Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 27.
No edit summary
Line 151: Line 151:


::Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me. [[User:Dincher|Dincher]] ([[User talk:Dincher|talk]]) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me. [[User:Dincher|Dincher]] ([[User talk:Dincher|talk]]) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

==Lion King characters==
I'm proposing to create a new article with the characters of lion king. I see no use for having an article about nala, zazu, etc. Also, it would be useful to include other minor characters in it.

I believe only simba and timon and pumba are notable enough to hold their own articles, unlike the others. What do you all think? [[User:Ricardoread|Ricardoread]] ([[User talk:Ricardoread|talk]]) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:34, 9 October 2009

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcut
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(8 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Batman film series

There is a discussion to split or rename Batman (film series) found here. Since this seems like an unusual case, additional opinions are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The splitting option appears to be put aside, so there is a newly focused discussion on renaming (choosing the best name to best encompass the topics). Please weigh in here. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second follow-up: I have requested a move to Batman in film. Discussion for the move can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King Merge Discussion

A discussion is currently underway to determine if Nala (The Lion King) should be merged/redirected to The Lion King. Additional views at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King would be appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Lion King fun :) Tried to redirect I Just Can't Wait to Be King to The Lion King (soundtrack) per WP:MUSIC and its being an unnotable song from the film. Another editor is blocking it, say send it back to AfD (previous AfD closed as keep with several keepers saying redirect or merge). So I've started a discussion at Talk:I Just Can't Wait to Be King#Redirect to seek consensus. Additional views appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM wording proposal for "Awards and honors"

I proposed some MOS wording for dealing with awards in an article. My proposal can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed wording for "Awards and honors". Please comment and share opinions. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story#Fact checking

There is a discussion underway at the above mentioned link regarding analysis of factual information and how it relates to the film's critical reception. Additional views and thoughts would be appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American anti-communist propaganda films

Someone at Talk:Rocky IV asked about the film being categorized as an American anti-communist propaganda film. Category:American anti-communist propaganda films seems to have other dubious entries. This reminded me of discussion about categorizing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a propaganda film, which I opposed; discussion can be seen here (beware, tl;dr). It seems inappropriate to categorize films like Rocky IV and similar films (particularly from the 1980s as "propaganda" films because I believe that the best application of this label is for wartime films. Outside of such films, such classification is less obvious and not as readily propaganda-driven. Do others have an opinion on how to approach categorizing such films, such as alternate categories? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For documentaries such as Expelled and Capitalism: A Love Story, perhaps Category:Partisan films would be a reasonable, neutrally-worded choice (after all, the makers of those films freely admit they favour one "side" over the other). However for Rocky IV and its ilk, that wouldn't fit; indeed, barring someone's coming up with a good term to use, I don't see a need for their categorisation in this manner at all. If their ... outmoded ... politics are discussed by reliable sources, that can be noted with proper context in the article body instead. Steve T • C 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I created Ladies of Leisure by clicking on a red link in the Frank Capra films template. After I saved it, I checked "What links here" and discovered Ladies Of Leisure, which consists of one sentence. Do I need to nominate it for deletion, or is there an easer way to get rid of it? Or should I just leave it? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{db-histmerge|Ladies Of Leisure}} to Ladies of Leisure. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just redirect Ladies Of Leisure to Ladies of Leisure? --Jimbo[online] 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's to preserve the page history. WP:HISTMERGE says, "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is very undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." This is a similar situation, so it brings two page histories for the same topic together. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a history merge here, as there was no copying of information; no edits from Ladies Of Leisure need to be included or credited in Ladies of Leisure. A simple redirect is all that's needed. Steve T • C 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions seems to suggest that if the histories are not parallel, they can be merged together? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but a merge only needs to be done in the first place when there's useful content from one that can be included in the other. Here, LiteraryMaven created the second article without any knowledge of the first, without copying anything from it, so there's no need to credit the contributors of the first (who made literally two edits). Steve T • C 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, the moribund article contents can be folded in without much drama. Just do it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For my own education, did you redirect Ladies Of Leisure by clicking on the "Move" tab and then typing in the new name Ladies of Leisure, or did you accomplish the redirect another way? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared the article contents and replaced it with #REDIRECT [[Ladies of Leisure]]—a template for which appears as one of the the buttons above the edit window (this one). Steve T • C 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3-D films (Index of?)

I was looking at the page List of 3-D films and feel tempted to make this into a sort-able table (see my talk comments on that page), but this is a non-trivial undertaking because of the large numbers of films listed there ... so I am not about to undertake this process unless there is some consensus on this.

I also note that on this and related pages, "3D" "3-D" are used interchangeably. However, as I noted on the related talk pages, there seems to be much more legitimacy to "3-D" and propose that a global edit to find all instances of "3D" and replace with "3-D" ensuring of course that no grammar or other errors are inadvertently introduced.

Finally, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Index page, I see the admonition to find "hidden" "Index of" pages. So this leads me to suspect that the List of 3-D films should really be renamed Index of 3-D films.

I am sure that there are other issues that arise from members who were previously unaware of the existence of this page.

Finally, with the imminent emergence of next generation 3-D film and television technology, this and related 3-D pages will become increasingly prominent and important in the coming months and years.

