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
No edit summary
Line 150: Line 150:
Let me ask again. So there are no limit for the amount of reviews in an article and what makes those comments so notable to be in the intro section? [[User:Ricardoread|Ricardoread]] ([[User talk:Ricardoread|talk]]) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask again. So there are no limit for the amount of reviews in an article and what makes those comments so notable to be in the intro section? [[User:Ricardoread|Ricardoread]] ([[User talk:Ricardoread|talk]]) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
:In a word, no. So long as the reviews are from reliable sources, which these appear to be. More importantly, they cover a wide area of the country, so it can't be said that they just reflect, for example, the views of large urban areas, etc. The "intro" is the lead and the responsibility of the lead to provide a summary of the main article. There is no guideline that outlines a choice of review over another. In other words, we don't distinguish something as more notable than something else. If it qualifies as notable in regard to the publication, meaning it has passed Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then it's fine. Perhaps we should choose some of the more cutting reviews? [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
:In a word, no. So long as the reviews are from reliable sources, which these appear to be. More importantly, they cover a wide area of the country, so it can't be said that they just reflect, for example, the views of large urban areas, etc. The "intro" is the lead and the responsibility of the lead to provide a summary of the main article. There is no guideline that outlines a choice of review over another. In other words, we don't distinguish something as more notable than something else. If it qualifies as notable in regard to the publication, meaning it has passed Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then it's fine. Perhaps we should choose some of the more cutting reviews? [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

::I mean, why not pick Roger Ebert to be in the intro? Can I put anyone in the intro? That's why I think it should be a simple, "a critical failure" instead of putting a select list without any guideline. [[User:Ricardoread|Ricardoread]] ([[User talk:Ricardoread|talk]]) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


== ''[[A Serious Man]]'' ==
== ''[[A Serious Man]]'' ==

Revision as of 04:13, 4 December 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


Today's featured articles

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(8 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Requests for comments

  • 03 Aug 2024 – RRR (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion
  • 30 Jul 2024 – Twisters (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WeatherWriter (t · c); see discussion
  • 08 Aug 2024 – Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Crampsteed (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

Template:WP Film Sidebar

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)

Sound film's FAR

I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Tender Mercies

Hey all. I've nominated Tender Mercies for a featured article status. If you don't mind taking a look, any comments, criticisms or feedback would be welcome! Thanks... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster at Haeundae (film)

I've recently been involved in a bit of a dispute over the film poster image in this article. The current image was uploaded by myself back in May, but was somewhat arbitrarily replaced with this image by another user. Argument for the new image is that it apparently better illustrates the film, while my argument for retaining the original (and current) image is that it will be more recognisable to a greater part of our readers, having been used for the UK DVD cover (AFAIK, the only release in an English-language country). Ultimatetly it's not that big a deal, but some fresh input might help to establish a concensus one way or another. PC78 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on infobox credits

I have a quick question: how does the Film project deal with the concept of credits in the infobox, particularly if there are uncredited directors or authors? Are there any guidelines on this subject? I ask because we're having a similar discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and as I've noticed film infoboxes on occasion list authors who are not officially credited, any information you could apply would be insightful. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the infobox should have only verifiable credits in it. If a director or author is uncredited, they should only be added to the infobox if the prose has reliably sourced discussion showing that they were actually involved and that they had a significant role. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think cast lists should include uncredited appearances either, unless it's a notable cameo and is mentioned as such somewhere in the article. Listing "John Smith" as "Man in Green Coat" (uncredited) seems silly. LargoLarry (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight

I suggest that Twilight (series) gets split into the book series and the film series. like Harry Potter (film series)(the films) and Harry Potter (the books)IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best course of action would probably be to start a discussion at Talk:Twilight (series). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all cars! Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars in dire shape, only thing worse off are the quality of the project's articles.

The project is largely dead, and as such, the articles, especially on the characters, are in desperate need of attention. If anyone would be willing to participate in general cleanup and merging discussion, we need any help available. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Comic Con

Would San Diego Comic Con fall within the scope of the project due to large number of movies which premier or hold a panel at the event? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section - reviews box with stars?

