Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

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 18 Sep 2024 – Daughter's Daughter (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 14 Sep 2024 – Love Lies (2024 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 12 Sep 2024 – The Taehongdang Party Secretary (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Chipmunkdavis (t · c); see discussion 09 Sep 2024 – 48th Hong Kong International Film Festival (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – Eniaios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 30 Aug 2024 – The Right and the Wrong (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Slgrandson (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Over My Dead Body (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – IMAX Melbourne (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Mjks28 (t · c); see discussion 28 Aug 2024 – Norma Phillips (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 26 Aug 2024 – Time (2021 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 26 Aug 2024 – Starship Troopers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion 21 Aug 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 08 Sep 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c) was not promoted; see discussion Featured list candidates 15 Sep 2024 – List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 10 Sep 2024 – Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 09 Sep 2024 – Pulgasari (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); start discussion 20 Aug 2024 – Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 13 Aug 2024 – Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gb321 (t · c); see discussion 03 Aug 2024 – Manifesto (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lapadite (t · c); start discussion 12 Jul 2024 – Migration (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bremps (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2024 – Buzz Lightyear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion (5 more...) Featured article reviews 02 Sep 2024 – E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by TenPoundHammer (t · c); see discussion Featured list removal candidates 16 Aug 2024 – List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for FL removal by GeniusTaker (t · c); see discussion Requests for comments 28 Aug 2024 – Deadpool & Wolverine (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Pineapple Express (film) collaboration

Recruiting any and all WikiProject Film participants to assist with improving the Pineapple Express article, which actually receives quite a few hits (no pun intended!) on a daily basis. The article is currently the collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, but I am hoping WikiProject Comedy and WikiProject Films members can assist since they are more familiar with the formatting rules and requirements for film articles to reach 'Good' status. While the article is off to a good start, hopefully we can all work together to improve the article! Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page for ideas on how to improve the article. Let us know if you need help and we'll be happy to assist. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions! Help would be much appreciated to all those who are interested and/or enjoy working on film articles. The article will remain a collabotation for the rest of the month, so I am hoping it can reach Good status by then. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not much improvement has been made to the article. I had family in town this past week, so hopefully I can get around to working on the article soon. Again, I am trying to encourage WikiProject Films, Comedy, and Cannabis members to improve the article, hoping it will eventually reach Good status for the benefit of all three projects. If interested, feel free to contribute! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to banner and assessment class structure

As we continue to hammer out the details for the Tag & Assess drive, the coordinators have suggested some changes to the talk page film banner as well as to the assessment class structure. For the banner, there is consensus to remove several of the improvement parameters (namely, the "needs cast", "needs plot", and the newly added "needs production" (which has hasn't been fully implemented yet). I suggested keeping the "needs infobox" and "needs image" parameters as some users may be more likely to address these concerns, especially since it is more clear-cut then, say, adding a plot or production section. Is there any opposition to remove the cast/plot/production banners? Should any be kept, or should the image/infobox parameters be removed as well? These parameters can guide editors to improve various areas of the article, but it can also be a hassle in tagging articles as well as removing the parameter when the item has been added/expanded.

For the class structure, we suggested that due to the recent removal of the future/upcoming templates, it may be best to phase out the Future-class. Currently, any articles that have not had their release are tagged with Future, and then are later changed to an appropriate class after the release. Instead of this setup, all articles would be assessed based on the length, grammar, writing, etc. of the article instead of its release date. Erik pointed out that if the class was removed, the article should still not be nominated for GA/FA if it had yet to be released (especially since material changes extensively at the release of a film and as home media is released). In addition, we suggested removing the A class due to lack of participation in reviewing the articles. We currently have three A-class articles, one of which is at FAC. If the class was removed, we would either downgrade the current A-class articles or keep them at their status (with the hopes that they would eventually make their way to FAC). The last class change suggestion was adding the C-class. Since its inception, a variety of projects have chosen whether or not to use the class (which would fit between Start and B-class). In the past, we've had two discussions which resulted in not using the class (the first resulted in the decision not to adopt it, and the second resulted in no consensus). Before we start the drive we need to determine if the class should be used (in which case we'd need to modify the setup and provide better assessment guidelines), or not (there would be no changes and we'd stick to the present five-class Stub/Start/B/GA/FA structure) so that we don't have to reassess our articles again if we decide later to do the opposite.

Before we start the drive, it would be a good idea to hear what others think, so we can make changes if necessary. Please weigh in with any opinions you have, as this will determine how our banner, classes, and drive will be organized for the long-term. It would be best to respond quickly, so any changes can be implemented and the drive can finally start. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on banner changes

I agree with the above proposed banner changes. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the banner changes seem uncontroversial. Steve ^T • C 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support all (lose needs plot/cast/prod, keep needs infobox/image) since I've proposed it myself before. :) PC78 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on class structure

I think it makes sense to use C-class, and to do away with A-class usage. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unopinionated about A-class, but I do feel that using C-class is very appropriate. There's a huge gap between Start-class and B-class. A lot of articles would fall into this gap. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've long been a critic of 'A'-class (in this project anyway—the MILHIST lot seem to have taken it to heart). The criteria for an article's passing its 'A'-class review is so vague, and can be read as being so close to that at WP:FACR, that it's probably redundant anyway for us. This, coupled with the disinterest of project members in performing these internal reviews, means I'd be happy to see it scrapped. As for 'C'-class: I'm neutral on its adoption. I'm not entirely convinced that anyone other than Wikipedia editors even notice tags other than GA or FA, which leads me to think that article tagging is nothing but make-work sometimes, but I'm sure this has been had out before so I'm not going to argue the toss. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class. No good reason why future films can't be assessed properly, and A-Class only works if it has the necessary support (which it doesn't at this project). C-Class will fill a big gap in our current assessment scale, IMO. PC78 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support C-Class and getting rid of A and Future-Class for the reasons mentioned above. I particularly agree that there's a big gap between Start and B class, so that many articles are developed well past Start qualifications but don't meet B classification yet. -Krasnoludek (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question - I have The Texas Chain Saw Massacre at A-class review, as does another editor with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Since this discussion is about A-class being removed due to clear redundancy, what is going to, or should happen to these two current A-class candidates? Would they be left as they were? If the A-class is removed, then it would go from GA straight onto FA-class, if I'm not mistaken? That may be a big leap, in my opinion, however I do agree that A-Class is virtually non-existant in this project. --The Taerkasten (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they would remain at GA class. The current A classes may also return to GA class but would probably be good contenders for moving on to FA. If we have greater participation in the future, we can look to readding the A class again. As of now, it appears we don't have enough people that can devote time to helping in reviewing. With this removed class, perhaps we can divert more efforts in tailoring articles for GA or moving them up to FA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree...they would stay GA. If they have already been through PR, then sending to FA would be the next step. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree: I'm for maintaining C-class, as I concur that there's a huge gap between Start and B. I am neutral about A--if there's a B and C, there should be an A--just with more clearly defined criteria.

Disgree: However, I am vehemently against the removal of Future, as the majority of those articles are ones in which you can not properly expand on plot description, and oftentimes details surround the projects are murky and kept under wraps. I would suggest keeping Future, as it's a much more fair way of analyzing and grading those types of articles, until after a release date or sometime near then. That's when it would be most appropriate to give it a proper critique.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries as a legitimate sources/references

I"m pretty new at editing, so I'm hoping that somebody can explain when documentaries can be added to a topic. Given that they often contain significant information on a topic, I don't see why they should be seen as any less legitimate a source for further information then published texts.

For instance, Noam Chomsky has a filmography that includes all the documentaries he's been in, but Howard Zinn doesn't (even though according to IMDB he's been in numerous films)

"liberalism" and "conservatism" have a "further reading" section - why not a "further viewing" section"? Or a general "for more information" section?