Enquire (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond at Talk:List of 3-D films. I wanted to say here, though, titling as an index article as opposed to a list article would not be appropriate if you are considered a sortable table with some details about each film. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards (film)

Just to let everyone in this project know that Wizards has a GAR. You can find it here. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series templates

Just curious about the current viewpoint on the inclusion of various series templates on film articles before I bring up a discussion for WT:ACTOR. Someone has added a new group to the template {{Hannibal}} to include the cast and has added the template to all the articles for actors listed on the template. I guess I'm looking for feedback on how to proceed with something like this. I know there's been discussion about some aspects of template use here. For WP:ACTOR, I really don't think this is a good trend, and a couple of us (actually Rossrs and myself) have tossed around the idea of some project style limitations that might include recommendations for size of article re: spinning off filmographies and now, perhaps the ever-increasing barrage of templates, so some input would be great. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (Sorry about the wrong template thing, whoever fixed it.)[reply]

(edit conflict) My opinion is that such franchise templates should not bother with names of the cast and crew, particularly if that leads to proliferating the templates on the people's articles. In the case of the {{Hannibal}} template, I am fine with "Novels", "Films", and "Characters" rows. The "Cast" and "Crew" rows just do not detail who played who or who did what, and these people's lives are not based solely around the franchise. (You're welcome for the template fix.) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eric. The template should be about the franchise, the films, the novels, and characters, not the cast/crew. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam-language films by decade categories at Cfd

The discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First season production vs TV series Production

I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WT:TV be a better place to ask this? I'm sure some editors here could help, but discussion should take place there. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the discussion over to that relevant WikiProject. See WT:TV#First season production vs TV series Production  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry for that. Yes It's a better place...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western films

Can anyone explain why we have Category:Western (genre) films but List of Western films: 1930s, List of Western films: 1940s, List of Western films: 1950-1954, etc. don't use the term "genre" after "Western"? Why not just Category:Western films? It looks odd with (genre) in the middle of it. LargoLarry (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it should be renamed to be without "(genre)". Not familiar with category-related processes, though... does anyone think {{Cfr-speedy}} can be used without issue? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too hate the (genre) part of this category structure, but see this and this for more! Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous. There is no contrast that necessitates the insertion of "(genre)", like an "Eastern films" category. It's a disambiguation where none is necessary. We would never have a geographical "Western films" category; it is too vague where we have much better and specific ways to name it. This means that we cannot use the speedy rename template. I strongly urge relisting at WP:CFD, though. If people are concerned about what "Western film" means, we can add a description at all categories. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that nobody associated with the film project participated in the discussions Lugnuts pointed out. I'm guessing they never were posted on this discussion page so people could be aware of it as they should have been. I'm surprised the proposal to rename Category:Western films to Category:Western (genre) films passed with only 3 people voting! I'm with Erik, this is ridiculous. I think no matter where you go in the world, people know what a good old-fashioned Western is and nobody confuses it with a film about Western as opposed to Eastern culture. I hope some of the project coordinators will initiate a proposal to revert back to Category:Western films. LargoLarry (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've listed this at CfD. Please add to the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in plot sections

Recently I have been planning to trim down the plot section for Lars von Trier's Antichrist since it has grown longer than the 400-700 words suggested in WP:MOSFILM. Many of Trier's films are divided into chapters, and in the current version the chapters are incorporated in the plot section as H3 subheadings. Dogville uses the same structure, while Manderlay has the chapters listed first, followed by the plot. Breaking the Waves doesn't mention any structure but that is probably because the plot section is very brief. Pulp Fiction also uses subheadings, but it is a bit different since the film is made up of several stories, while the Trier films have one coherent story each and the plots wouldn't be confusing to read without divisions. I know that book plots aren't divided by chapters on Wikipedia, and from an aesthetic point of view I think it looks better without all the headings. But at the same time it could be proper to still mention the structure somewhere in the articles, and that they should follow a uniform style. Is there any consensus concerning this? Any suggestions? Smetanahue (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the film explicitly show the start and end of each chapter? Maybe you could have an opening paragraph summarizing the narrative saying that it is segmented into the prologue, four chapters, and the epilogue, then proceed with the plot summary sans headings. If we need to discuss this further, we should do so at Talk:Antichrist (film). Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is explicitly shown in all those examples. Your suggestion is what I was leaning towards, but I wanted to discuss it first since this is not a unique structure. But I guess there might be a need to discuss individual films as well since the relevance of the chapter breakdowns varies. Smetanahue (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel L. Jackson merge

Could somebody please take a look at the merge discussion to determine if Samuel L. Jackson's filmography should stay removed from the article or not. The discussion has gone stale, and the article would benefit from having the discussion closed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to recuse myself from closing because I offered my opinion (though I think I'd conclude to merge it) and wouldn't want it to appear biased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

I have nominated the article List of overweight actors in United States cinema for deletion. Discussion may be found here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I often use wikipedia as a source to get information about movies that I'd like to watch. One of the bits of information that I'd like is to know what the movie is rated and why it received that particular rating. I don't see this on any of the articles. Could someone let me know why? Or am I missing something? Dincher (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSFILMS#Ratings, we don't publish them because for most films it's indiscriminate information. Secondly, how a film is rated in the US is often different then how it is rated in say the UK. As such, it because a problem if you have list every single rating for a film, especially when it isn't clear why the film received that rating. I know that R-rated films will say "intense gore" or "intense sexuality", but those are vague terms used to help parents judge whether the film is appropriate for their child. It doesn't explain exactly what in the film caused the MPAA to give it such a rating. If you had that information, then it would be included, but if not we generally don't include basic ratings lists. IMDb does, I believe and that's one of the reasons we put a link to IMDb at the bottom of every film article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me. Dincher (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King characters

I'm proposing to create a new article with the characters of lion king. I see no use for having an article about nala, zazu, etc. Also, it would be useful to include other minor characters in it.

I believe only simba and timon and pumba are notable enough to hold their own articles, unlike the others. What do you all think? Ricardoread (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=318798629"