably in the main article. And then it would be Development of Titanic in 3D or something.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A combine/merge tag has been placed on the

Titanic in 3D article, direct further comments there. FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC).