Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yojimbo501 (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 15 August 2008 (→‎Letters from Iwo Jima (again): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
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

Good article nominees

(5 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
Shortcuts

Template:WP Film Sidebar

C-Class discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Consensus was not to adopt C-Class in the project assessment scheme. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:

Arguments for C-Class
  • More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
  • It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
  • For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).
Arguments against C-Class
  • The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
  • Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
  • The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
  • This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
  • There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
  • More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So we can determine consensus in WP Films, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Films assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on July 25, 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. I do support adopting this change. Yes, it might take a bit of sorting before the criteria is completely clear, but then the line between some of these classes has always been a bit tenuous. There is a huge difference between Start and B-Class, and I've hestitated in the past to assess some article as a B-Class based on just a bit more information and some subheadings. It takes everyone a little time to learn the difference between any given pair of classes, this will be no different, and it is a welcome step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this. (though I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote, I'm not a member of the project, though I am interested in editing film articles. If I'm not, go ahead and delete this.) I think the gap between Start and B is too big, this will make things clearer and easier to edit, as well as giving more concrete things for editors to aim for. - Dalta (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. As a substantial WikiProject well-equipped to enforce its own standards, I don't think we need concern ourselves with C-Class. Article assessment can be subjective at the best of times, and throwing another grade into the mix can only make this more so without offering any real benefit. A mass reassessment of Start-Class and B-Class articles would be a monumental waste of time and effort. We should be less concerned with assessing articles, and more concerned with improving them. PC78 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure that anyone is proposing a massive reassessment of articles, but that the class be incorporated from ratification onward. I agree that a mass effort would be a waste of time, but there is a huge gap in quality of articles from start to B.
    Of course there is a big gap, and so there should be. But if you close that gap and blur the lines between grades, how does that help? In what way will it be easier to determine whether an article is C-Class or B-Class than under the current system? PC78 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I opposed the initial C class addition to the V1.0 Assessment scale itself, and still don't believe it to be necessary. I've seen many large projects rejecting C class, while some smaller projects that have the resources and limited articles, adopting the class. For our project, I think that the differences between Start and B class are sufficient enough, and adding this additional class will result in a large reassessment campaign when we should be shifting our focus on improving the articles. I'm not stressing that this is just an increase in workload, but am also thinking of the long-term effects, including the possibility of further additions/removals of classes in the future. We need to concentrate our efforts on working to properly tag/review the B class articles, and improve the number of GA/A/FAs within the project rather than reclassifying our Start class articles. (And don't worry, this isn't an oppose vote just because I recently created the Start to B Class template! We can modify this if consensus supports the class.) --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I oppose C-Class since it strikes me as additional red tape. I'm not sure if the implementation of this class would be a boon to WP:FILM, and I agree with PC78, we should instead use the effort to focus on improving articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I just recently converted my vote. I believe it wont actually help us so much as just wasting time by forcing a huge reassesment of articles. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have to agree with Nehrams and PC78 above. I really don't think it is necessary and makes assessment more complicated than necessary. I also believe the distinction between a start and B-class is enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. -The line between "Start" class and "B" class has always been thin. Though I propose that we don't go into support of this (immediatly, that doesn't mean don't vote) until we see an example of a C-class article. I run the risk of sounding like a hippocrite, considering I asked if an article I've worked on quite a bit has met criteria, before being told we haven't gone into much of a discussion regarding our support of it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain that we can determine standards until we decide if we need a new class. The current classes already have standardized criteria, so presumably a C-Class article would fall somewhere in-between. The question at the moment is whether or not there is a need for another classification in between our current standards for Start and B. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One assumes that if we decide to adopt C-Class, we will also be adopting the same (or similar) standards specified in {{Grading scheme}}, so it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a few examples. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) perhaps, as opposed to Alien 3 which is more what I'd expect from a B-Class article. On a related note, and irrespective of how this debate turns out, will we be adopting the more stringent criteria for B-Class? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to be a given, with C-Class somewhere less so and B-Class incorporating, perhaps, more film specifics. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually already have stringent criteria for B-class articles (see the project banner for anything rated B-class or below), but unfortunately I've been too distracted with task force tagging for some time now to have given much priority to the massive backlog of articles requiring a B-Class review. The coordinators have started discussing doing a general Tag and Assess Drive in the coming months, and I've broached the idea of first running a pilot drive to handle this backlog (with the side-benefit of testing out in practice what does and doesn't work well with drives by targeting a thousand articles before blindly starting a 45k-article re-evaluation of all of our articles). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK. I was looking at the assessment scale, which has no mention of this. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure if Giro has the correct link above, but the actual proposals and subsequent ratification vote for C-Class is here. PC78 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposals and vote are also linked, IIRC, from the link I provided. The results of the vote and implementations, however, might be of more interest with regards to this discussion, which is not about the larger issues of general Wikipedia-wide assessment and the 1.0 project. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can someone explain what "A-Class", "B-Class" and "C-Class" is? I would read about it on the Wikipedia space, but I don't know where to start looking for that type of information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades should tell you what you want to know. Steve T • C 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've added a note about C-Class to the {{Film grading scheme}}, kinda like what they've got over at WP:MHA. Might prevent any unnecessary questions about why we don't (yet?) have it, and perhaps even draw a few more people to this discussion. I do hope we won't be stuck at 3-3 on the 25th! :) PC78 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Can I change my mind now and put my vote for support? Upon inspection of the Wikiproject: Military History criteria, I decided that I think it would be best to adopt a more strict criteria for B-class and (though mass reassignment would be a waste) get some articles reassesed on any editors own time. In short, I think the classes we currently have are quite fitting. Yojimbo501 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can of course always change your mind, but I'm confused if you support the new class or think that our current scheme is fine - it reads like you're saying both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really? Not intentional. Well, I'll breifly repeat what I mean. I support having a stricter B-class criteria, gradually reassesing some articles, but I've decided C-class is a waste of time and doesn't really improve an article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I shall stand by what I've said above, at least for now. However, I admit that I'm warming a little to the idea of C-Class. Consider these points: 1) If the criteria for B-Class has already been tightened, then the inevitable downgrading of some articles widens the gap between Start-Class, allowing for the inclusion of an intermediate C-Class. 2) Over at WikiProject Biography, someone requested an assessment for an article. I gave it a Start-Class rating, and left a note that if it offered a little more depth and coverage then it might be eligable for C-Class. Within 24 hours, the user who made the request had gone back and expanded the article, then resubmitted the request, and I promptly increased the assessment to C-Class. If the inclusion of another grade promps such behaviour from some users, then isn't that a good thing? PC78 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is one of the more salient points in adopting the C-Class. I think editors sometimes balk at trying to raise an article from Start, which is sometimes only different from Stub by a few minor points, to a B-Class. This provides another level of improvement. Meanwhile, I note that of the four who registered an opposition, three of them have cited a need for a massive reassessment, which isn't at all what is being proposed in adding in a new level of quality assessment. There is a huge leap between instituting a class from ratification and a massive effort to reassess all the articles at its inception. Nowhere have I seen this in the proposal and I honestly don't think it is a valid reason to avoid the change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arguments against C-Class" above suggests such a mass reassessment. Of course it wouldn't be necessary, though some users might be tempted to take it upon themselves. It isn't my sole reason for opposition, though. PC78 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if it makes people want to work a little harder, it's good, but I'd hoped editors would work as hard as they can anyways. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What constitutes a series?