Would it make sense to have a box like this for Reception section of films? Then, we could have X out of 5 stars for the noteworthy reviews. Cirt (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how feasible this is, because of the number of film critics, even well-known critics. How would we decide who to include/not to include? Also, several prominent critics, such as those of the New York Times, do not use any sort of grading for their reviews, so translating them to X out of 5 stars would be highly subjective. Instead, those reviewers are better served by taking excerpts from their reviews, which tends to happen in the body of a Critical Reception section anyway. And would the reviews come primarily from US and UK sources? That seems misrepresentative for, say, Bollywood films. It seems to me like this sort of information is too plentiful to process and is better left to commercial sites like RottenTomatoes or Metacritic (admittedly the last objection I raised isn't addressed by either of those sites). -Krasnoludek (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It was just an idea. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First thought is "god no!", that box is hideous and I remove it from any video game article I work on. It really is not helpful, IMHO, to just have "stars" without the appropriate context of prose. That's what Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic are for, which are the experts for doing the subjective translation as Krasnoludek notes. I think Films (and VGs) are best served with a well crafted prose reception section, led off with the basic two aggregate site summaries (though I'll admit, I still don't full like those). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said above, it was just an idea, a suggestion. I am sorry for bringing it up. End of thread. Consider the matter withdrawn. Again, sorry. :( Cirt (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*hugs* Sorry, that came off harsher than I intended :) I think its good to discuss things like this now and then, since it does sometimes come up, especially with our newer editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. My reply wasn't supposed to be a smackdown or anything :o). Sorry if it came off that way. The rating box is a natural suggestion and the fact that such a template already exists elsewhere was good support to bring it up here. -Krasnoludek (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So which one of those boxes are allowed for VG? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does BoxOfficeMojo figures include marketing costs?

Do their figures include marketing costs? Or is that extra? I'm asking because I see film articles that say films broke even because their worldwide revenue just about equaled their listed budget. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to them, "Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures." Any article making such a claim should be backed up by a source actually stating that. If they are just pointed to BoM, that would be WP:SYNTH and should be fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox....

What is the consensus of adding the year of a film next to the followed by/preceded by in the infobox for films. Like:

Thanks. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its usually the norm to have them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is? I looked at, for instance, the LotR films and didn't see release years. The infobox template doesn't say whether or not they should be included either. I'm not meaning to sound overly-skeptical, but I guess a few examples (or a policy statement) would be nice. Doniago (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if it was clarified, I think. Looking at the MoS, it does not show a year on the followed by/preceded by, which would seem to indicate that while its commonly done, it should not. And looking at Category 6: Day of Destruction, one of my own GAs, I did not include the year either. Half awake still, so must have remembered wrong. Looks like the norm is to not have....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't know that consensus on this exists, I've seen entries with and without the year of release. My personal opinion is that the year is not necessary. The infobox is meant to display the basic information about the film without going into too much detail. Prequels and sequels to a film are basic information but any additional information about them, including the year of release, is best left handled by the infobox and the article of the prequel or sequel in question. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, for film articles, the year is generally not included. I know that WP:ALBUM advocates the use of the year for succession in infoboxes, but I think that is a little different circumstances, as album succession are strictly chronological while films are in production order; there is some debate about the true order of films in the non-Wiki world while there isn't for albums. I personally prefer not to use the year in the infobox, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the grand finale question is: Will it prevent an article from reaching GA/FA? :-) --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a subjective issue of personal opinion, probably not, although you're less likely to see a comment about it if the year is not listed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the followed by/preceded by info is completly pointless for the film infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having the year in there is not the "norm". It's typically not added, because it's needless information. If you click the film link you'll see the year. All you need is the film's name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't one theoretically argue that's what the infoboxes are for -- to show a quick snippet of the presiding information at hand without having to "click" to search for the information? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of including years in areas that are intended for navigation. Using a template I edited recently, it included the years next to the video games, and I argued that it acts as a slippery slope, and that no real reason was provided to explain the importance of years over genres, directors, etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evan Almighty has this done and it's a GA. So in a nutshell it really just depends on who does the 'grading' of the particular article. :P --Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story

There is a discussion at Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story#'Accuracy' subsection on whether a religion-based critical review is appropriate to be included. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding US$ next to box office numbers

