Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

I think we could use a film festival infobox- I created one at {{

00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you put it into a film festival article to show us what it looks like in action?

Cop 633

00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I just put it in the

8 Films to Die For article. -Elizabennet

03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about festivals that have hundreds of films? How would the use of the film field be specified/limited? I have posed other questions and suggestions about this on

Template talk:Film festival infobox. — WiseKwai

04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia on many film articles

Here is just some:

04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the optimal amount of trivia per article? Also, if it gets to long, should it get its own article? Perhaps the film's references in popular culture could be added along with it (which are usually common in cult/popular films). What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be none. Everything that's notable should be able to be incorporated into the article and everything trivial left out but that will never happen. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Robocop, and keep all the interesting stuff, see everything in Werner Herzog. Doctor Sunshine

06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If a trivia section must exist, it should be small, not insanely long and/or cluttered with useless notes. Also: I looked at the Werner article: way too long of a trivia section. Having a tattoo shouldn't just be crammed into trivia, same goes for alot of that. 17 pieces of trivia is too big. Look at just about any featured article (and probably alot of good articles as well): trivia sections aren't that huge. If the article is going to improve, the trivia needs to be put into the article itself. Cluttered sections don't help. RobJ1981 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Example: in Frankenheimer's The Train there's a scene where the Burt Lancaster character is shot in the leg. From that point onward he always seen to be limping. That scene was written into the film because Lancaster hurt his knee playing golf (when not in front of a camera), so it provides an excuse for him to be limping in the latter part of the film. I would consider that non-trivial trivia, since it directly impacts the film, so I would include it in the film article. Had a young Tom Cruise been working in the commissary, and this had no effect on the film, I'd call that pointless trivia and would not include it in the article. Any reactions? Cryptonymius 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does

08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the text is in a section called "Plot" or "Synopsis", etc. covers the out-of-universe angle – although, I've started some with "In the film", "The story follows..." myself. The only exception I noticed that wasn't listed is that they can be of a fair length. I'd use existing

WP:FA articles as a guide, Night of the Living Dead has a long summary. Doctor Sunshine

14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I will look some up. Thanks! Hoverfish 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put some work into expanding the article on Tears of the Black Tiger. I believe it to be worthy now of at least a B-class rating, but I can't make that determination independently. So please feel free to have a look. I would also rate the film's importance as high, given that it has a "holy grail" reputation among world film buffs, but I'm sure there are folks here who would love to argue that point. — WiseKwai 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines on the importance assessment are nowhere to be found, so unless we take some time to define them, there will be only arguments (as criteria?) Hoverfish 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The film article looks like a full B to me. I can't give opinion for higher assessment. Hoverfish 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's undemocratic, anyone can change it. Even doing it yourself shouldn't have raised any eyebrows, Wisekwai. I'd say it's pretty close to a GA. I rated it Mid-level importance because, frankly, I've never heard of it and there's no "Reception" section to go by. A very well done article, though. Doctor Sunshine 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I appreciate the second looks. The reception section will come. Good point about that, though. I should probably start now on it. The film is finally getting a US theatrical release in Landmark theaters in January-February 2007. Go see it! It's a wonder to behold on the big screen. — WiseKwai 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And if you disagree feel free to change the importance yourself. As I haven't seen the film you're more qualified than I am. Doctor Sunshine 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough press existed a few years ago to drive me to search out the film, which I acquired on a VCD import from Malaysia. I'd say the film's "Importance" is largely to do with the fact that it is a Thai film, and one of a few films to stir up an international interest in the cinema of a nation which previously wasn't heard from much. This, and Nang Nak, basically made me aware that Thai cinema exists, and I guess the two of them serve different functions in introducing Thai cinema to the world... Nang Nak shows the big, commercially successful melodrama, and Tears shows the more self-consciously arty/post modern side of Thai-film. The film is notable because of the press it received, and its semi-successful "breakthrough" status. But honestly, if it had come out of a nation already prominent on the international film scene, it probably would have been deemed not notable. So, I reckon a "B" for importance is all it can aspire to, and it probably fits the category. zadignose 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated all out

. In case you do not know, A-Class articles are very close to featured articles and should be one of the main focuses for us. Drop by on the following articles and participate if you can:

• Film
• GoldenEye
• Serenity (film)
• Star Wars
• The Lion King
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The links to the peer review pages are found at the top of the talk pages. Cbrown1023 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if this should be instead posted at

(which I understand are just guidelines, not rules). But to me, the production info is kind of a drag to get into after already reading a summary of facts about the film's origins in the intro. It seems more natural to me to get into the plot, then follow that up with the production, as if I'm watching the closing credits or viewing the DVD a second time with commentary.

On the other hand, most film articles I've worked on have the cast section following directly after the plot, which is also counter to the style guide. But this, too, seems more natural. For the well-written plot outline that stays within the universe of the movie (not interrupting with parenthesized names of the actor), this structure is helpful to me, particularly on the cast sections that expand a bit on the backgrounds of each character. — WiseKwai 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Plot should definately be first for obvious reasons and those stated by you, then should be Production, and then cast. Cast is normally just a listing of the cast members, not an explanation. Cbrown1023 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cbrown1023. Hoverfish 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the best cast articles really offer in-depth information, and offer stuff the plot summary can't.

09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give us an example of such a cast article? Hoverfish 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of film articles with expanded cast details:

• The Big Lebowski#Characters and cast
• Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Cast
• Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back#Cast
  (in fact, the whole Star Wars film series is like that)
• V for Vendetta (film)#cast
• Blade Runner#cast

Not every film article lends itself to that type of treatment, and in most cases a simple cast listing is adequate. Then there are the FA-class articles Jaws (film) and Night of the Living Dead, which have no cast sections, and sprinkle the parenthesized names into the plot section. (That format is a pet peeve, but hey, if that's the accepted style for a FA-class article, then who I am to complain?) — WiseKwai 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The

04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle of the Month

End of the Month

• Support --Nehrams2020 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support for most months. Cbrown1023 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Supernumerary 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support for most months. Hoverfish 07:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

December 21

Is that date good for everyone this month? I'm not gonna be at my computer from Dec 22 to Jan 2, so I wouldn't be able to deliver it if it was after then... There are a lot of crazy options I have to put in so it would be easiest of I did it since I already have them set up. However, if someone else thinks they can do it (I know you all can do it... I guess I mean want to do it), then you guys can send it out later. If I don't get any "no" responses to this, I'm gonna go ahead and do it on Dec 21. Cbrown1023 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I could help in delivering it also, if you want to split the list of members in half or something. Also, if it is desired for the newsletter to be delivered at the end of this month, I wouldn't mind sending it out. --Nehrams2020 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we start a project subpage where films considered Top importance can be listed and discussed/debated. When it becomes clear whether they qualify or not, they can be removed from the list. Hoverfish 08:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do, it should be in the

Assessment Department's space. Cbrown1023

17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed this! Congrats!! That's a great subpage! I will put it in my favorites and will be using it a lot. You should definitely include its presence in the Dec. Newsletter. Hoverfish 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was created and described in

last month's newsletter... I wasn't going to put it in there this month because there isn't anything much to report. I guess I'll remind everyone and tell them to go request an Assessment there. Cbrown1023

23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't feel bad if you missed it in last month's newsletter, it was just a small link at the beginning and there was a lot to read! Cbrown1023 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's Quentin? is one of the few notable films of Luxemburg that we have. Subsections Synopsis and Production seem to be a copy from the official website [1]. I did some general cleanup, removed the cleanup tag but some tag has to replace it. Hoverfish 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to inform you that I have

. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little project I'm having trouble with. We should be using the common film titles among English language countries. I've fixed a few here and there but I'm also getting some resistance, specifically here,

17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the last discussion there has been on this issue: [2]. I usually take it as it comes, but you may have a point we all need to discuss again. Hoverfish 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even thing to check the archives. I really don't think people are reading the links I'd posted as policy clearly supports my position in both of the move request cases I've listed above. I'll see if I can't write up an addition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) at some point, unless someone wants to beat me to it. Doctor Sunshine 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already re-organized the page and created a new section for you to write it. (so I haven't written it yet...) Cbrown1023 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks for setting it up. I went head and wrote the addition. Comments appreciated. Doctor Sunshine 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: How do we determine "the title more commonly recognized by English readers"? Granted, the vast majority of cases will be clear cut and/or common sense, but what about those films where a decision either way could be seen as borderline? What criteria do you suggest we use? As far as I can see there is still no clear consensus on this issue; is it wise to be writing guidelines without proper discussion? PC78 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This isnt vastly scientific but I've been checking amazon.co.uk and amazon.com for titles used on DVD releases. Any that I've found released with English titles I have moved to that title. Mallanox 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created

18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Many films from countries in close proximity have a similar flavour to them. I'd break it up within that same template by continent or whatever you think best. Doctor Sunshine 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that instead of giving cinema by regions over the counties, you could give that to the left, vertical down, and each region would have to the right its countries. If you like I can help you with it. Hoverfish 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New template has been created which I think is good as it connects all areas of cinema even with the work we are doing by year and country (unsigned by E.S.Blofeld)

Hi fellows, trying to carry all threads about it here. Here's what Nehrams2020 has to say about it: The template looks great and it looks like a lot of work went into it. Is this template going to be put on all of the articles listed within the template? It appears that it is well-organized, I think it will serve its purpose well. - I agree. Any adjustments/refinements pending. One point however, before any edits: the articles of Cinema have already a navigation for their series (up right). I think we should not substitute it, but more opinions could clear it up better. Hoverfish 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. I think it could fit nicely at the bottom of those list pages perhaps, in the way some director templates are done. See, Akira Kurosawa. Doctor Sunshine 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is good, but get rid of all the bold text - it looks ugly.

Cop 633

00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be some spacing between the flags and the text, it looks like it's all bunched together. --Nehrams2020 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I agree, but I don't like the flags at all, I think they should be removed. Cbrown1023 02:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the flags. I think they clutter the box and don't add anything of value.--Supernumerary 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

could be further broken up to aid linking to the different articles:

• East Asian cinema: Cinema of China, Cinema of Hong Kong, Cinema of Japan, Cinema of Korea, Cinema of Taiwan
• Southeast Asian cinema: Cinema of Cambodia, Cinema of Indonesia (needs started!), Cinema of Malaysia, Cinema of Myanmar, Cinema of the Philippines, Cinema of Singapore, Cinema of Thailand, Cinema of Vietnam
• Kollywood (Tamil), Malayalam cinema, Tollywood, Cinema of Bangladesh (not Africa!), Cinema of Nepal, Cinema of Pakistan and Cinema of Sri Lanka
  .
• Additionally there is
  Middle Eastern cinema: Cinema of Iran, Cinema of Turkey
  and probably others that I don't yet know about.

I understand the desire to not duplicate the top-right navigational templates for the articles, such as

Asian cinema

, but those templates aren't on every page and list. I see them as summaries, like film infoboxes. This template gives readers more options.

And why is

10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Cuba and Mexico would make more sense in the South American section (culturally if not geographically). Even better, change 'South American' to 'Latin American'.

Cop 633

14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Working per discussion, I have two more refined versions (With flags and Without flags) in my sandbox. Still working in splitting some regions (E.Asia, SE.Asia etc), but anyone is welcome to take a look and leave a comment. Hoverfish 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, with all the current noise on Turkey being or not being part of Europe (BBC has it always under Europe), I am really reluctant to decide if it should be under Europe or Asia. Istambul surely is on the European continent, but the rest seems to stick out a bit in Asia... Hoverfish 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But I doubt it's Middle East. Actually Turks prefer it as "Anatolia" and Greeks "Minor Asia", but I don't know how many other countries (if any) would fall under this region/category. Hoverfish 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for changing South to Latin America, the article South American cinema would have to be moved too (but I'll make a pipe to Latin temporarily). Hoverfish 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you could avoid the whole South/Latin issue by simply having a box called 'Americas', since having an entire 'North America' box for just USA and Canada seems wasteful.

Cop 633

17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution, though

Middle east places Turkey in that "is a historical and cultural region of Africa-Eurasia with no clear definition". So it's not incorrect either. — WiseKwai

17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do. But what about the articles Cinema of... then? Hoverfish 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's better to keep them split for that reason, so that the Cinema of ... articles get a link. There's nothing wrong with grouping Cuba and Puerto Rico under Latin America, because there's a common cultural thread. — WiseKwai 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So here is the latest in flagless nagivation development (unfortunately with flags, there are break problems):

WiseKwai, you took Cinema of Soviet Union (1917-1991) away as double to which link? "Russia" links to Russian Empire (until 1917). And yet we don't have Eurasia for the Soviet Union. Also, if the Russian Federation continues to have cinema after 1991, there's no article I find. Hoverfish 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of the Soviet Union has returned. It's located in Europe. I can't seem to find a post-1991 Russian cinema article either, which is a pretty big gap to fill. Unfortunately, the only thing I know about Russian cinema is that it produced Night Watch (2004 film). — WiseKwai 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the first template but I won't object if you remove just the flags. I really don't think e.g Middle eastern cinema is dserving of a whole column of its own. What I do suggest is that you subspilt the Asia into boxes horizontally all the way across and reorganize the Asian films under the subregions in one Asia panel. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I started many of the cinema by continent articles, having nicked the template format from the

European cinema article. I also did the main re-formatting on the World cinema

article, including the perhaps rather ugly list format that makes up the body of that article. I like the look of the new template and think it is certainly a positive addition. My personal feeling would be to keep the flags, though you can't really make out the flags of the Indian sub-industries.

I experienced the same problems you guys are discussing here when trying to create these articles and templates - should certain countries be included under one "continent" or another? The best solution I could find for this was to use the same groupings that are used in the articles on continents (or some other defining regions) - e.g. using countries listed in the

Middle Eastern cinema

I decided against shifting it back again. Incidentally, I had originally called "Middle Eastern cinema", "Southwest Asian cinema", but deferred to better logic.

As for formatting the box, I think that the sub-continent groupings of Asian cinema are useful due to 1) the geographical size of the continent and the quantity of countries therein with active film industries and 2) that cinema from one country has more in common with it's neighbours than with those in the other sub-continental groups. In my experience, Chinese, Korean and Japanese film have much more in common than any of them do with, say Indian or Thai films. I would certainly keep these groupings for the time being, and if possible display them in a horizontal arrangement.

As such, I would also bring up the possibility of splitting European cinema into sub-regions. Again, the number of countries included is high, and maybe there could be a breakdown to North/South or East/West.

Finally, I would suggest we ensure that all cinema-by-country articles are standardised by name. I see immediately that the Indian cinema sub-articles are titled differently from the majority. Instead of "

Bollywood? Gram

16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus comments

I think it will be kind towards Ernst Stavro Blofeld's efforts, if some members care to leave a consensus comment 1) on the inclusion of graphic flags and maps and 2) on the horizontal or vertical arrangement of Asia. I also see the need for Middle East, since we have the article, but if we do not get any more of all these countries (Israel? Egypt? Jordan? others?), then it really hits the eye as incomplete in vertical division. Hoverfish 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• No to the flags, but no problem with the arrangement on Asia. For the Middle East, there could be a category redirect for the missing countries, like Israel. That would help fill in some space. Or it could be left blank, which might encourage folks to start "Cinema of ..." articles. — WiseKwai 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• As per Wisekwai. Hoverfish 16:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes to horizontal arrangement for Asia. Yes to national flags purely for aesthetic purposes, though images for sub-regions / languages are very hard to see. Gram 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I really like the flags I think they are really needed for aesthetic purposes and make the box look really good. I do like Hoverfish's adjustments to the Asian sub divisions which is needed however I think perhaps India needs a line of its own referred to in South Asia cinema . I have minimized the flags but if you do decide to remove the flags please keep the images by the world and continents and they do look good.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. The flags look a bit too cluttered and I think we can lose Asia and list all of the sub categories together in it's place for a consistent horizontal look. Doctor Sunshine 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Cinema of India is listed under South Asia but then CInema of India and then all of the sub Indian industries on one vertical panel of its own. This would look much better. The box is organized by countries. and this wouod look much clearerErnst Stavro Blofeld 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we do this vertical split in South Asia, it will look rather strange under 800x600 resolution. Hoverfish 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a small thing but I'd lose all the black lines and then just highlight the backgrounds of the region list with the title bar colour. It's easy enough to follow the titles across, as seen