The only way to attach Kenn Burn's National Parks series to the entry on National Parks would be as an external link, which I have the feeling is frowned upon.

thanks for any insights

Simsimian (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WikiPedia! I'd be bold (or even not being neutral...) and add the filmography section to Zinn's article, linking to any documentaries that already have entries, in the same way that Chomsky's article is setup. Hope that helps. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

According to his listing at IMDb, Howard Zinn has been interviewed in 32 documentaries. Can these appearances really be considered a "filmography"? LargoLarry (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that appearances such as the ones referred to above should not be counted as "filmography" in the strict sense, much like a reference to a person in a book would not be considered part of his/her "bibliography". In the true sense of the word, a person's filmography should consist of work that has been authored by that person. Otherwise they should be just appearances or references to that person. You gotta do what you gotta do. 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reincarnut (talk • contribs)

Scream Awards

Hi, I would appreciate it if someone else would watchlist Scream Awards as well. The awards ceremony has been held, but it hasn't been aired yet. Anonymous editors are consistently changing the winners. decltype (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I put in an RPP for a few days. Seems a more efficient way after seeing how many IPs have hit it lately. :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably best. I considered implementing protection myself, but I suppose I could be considered involved there. Thanks! decltype (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

This morning I merged Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as the article has lacked demonstrable notability and had been tagged for lacking it since February. All sourced content was merged. A sporadic discussion spanning back 4 years had random "I like it" keeps for keeping separate, and valid discussion for merging. Discussion at Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise) shows that it was merged before, then split as a birthday present (WTF?) and then discussed for remerge just not done. No valid content was lost during the merge, just unsourced or fansourced material However some have objected to the merge, so additional eyes on the merge and perhaps continuing the discussion on the franchise talk page may be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any current, or old discussion on this. Regardless, it still fails WP:GNG's criteria for "significant coverage". What I see is miniscule coverage (e.g., he appeared in a game; he had a toy made after him, etc.). That's not significant. Plus, anything and everything about him is attached directly to that first movie. He was a 3 minute character, nothing more. He should be covered on either the franchise page or the first film's page, whichever house's his material better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am not a rabid supporter of a freestanding Stay Puft Marshmallow Man article.:) My question is; how do we avoid being arbitrary in our application of WP:GNG? If the amount of screen time is a valid measure; what about characters who don't actually appear for very long in a film, but are memorable enough to be commented on in good secondary sources? Underlying that is a broader question. How should we non-arbitrarily apply WP:GNG to articles regarding "fictional characters" in general? I'd really like to hear some opinions on this. Think about how many independent articles there are in Wiki with single characters from films, books and television programs as their subject. If we apply for instance, "significant coverage" from WP:GNG literally; how many of these articles would survive? Some would easily. I'd suggest that many (most?) would not; in particular those related to television characters, the bulk of which appear to me supported by soft publicity and self referential sourcing. Should we exclude all of it from the encyclopedia? I'd pass on "good luck" to that project, but I think there'd be a firestorm (consensus?) against it. Would love to hear other opinions on this topic. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't point to one statement in my comment as justification to ignore GNG. My comment about him only being on screen for a couple of minutes was me extending a personal opinion about the low probability of this character being notable enough for his own article - As, statistically you'll find that most notable fictional characters actually appear in numerous works of fiction, or in the bulk of one select fictional topic. It's rare that you'll actually find someone who is notable and only appeared in one thing for a couple of minutes/seconds There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. Besides, most of those articles that fail the GNG's significant coverage either shouldn't have an article (despite the fact that some rabid fanbase bands together to edit war and mass vote at discussions), or someone just hasn't done enough searching to show that there actually is significant coverage. If that same coverage can be found for the Marshmellow Man, then that's great. As of right now, that isn't the case. I saw the article, and there wasn't a lick of significant coverage for that character. Based on Collectonian's description of the length of time spent debating the notability of this character, the fact that no one could find any significant coverage in that amount of time suggests that it isn't there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The existence of many bad/invalid articles is not a valid reason to keep another one. There are many many many single character articles on Wikipedia that don't belong. It isn't "arbitrary" application, just lack of enough editors who follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies versus the number of articles out here. It has nothing to do with screen time, even. He just is not demonstrably notable by Wikipedia standards meaning there is not significant coverage. Random "oh he's cool" or side notes that he appeared is not significant coverage. Most other individual fictional characters are not either. When they are found, they are generally merged or deleted. And hey, I agree that the bulk of TV characters should be merged to the appropriate list, but there are, again, few editors who do that kind of work, and not enough time. There is consensus for it, when they are found and the issue brought up. Just review the many AfDs on it, the tremendous number of merge discussions in various character and episode lists, the fiction notice board, and the many discussions here, in TV, in anime/manga, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha!!!!! As my birthday present I want an article about me!!!!!!! What a joke! Ricardoread (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The merge was undone, again, and discussion appears to now be moved to Talk:Ghostbusters (franchise)#Merge discussion, Redux -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema

Hi , I'm going to start a new article about Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema that is a major part of Iranian cinema. I have a problem in finding a proper name for that. Is Iranian pre-revolutionary cinema a good title? Bbadree (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a need for a separate article? Why not just expand the section Pre-revolutionary cinema, 1950s-70s in Iranian cinema? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD to Merge {{Plot}} and {{All plot}}

A discussion has been started about merging these two templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Template:All plot. There is also a rename discussion at Template talk:Plot#Requested move that may be of interest. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidate - Charlie Chaplin filmography

Jimknut has done some outstanding work in rewriting this article and it's currently up for nomination as a featured list. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor note: the references are an amalgam of "I don't know what citation/bibliographical style guide." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion on red links

I am in a dispute with an editor over red links on Donald Duck filmography. He wants to remove them since he thinks red links are bad for the reader, basically because of the colour red (danger and stuff). I don't agree per WP:Red link and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans where it was reported that removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. The red links on this article are, albeit slowly, turning in blue links. See for instance this recent edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A few times in an article is no big deal, but this article has historically been mostly redlinks, making it difficult for the reader. As I remarked to Garion96, we are conditioned to stop when we confront the color red. Our articles should serve the reader qua reader before editors qua editors.

Somewhat tangentially, there has been a problem that the redlinks have often been to articles that are not only non-existent, but badly named. —SlamDiego_←T 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. If you don't like the redlinks, and you've been watching the article for years, why not create the missing articles? What I'm seeing as I look through the history of the article, is that at least for the past year, it is being kept free of redlinks, and thus, reducing the intent of redlinks, which is clearly stated at WP:REDDEAL: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." There is no potential article on the page that could not be plausibly created. Your action on this, I must say, is contrary to the concept of redlinks and their purpose. The sociological use of the color red is irrelevant to this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have time and energy to creäte every article that I would like to creäte, let alone every article that I would like to see creäted; and the rate of article creätion was low before the redlinks were undone. Please look again at the passage that you quote; it is deliberately hedged with a prefacing “In general”. Again, a few redlinks would be no big deal, but lots of redlinks makes an article very unpleasant for the typical reader. The reader's experience is essential rather than irrelevant to this discussion, and hence the social use of red is quite relevant. —SlamDiego_←T 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of those blue links are only blue because they redirect to another article. I randomly clicked one film and instead of the film it redirected to a character. Secondly, looking at those pages (e.g., Orphan's Benefit, The Wise Little Hen, One Ice, Mickey's Polo Team, Donald and Pluto, and Mickey's Circus, etc.) ALL fail, flat out, the notability criteria for an individual page. Those are just the first six films on the page that I clicked, I'm sure it's like that for most of those film pages. I'm not seeing why it's beneficial to create a page just so it doesn't have a red link anymore. The question shouldn't be, "when will I get the red link blue", but "does the red link deserve to be blue". Most of those pages I saw seem to be nothing more than a short summary of what happens in the film. Not sure why we cannot reformulate the Donald Duck Filmography to incorporate brief summaries and short bylines on who made the film. Especially given that it doesn't appear that most of the films will ever pass WP:GNG. The character is notable, and I'm sure there are a few films that are as well, but everything he's appeared in isn't and apparently those first 6 I clicked on weren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Wise Little Hen" and "Orphan's Benefit" are absolutely notable, no question. The first was Donald's first appearance, and the second was where his personality was firmly established. Those aspects alone make those two shorts notable individually. Powers ^T 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable why? Because it was his first appearance? That doesn't make something notable. You need to read WP:NOTE a bit more carefully. No where in there does it say "I know this is notable, so that makes it so". Notability is asserted through "significant coverage" (see the guideline for a definition of significant) from reliable sources. Those pages do not have that. Plain and simple. You can claim notability all you want, but the fact remains that it must be proven with sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee there are a large number of reliable sources that cover each of those shorts in detail. My claim was not based simply on my opinion but on my knowledge of extant sources. I apologize that I have not yet had the time to look them up for you, but it has, after all, only been 9 minutes. Powers ^T 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How long have the articles been in existence? A lot longer than 9 minutes. Don't guarantee something you cannot provide. And I point out again, you should look at the definition of "significant coverage". It doesn't equate to "a large number of sources", as some incorrectly believe it to be. It is defined as coverage beyond trivial mentioning. I can google search with the best of them, and a few lines of "he appeared in" doesn't make a film notable. Secondly, if the subject is about Donald, and not the film, again that doesn't make the film notable unless they are talking about the film as a whole and not how Donald appears in it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of all that, thank you. I don't need the detailed instructions. I understand the articles have existed for a while, but you only expressed skepticism at their notability a couple of hours ago. These things take time, as I've never so much as looked at those articles before. At any rate, those articles aren't the subject of this discussion. Powers ^T 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are the subject of this discussion. This discussion is about the over use of red links. The guideline on red links clearly says not to link to something unless it it likely to be created. What I see in the links that I clicked on is articles that did not fit that criteria. When it says "likely to be created", it also said "with regard to the notability guideline". When dozens of articles are being created simple to fill the void of red links, and they clearly fail the notability guideline, then we have a problem. So yes, I would say that those articles are the subject of this discussion. Maybe not directly, but they are certainly part of the discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But they're currently blue links, so I think discussions on their suitability for inclusion belong elsewhere. We can only discuss de-linking them if they get deleted, right? Powers ^T 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an overarching issue. If you look at the page, clearly not everything is linked (as if it were, I would suspect it would look more like how Garion wanted it to look, with dozens of red links intermingling with the blue links. Which goes back to my original argument, the point of a red link is to encourage someone to create an article about a notable subject, not to just turn it blue for the sake of turning it blue. Those first 6 articles I listed clearly were created simply to satisfy the people that were saying the article is full of links to pages that do not exist. I.E. Should the articles on this page have been created in the first place, if the idea of creating a redlink is being abused? Not every film is notable to begin with, and shorts are far fewer than full length. The question that everyone should have been asking from the start should not have been "what's the cutoff for red link numbers", but should we have been linking them in the first place? If you shouldn't link something that will be created an immediately fail our guidelines and policies on what kinds of articles should be created, then why link to it in the first place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the "The Wise Little Hen" article is three years older than Donald Duck filmography, I guarantee it wasn't created simply to remove a redlink on this page. =) Powers ^T 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are good. Don't delete redlinks. Convention is long-standing and well-established on this issue. Powers ^T 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget the redlinks, what about the overlinking on dates? Nine links to 1937? And redlinks are only useful if the article in question will be created soon. Make the articles then link them, don't leave redlinks hoping that someone will make the article one day. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. Red links are how we build the web. They're how Wikipedia:Most wanted articles is populated, and how a new article best gains incoming links. WP:REDLINK is quite clear on this. Powers ^T 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Redlinks should be encouraged if it's likely an article will be created. It doesn't matter if it's likely to be done in 5 minutes or 5 years (there is no deadline...) I worked on this article a while back to remove most of the redlinks, only due to the fact it had so many missing articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The following was originally in the Wikipedia talk:Red link page, which was probably a bad place for it, so after a recommendation, I moved it here, though it might be just as in place in a talk page about bots. (The post doesn't have to be film-specific, that's just the instance that came to mind.):

I've noticed Wikipedia frequently contains lists with some blue links, but other items in the lists don't have links (red or blue), even though they'd be perfectly appropriate. The links were likely not created for a few different reasons: The article may not have existed at the time of the article creation and the author(s) understandably didn't want to clutter the list with red links, the article name may have been tough to guess (such as Film Name (Year of Film) instead of just Film Name) and they didn't bother looking it up, the appropriate link may be buried in another article (Book Name#Film Adaptation), or they simply didn't bother linking even though they could.

As far as I know, the current solution is to do a brute force look-up of each individual item with Wikipedia search and Google searches limited to the wikipedia domain, checking to see if there's an appropriate link that can be created and then making them, but that often doesn't get done. (I've certainly passed up opportunities to do it and procrastinated on the ones I have done.) So, is there some kind of automated way that (higher ranking, technically gifted) Wikipedians could do it? What I'm thinking is a sophisticated bot that would produce recommendations for link creation, that could then be created en mass once approved. The bot would look for lists or accept lists given to it (often filmographies and lists of works and titles), produce a list of links that would need to be manually checked, and then, presto, lotsa links with much less work. ...OK, maybe it wouldn't be so quick, and obviously something like this would still require considerable work (and as for the technical requirements of such a bot, if Rambot could work it's magic, then surely something like I describe is possible.). The current status quo leaves many thousands of articles without appropriate links to approved articles and without some sort of semi-automated process, the work will be slower or neglected altogether. Is something like what I describe viable, been considered and rejected, or just a pipe dream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.145 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that many of us on each side of the issue of redlinks here could endorse the idea that well-designed 'bots are a possible and desirable part of the answer to the more general problem of providing useful links for the reader. But, almost certainly, most of those who believe in liberal redlinking would say that such redlinking should be joined by use of 'bots, rather than dsiplaced by it. —SlamDiego_←T 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea I have for bot automation of links would best be best implemented only for bluelink creation and not redlinks, and the existence of such a bot could not just partially solve the problem of a failure to link where possible, appropriate, and desirable, but make it so there are fewer (cluttering?) redlinks in the first place. (When such a link was possible, it would be (semi)automatically created and hence would only be blue, not red.) For new articles, the existing "solution" is of course for article writers to check carefully to see if a link is possible or not and create 'em, and (though this is asking a lot) to periodically re-check the article to see if any of the listed items could be linked, even if it was not possible at the time of article creation. (And this also brings up the question of how someone can go to all the effort to create an article but not take the comparatively minor step of popularizing the content by sprinkling links liberally throughout wikipedia.)

I've a few times gone through wikipedia (via google searches restricted to the wikipedia domain) and created links for just about for every instance of mentions in articles. For instance, after seeing the movie G-Force, I figured "What the heck!" and spent (wasted?) some time creating links to hamster ball just about everywhere on wikipedia I could. (Though not all, a number of links to that article were created by me.) For articles related to film and TV, I put placeholders in the talk pages of the Tom Selleck and Empire International Pictures articles noting the lack of links where possible, and later followed up by creating the links. (For the Empire International article, see the before and after here [1].), and another list I noticed is filled with potential but non-existent links is all the B-movies listed under USA Up All Night with another one of my placeholders in the talk page. I'll probably fill that one in in time, but it will take quite awhile, and a bot could do the work much faster and with far less work.

Though here I'm not logged in (preferring a bit of anonymity due to dynamic IP addressing - Thanks SineBot!), I do have an account and have created a few articles with many more planned. Every time I link everywhere possible with the aforementioned method of wikipedia restricted google searches. But not everyone does and since wikipedia doesn't appear to have an automated process for this, the potential for thousands if not millions of appropriate links is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.230 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely feel that red links for notable names and almost ALL films/TV series and such should be linked in advance, in preparation for the day and time that someone takes the initiative to create said articles. On film infoboxes, sometimes this is taken to an extreme, linking cinematographers, editors, and producers that most likely will never meet notability guidelines per Wikistandards. But directors, writers, actresses/actors, and titles should always be linked.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong disagree to having articles linked in advance. IMO bots/automation of article creation should strongly be discouraged. I know it's unlikely, but it could be one step away from bot/automation of EVERYTHING! Part of the reason I and many other editors contribute is that articles don't exist in the first place. Hopefully more and more editors will get involved as WP gets bigger and bigger, and many of these missing articles get created in time. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Who said anything about bot creation of articles? I brought up bots only as a a more efficient method of creating links, and even then maybe as a way of just making work faster & easier, and not necessarily letting bots go about doing it independently. I brought up Rambot only as an example of a bot being able to do some fairly complex work, not suggesting there should be a bot that would, say, convert virtually every IMDB entry into a wikipedia article. (A prospect I would find horrifying.)

Here's another example. Say the article List of movies and tv shows with titles spelled using letters of the alphabet contained a list of lotsa movies and tv shows. (duh.) A nice, smart bot could suggest that Citizen Kane go under Citizen Kane, and if smart enough, recognize that Gone with the Wind links to the book, not movie, and The Wizard of Oz to a disambiguation page and suggest the appropriate destinations. I'm not an expert on bots, but it seems that something like this should be possible.

Anyway, I'm starting to sound as repetitive as Mojo Jojo, so that's it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.217 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign film titles

Should article names of foreign/non-English films be in English or their native language? Wikipedia's general naming policy seems to be that English should be used except when the literal translation wouldn't mean the same thing. Does this apply to films, or is there a more specific policy in regards to films or other media that I've missed? Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the article name should be in English if it was released in English or it has a common English name per WP:ENGLISH. If an English title just isn't available, then it should use the transliteration/romanization of the foreign title. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be more specific... so an article such as Entre la mer et l'eau douce (which has an English translation), should be titled in English?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be at Between Salt and Sweet Water, with a redirect for the foreign title to the English. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's no English title, isn't transliteration/romanization of the foreign title original research? If there is an offical English title, then use it per Use English and Naming Conventions (Films). Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are certain instances when one should maintain the foreign title--La Dolce Vita, Volver, and La Vie en Rose being a few primarily examples.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lugnuts is correct. We shouldn't be making up English titles where none exist. PC78 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Lugnuts. Several foreign titles have specific play on words and were not translated on english-language release. Then again, I'm confused about some titles. For example Quai des Orfèvres was translated to Quay of the Goldsmiths. But both metacritic and all the DVDs I've seen of the film released in the UK and the US still use the French title. Is it more appropriate then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What everyone is saying makes sense to me. I would never think to move La Dolce Vita to an English name, as it's known worldwide by its Italian name. I've already moved a few foreign film titles, but in those cases either IMDb or the provided Film Reference Library offered the English title, so hopefully no one can tag that as OR.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. When creating articles for non-English films, please try to create a redirect for the non-English title (if you're not doing so already). This often gets rid of lots of redlinks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's not me creating articles for non-English films. I ran cross an editor creating them in rather large quantities and I wanted to be clear on policies/consensus regarding moving the titles, as the editor bristled at the idea of the article titles being translated to English.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are here:

WP:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films

Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Radio (US Film)

This article has twice been redirected to The Boat That Rocked, but the author has reverted insisting that it needs to be a seperate article. It should be sufficient to cover any details about the US recut in the main article. It would be good if someone else could take a look at this. PC78 (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as an unambiguous copyright violation (just do a search on any term from the plot section—the only section with any content—it's © Focus Features from about 2007) and reinstated the redirect. Steve ^T • C 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

High School Musical 4: East Meets West

Another undone redirect. According to the article, the film is currently at the casting stages so it clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF. Worth taking to AfD? PC78 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just restore the redirect. Its just too obvious a failure of WP:NFF. If new editors keep reverting, maybe have it protected a few months. An unfortunately common event with maybe rumored or maybe real sequels of these kinds of franchises :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

Hello crew! The Hong Kong action cinema article related to this project has been nominated for Feartured Article removal. If you have comments regarding the FA review, discuss it on the review page. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club plot issue

I have tried to change a sentence in the plot description for Fight Club (film) because I believe it to be false and I don't want to see false information stay on a featured article. I failed to gain any consensus for a change on the talk page and I have basically given up on trying as the editors that are watching the page won't even dicuss the issue (See Talk:Fight Club (film)#Plot inaccuracy. I have decided to leave the issue alone and move on to other more productive editing, but I thought I would post my concern on this talk page since someone here may also be interested in this issue and may have more time to create a better consensus than myself. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise

Input on this article at its AfD would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Make compiled template for multiple movie links

I think it would be a good idea to have a template for use in the External links section of articles with multiple different commonly-used movie links.

For example, here are some common templates we use:

• {{Amg movie}}
• {{mojo title}}
• {{imdb title}}
• {{rotten-tomatoes}}

There are many more at Category:Film external link templates - but those 4 are some of the ones that almost all movies have pages for.

I propose we create a combined template, modeled after {{CongLinks}}.

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a template was deleted recently, though I don't have a link handy. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was one. It was created against consensus and deleted by overwelming consensus in TfD. One of the main reasons is that it encouraged link glut - putting in all the links when they are not always all appropriate, rather than individual selection. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but if it is modeled after {{CongLinks}}, one does not have to include all links by default. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One didn't have to include all the links on the previous one either, it just inappropriately encouraged it by its very nature. Template:Movie title external links was the template, and the TfD was at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 25#Template:Movie title external links (striking overwelming above because I was thinking of the merge discussion referenced in the same TfD rather than the TfD itself). I personally don't like that CongLinks either...it has the same problems the Movie title EL did and does not seem like a productive way to get selective links per WP:EL other than just automatically putting in all links without doing proper evaluation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea and does not "encourage" anything - it is merely a technical device. But I won't push it. :P Cirt (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for three NYFA articles

I've proposed that New York Film Academy - Film School and New York Film Academy - Acting School be merged into New York Film Academy--oddly, the two sets of articles aren't linked together already. Would it make more sense to have one article for the whole set? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think this requires announcement and discussion. The articles duplicate one another and repeat, to a much lesser degree, the New York Film Academy article. Personally, I suggest simply redirecting the other two articles to the main page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wildhartlivie. Be bold!. Lugnuts (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done--a little messy in the section on the school's programs, but otherwise everything is copied. Do I need to remove the Project tag from the inactive pages? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't bother as I believe a bot deletes talk pages of redirected articles. Thanks for doing the merging though. Lugnuts (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

I want to notify the project that a new editor has added Template:Razzie Award for Worst Picture to a number of film articles. At the same time, Template:Razzie Award for Worst Actor was added to actor bios, but I am removing those based on the consensus from WP:ACTOR that removed unilaterally the parameter for Razzies from Template:Infobox actor and filmographies. Although there was a small amount of disagreement regarding awards parameters in general from the infobox, no one agreed that the Razzies were appropriate, even if the awards had remained. Thus, if Razzies weren't appropriate for infoboxes and filmographies, I believe the consensus would extend to navboxes for the same. I'm not aware of a consensus in WP:FILM, so I thought notifying the project to consider was proper. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Films to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pal (dog actor) Merge to Lassie

A discussion is underway about possible merging the Pal (dog actor) article to Lassie. Three editors feel the merge would be appropriate (though I tend to discount one as they have made no useful edits, and semi-vandalized a few articles), and two feel it should not. Additional views to break this stalemate would be useful. Discussion at Talk:Pal (dog actor)#Merge with Lassie. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about Razzie Awards templates

Please weigh in with your thoughts about having Razzie Awards templates at the bottom of film-related articles. Check in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Gaining_consensus:_Razzie_award_templates_at_the_bottom_of_articles. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More Lassie Fun...

Additional views needed at Talk:Lassie Come Home#Picture regarding the addition of a second non-free image[2] of a scene from the film. I removed it per WP:NONFREE as it does not illustrate anything not already seen in the cover, and the article is barely above a stub, so having two non-free images is doubly excessive. Also having problems with people making pointy additions of project tags after I rejected the removal of the Yorkshire tag (as the film is set in Yorkshire and about its peoples). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming The Hobbit films

I brought this up over at Talk:The Hobbit films#Renaming the article and just wanted to get everyone's opinion.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with improving Hack Movies article

I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. —Erkman27 (talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)