Talk:Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: Index, 1

Film has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.

This subject is featured in the Outline of film, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Film:

NEEDS IN-LINE REFERENCES

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- is considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The first movie theater in the world built only to show movies is the Vitascope Theatre (listed under Edisonia Hall because someone removed the direct reference. Opened in October 1896 it was designed only to show movies. The 1905 Pittsburgh Nickelodeon doesn't even come close! This needs to be fixed.

Film was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
December 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 28, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current Status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Film

(Rated C-class)

Film portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is on the project's core list.

This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.


	This article was a past project collaboration.

WikiProject Media

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

Journalism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Article requests: Myanmar News Agency, Lisa Sylvester (CNN reporter)
Cleanup: Media influence, Video game culture
NPOV: Content (media and publishing)
Verify: Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:

C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

[edit] Ratings

hey there. wanso when most people search for a film title on wikipedia, they probably want to know how good it is. as it stands, most pages have a section "reception" that describes how critic reviewed the film. however this part is usually at the bottom of the page.

i propose we start adding film ratings into the main panel at the top of each film page. along wth the year of production, director etc, we should show how good the film was.

i know this is supposed to be an exncyclopedia and thus should deal with facts, but i think adding a numerical number is still farly scientific, and honestly, its artm it doesnt make sense to show all the info but not how "good it is. opinion is still information, and we should show people what they want.

please reply on my page so i know you replid.

-DJLO (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Current templates

This article currently has the following 3 heading templates

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2009)

The Refimprove and More footnotes should probably stay but not sure about the Globalize template, bearing in mind that it's been here for nearly a year and a half anyone care to contribute exactly what needs improving? Zarcadia (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

change the title to movie and make film redirect to that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.73.200 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessary. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Dickson

I added a link to WKL Dickson. It seems odd that the name appeared with no context or link on [Nov 11 2007] and stayed that way for 4 years. It remains a rather underdeveloped, unexplained reference. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Film

Contents

[edit] Ratings

[edit] Current templates

[edit] Movie

[edit] Dickson

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export