Is it the norm or required to add US$ and US$ next to box office and production numbers, even if the film was made in the US? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should just have $. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't think so... and changed it when I saw that almost EVERY present of $ has US in front of it, like this. However it was changed back and I brought it up on the the talk. Someone posted back quite snooty and insisted in using US$ because "44% percent of the films gross is in foreign currency". Then someone noted that "[per] WP:$ U.S. dollars are to be Wikipedia's standard for articles that are either about U.S. topics or without national ties because U.S. dollars are, at the moment, the world's reserve currency." So I don't know what to do. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only would include it if the $ is unclear which dollar is being referred to. Like if the film is a Canadian/American/Australian coproduction, it would be nice to indicate which dollar you are referring to: United States dollar, Canadian dollar, or Australian dollar. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't most revenue figures used in infoboxes and articles gathered from American websites like Box Office Mojo, which quotes box office figures in US dollar amounts regardless of where the film was made? LargoLarry (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would always use US$ to avoid any potential confusion. $ by itself is ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we follow "policy" though? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes (should have read the guideline first). As I read it, that would be a plain "$" for New Moon and other US-specific articles, and "US$" for non-country specific articles. PC78 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lemon Tree (film)/GA1

Hey guys. I have this GA on hold, but the main editor has retired. Since all that's needed is the plot section to be modified, would one of you be able to take a crack at it? Thanks, Wizardman 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dogs

The film Old Dogs is not doing too well with film critics' reviews:

And yet, despite this, Shicoco (talk · contribs) has twice now added tags to the top of the article's page: [1] and [2]. I find it kind of odd that this account has no contributions to Wikipedia since August 2009 [3], but that is besides the point.

I worked very hard on researching and adding material to the Critical reception subsection of this article. It actually does include some positive reception in the article, despite the extremely low ratings at review aggregated sites. I would appreciate some input, at Talk:Old Dogs (film), especially on whether this tagging by Shicoco (talk · contribs) is appropriate or not. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note there. Not surprising to see the low RT rank. CNN's critic was brutal in his review of it as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Cirt (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my having responded resulted in Bambifan coming to mess with the article :-( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is Bambifan? Cirt (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask again. So there are no limit for the amount of reviews in an article and what makes those comments so notable to be in the intro section? Ricardoread (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. So long as the reviews are from reliable sources, which these appear to be. More importantly, they cover a wide area of the country, so it can't be said that they just reflect, for example, the views of large urban areas, etc. The "intro" is the lead and the responsibility of the lead to provide a summary of the main article. There is no guideline that outlines a choice of review over another. In other words, we don't distinguish something as more notable than something else. If it qualifies as notable in regard to the publication, meaning it has passed Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then it's fine. Perhaps we should choose some of the more cutting reviews? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, why not pick Roger Ebert to be in the intro? Can I put anyone in the intro? That's why I think it should be a simple, "a critical failure" instead of putting a select list without any guideline. Ricardoread (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Serious Man