here. Also, I agree with combining the Americas, if only to keep the height down. Also in keeping with the Kurosawa template, try putting the world map image in the right-hand corner. Doctor Sunshine

17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Asia worked better the way it was before - horizontal. The way it is now omits Cinema of Cambodia, and South Asia's too cluttered. If I may comment again on the flags and graphics: I know they look pretty, but I feel this needs to be kept simple. The flags and maps add too much clutter and don't give any more information about film than simple names. For sure the poster images on Indian cinema do not work. They are too small to be useful. And one of them is a fair-use image, a big no-no. Also, if possible, the whole thing should be smaller. Can the typeface be smaller? — WiseKwai 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant India with its own horizontal column as in the current main template. However I now think you should slice the SOuth Asia box horizontally in half. The upper with countries Bangladesh to Sri Lanka then underneath an Indian sub box containing all of the components of Indian cinema Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the navigation was much simpler and condenced before we started the vertical split on Asia. I am for moving back to that format. The way it is now, it's so bulky that it shouldn't go in article pages, or it will look heavy. It's useful if it stays simple and I am for going back one step. Hoverfish 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The new World Cinema box

So, as a result of all the above, we have ended up in this and substituted it as the template navigation. Thank you all for contributing with your opinions. Hoverfish 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I noticed that Cinema of Cuba has become orphaned - the article still contains the North American cinema template, but it no longer appears on that template.
2. Is it worth creating a parent article for the Americas, as per the
   Asian cinema
   article? Currently it is the only region without one.
3. Should Bengali cinema be listed under India in the World Cinema box (and in the Asian cinema template)? Part of the Bengali cinema industry is based in Bangladesh.
4. Looking at the Asian cinema section in the box, it is a little odd that these countries are mixed together (Turkey sitting in between Thailand and Vietnam stands out), especially as India has it's own separate sub-section. Can it be amended so that East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Middle East have the same kind of sub-sections as India?
5. Cinema of Russia in the box is a redirect to
   Cinema of Russian Empire. Should be piped as per Cinema of U.K. piping to Cinema of the United Kingdom
   .
6. The European Cinema template, is missing Cinema of Switzerland.
7. Cinema of Turkey is included on both the Middle Eastern cinema and European cinema templates but only appears in the Middle East section here.

Gram 09:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed points 5 and 6, and also changed Assamese to Assam, as the article has now been moved. Gram 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gram, for pitching in with your thoughts. Here's some of mine:

• Breaking Asia up was tried. An example still exists here. The problem was the whole template became too deep.
• Turkey is going to look odd no matter where it is. By nature of its location straddling two continents and cultures, it is difficult to put it somewhere that will make everyone comfortable. For what it's worth, I think it looks fine where it is, but perhaps the link could be duplicated under Europe. If a Cinema of Israel article is developed, it'll be the same dilemma.
• I think the India sub-section is fine as well. It really encapsulates how huge and diverse that industry is. Bengali cinema fits there because many of the big players in the industry have been Indian. And Bangladesh has its own link in the template. Both industries are fairly covered in the article about Bengali cinema.
• On Russian cinema, I wonder if a new Cinema of Russia article should be started to cover developments since the fall of the Soviet Union, or should the old Russian Empire article be moved and expanded to cover Russian Empire and new Russian cinema. Soviet cinema would be summarized and readers directed to the already substantial article with a main article link. — WiseKwai 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, points 3 & 4 fixed to comply with both the above opinions. Cinema of Israel should be developed, as they have quite some cinema. As for its placement in the Middle East, I don't think there will be any dilema. IMO culturally it belongs to the West, but geographically it's quite clearly there and part of the whole ordeal. Hoverfish 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) - On point 2, I don't think there is any sense in creating a cinema article for "Americas" (though black bold text makes it look like the active page). Hoverfish 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So, finally Middle East broke free to include Egypt. This also solves the Turkey and Israel inclusion hopefully. Hoverfish|Talk 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is in regards to the occasional situation in which a film has premiered in limited release in the year prior to its wide release date. For example, Amazing Grace (2007 film) has already premiered in Canada in 2006 ahead of its wide USA release date in 2007, similar to how Gosford Park premiered in London in 2001 ahead of its wide USA release in 2002. However, the two articles are using two different conventions in specifying their year of release. The corresponding IMDb listings for Amazing Grace (2006) and Gosford Park (2001) favor earlier release dates, but I wanted to check here before proceeding. -- Corsair Armada 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support (limited release dates count for year of release)

I'd go by IMDb. Hoverfish 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go by IMDB. Even a limited release film will be seen by thousands of people. Are we saying that Londoners 'don't count' and Americans do?!.

Cop 633

02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I propose that the release date of the film should be its first public screening, no matter how small. I think it is silly to call a film unreleased even if it has already been released in finished form in numerous film festivals. Many films never get widely released, so perhaps we shouldn't mention those films at all? The only other option is to apply two standards (or more), but how exactly do you make the cutoff point? I think this would result in chaos. So I think the release date should be the first public screening. NOT the first date of private screenings to filmmakers or certain members of the press, NOR the first date of "wide release" (whatever that is - a wide release in one country is a limited one in another) but the first time it is shown to the public. Once we get this issue settled, one way or the other, we should change the
  Style guidelines so that there's no question about what "release date" actually means. Esn
  09:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm with Esn. Although, obviously, in the rare case that an unreleased film is notable it should be list, see Cocksucker Blues. And if the film was not released for some time after completion that should be noted in the article, see Ivan the Terrible (Part 2). Also, it might be helpful to include "(festival)" or the festival's abbreviated title beside any festival release dates in the infobox.Doctor Sunshine 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'd recommend using IMDB as well since they are very accurate for most films. Just to make a point though, if a page is moved from one year to another, make sure that all of the pages that link to the article represent the correct year, and that all redirects are fixed when the page is moved. This could prevent confusion in the future and later people moving the page back to what it was again. --Nehrams2020 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  One more thing - I've personally seen many films (especially ones from non-English-speaking countries) for which IMDB did not have the accurate release date or even year. So if there's a more accurate release date somewhere than IMDB, be sure to put a link in "ext. links" section. All I'm saying is that IMDB isn't always accurate either (though it often is) so we should use as a source whichever website seems better informed. For the cases when I've seen IMDB to be wrong, it's almost always because they listed the date/year of release to be later than it actually was. Esn 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose (limited release dates don't count)

We're running into some trouble at the guideline and need to have some

so the current guidelines can stay. Please check them out and state whether you suport or oppose the changes by adding #~~~~ under the proper heading. Thanks, Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Supernumerary 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
4. --Nehrams2020 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Hoverfish 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Doctor Sunshine 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Cop 633
   02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Mallanox 02:53, 20 December 2006 {UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• The naming conventions does not currently deal with films that have several English language titles, so I can neither support or oppose at this state. I have stated here why the guideline needs to clarify this matter. Prolog 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with Prolog - this needs to be settled first. I also raised an issue on that talk page that wasn't quite answered about the two American animated Aladdin films from 1992. Esn 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have set up a new template. I don't want these country boxes to be too large so featured content of it must be kept to a strict criteria of super notability. E.g major international or cult films, and actors and directors world known or starred in over 30 films or something.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Later notice: The template, as seen here, has been modified to comply with following discussion points. However its inclusion or non inclusion in articles is still not clearly decided. Hoverfish 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)