Some additional eyes and views could be helpful here. I was called to the attention of this article by a relatively newer editor tried to change WP:MOSFILM's guidelines to allow the article's originally 1000+ word plot summary. This was reverted and he started a discussion questioning the guidelines of 400-700 words (which could also use additional views). In responding to the discussion, I looked at the article and applied some MoS fixes and rewrote the plot summary from its then just over 700 word length to a more compact sub-500 word length, almost entirely by just cleaning up the prose. There is a discussion on the talk page over whether the first paragraph[4] should be restored at Talk:A Serious Man#Remove Notice?, and a second discussion over the apparent dispute with my removing the long cast section as the cast was already listed in the plot at Talk:A Serious Man#Cast section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome as many eyeballs on this as possible. Diegoboten (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're making it sound like the MOC was changed to specifically suit the article. Actually the allusion to 900-1000 words came from earlier MOC language that was recently changed after digging through the history. Personally don't care at this point how people want to edit this particular movie as I've already given my input as best as I can....however I do think the MOC guidelines are overly narrow, overly didactic and less "guideliney" and hence are pretty much leading people to create low quality summaries that have little practical value to the article reader. Worst of all, they're just being ignored -- by lots and lots of other more high profile articles. Diegoboten (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length should suit the need. If that's 1000 words, so be it. But what *is* the need? As a reader, I would use a brief film review to figure out whether I wanted to watch the movie. A para or two will suffice for that. But these summaries are long and largely original research.
I've written a number of Wiki book articles; after awhile I had the uneasy feeling that even though nobody was complaining, what I was doing was quite major original research. I keep the plot summary as short and dry as "possible". But I also know that if I'm too brief, someone will hit the article with "stub". But does my compromise meet my own requirement that a summary is useful deciding whether to read the book? Not in the least. We're in a weird situation where editors are writing by "feel", by "example". If we agree that's what's should be done, then hard-and-fast rules about length are not appropriate. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe need is to keep the plot description from becoming asinine, especially for films that just simply defy brief explanations. Look, I am all for economy and being concise and keeping flabby edits from proliferating. But we're talking about a figure that's being casually thrown out there that equates two to five text messages or twitter updates. If people feel the need to put out some kind of arbitrary range, OK fine. But I think then the language should be modified to treat this figure as suggestive and aspirational. This would at least give people a principled standard to abide by WITHOUT giving wikilawyers easy bait. Finally, does anybody actually read these things after they're so tightly edited? If you were to critically examine most plot descriptions that are actually abiding to the 400-700 word rule....frankly most of them kinda suck. Pick your favorite movie and give it a whirl. You'll see what I am talking about. It's an overused measure that's actually making people deliberately biased towards trivial and uninformative writing out of the concern they'll be judged ignorant of the guidelines and be summarily reverted. Diegoboten (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I was looking at RV (movie) — hardly my favorite movie, but I'd just before watched it with commentary on. Apropos this discussion, I read the Plot, and was put off by the bloat (including a couple factual errors). Someone added a tag on the plot recently, but it was removed.[5] I *was* interested in the critical reception and gross. Number of readers last month? 116.[6] Number who read the Plot? Umm. 10? Number who would have cared it was sloppy? 3? None? Piano non troppo (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as a financial failure?

I read somewhere here, and now can't find, a convincing statement that for a film to recoup all the costs it incurs it must earn twice as much as its budget. (This included the local theater costs, and other things that are apparently not generally included in the the budget or the gross.) Could people comment on how useful this concept is? Is the comparison between budget and gross meant to reflect how much the film's backers made or lost?

A related question is when are these budget and gross figures compiled? How long after a film is released before it can "truly" be said to be a financial failure? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think you need to wait six months or so until after the DVD has been released, since sales/rentals can make the difference in whether or not a film was a financial success. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the box office the budget x 3 is seen as a success, and takes into account the cost of prints and P&A. On his commentaries Kevin Smith has stated that a $10m needs to make $30m to be considered a success, the amount of DVDs made are then calculated off the box office (usually 1 million DVDs for each $10m), and horror films tend to rent better than indie films. If you mean at the box office the truth is most films are a success or failure by Sunday night of their first weekend, as the second weekend usually has a 50-70% drop. As an example Old Dogs has a budget of $35m, as of today it has made $25m, it needs to make $115m to be a success (as the P&A will be around $10m) It's first weekend was $16m, and so it may finish with a US domestic gross of around $60m (US dom is usually first weekend x 4). I would call Old Dogs a box office failure. Of course it could make $100m on DVD sales but I doubt it. To test this theory pick a film that did OK, look it up on BOM and check out its budget, its opening weekend and its final take. If the budget is B then the formula is Bx2 for the opening weekend and Bx4 for the final figure for it to be a success. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source help

I'm putting the finishing touches on a WP:GAN on an actress, and am having trouble finding a reliable source covering soundtracks (on which the actress appeared) to finish it up. Any suggestions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly, I found a 2009 article by The Press stating "Less well known is her singing prowess, which not only featured on the Heavenly Creatures soundtrack and in Romance and Cigarettes..." It doesn't state the song she sang specifically by name though. If this is sufficient, let me know. I'll try and take another look later unless somebody else beats me to it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, Nehrams, you're my hero. And I didn't even tell you what article it was! Thanks. If you come across anything else about the singing, please let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess I didn't say this. I can source the name of the song in Heavenly Creatures, I needed a source for the actual soundtrack, so that will do nicely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the source is: Croot, James. "C'mon Kate". The Press. February 17, 2009. Proquest Document ID: 1646622251. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how does one include the Proquest Document ID in the cite news template? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=329606241"