Talk:Batman_Begins#The_Preceding_Movie for relevant troubles. Because Christopher Nolan's two films have no relation to the prior four, and those four none to the 1966 Adam West movie, these would appear to be different series about the same character. However, the discussion is whether or not all should be seen as one series. There seems to be concern that if we say all related films constitute a single series, then editors on some 'series' could argue for 'in-universe chronology' order, as opposed to production order. I think it can be established easily that related films constitute a series, reboots constitute a new series especially when reliable sources support that there is a reboot occurring, without opening the door to In-universe ordering ,which was already present as a 'non-problem'. For example ,Star Wars pages don't' order it by chapter but by production. Given the number of reboots currently occurring, esp. in sci-fi and superhero films, a policy needs be established. Otherwise, we open the door to a major issue, in that every making of pride and prejudice should be considered part of a 'pride and prejudice' series. Instead, I propose that where we have clear citation of a related set of movies, we consider it a series, and where we have citation that a new film of the same (or similar) title and characters represents a clean break and new set of stories, we consider that a second, third or whatever series. This would not interfere with Examples in the linked thread like the Halloween series, as those films have citation about the 'different scare every October' concept originally conceived of, while allowing stand-alone reboots like Hulk/The Incredible Hulk; The Punisher/The Punisher/Punisher:War Zone; Batman (Burton/Schumacher)/Batman (Nolan) and so on to be managed in a way which does not include internal contradictions. Thus a rule might be:

A Film Series constitutes those films for which citation and references demonstrate a clear intended connection on the part of the producers and writers, and should be ordered according to the production dates for purposes of determining preceding and following films in the infobox. Rely upon good prose writing in the body to clarify as needed, and to make clear the breaks between a given series and a later reboot.

thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A film series is a film series, no matter who reboots the continuity. The James Bond films have almost zero continuity with each other, does that mean that there should be no "preceded by" and "followed by" sections? Why are we giving preference to those people that reboot a series? The fact that they chose to ignore previous continuity is irrelevant to the fact that it is still film #X in that list of films from that series. If you look at Batman, who ever said that Batman Forever was in continuity with Batman Returns? There is no mentioning of the previous events in those Shumacher films, does that mean his two films are their own series? Halloween III has nothing to do with any of the other Halloween films, not a single thing, should we remove it from the "preceded by" and "followed by" sections simply because the "real" series is Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI? What about Halloween H20, which retcons everything after Halloween II? A "reboot" is the same thing as a "retcon", the only difference is that it's ignoring everything instead of specific details. It seems that limiting the definition of "series" to "clearly intended connections" (regardless of sources) is nothing but providing a way for "fans" (and I don't use that term as an insult) to determine what films should be present. Maybe Shumacher felt Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were part of Burton's films, but Burton hated those films so much that he didn't consider them part of his series (<--This is hypothetical, so don't tear my head of with "he's never said that"). There are plenty of people that hate Shumacher and his Bat-nipples, and probably don't consider his films to be related to Burton's films. If Burton says they aren't, does that mean we should separate them? I think not. I think that we shouldn't be playing "favorites" here, and have one set standard. The Pride & Prejudice example doesn't float because there isn't a "series" of Pride & Prejudice films, there are constant remakes of the same film over and over again. Should we link them in the infobox (preceded by 1967 - followed by 1977), maybe so just to keep the standard, but it's a little different when you have a "series" of films with new stories based on the same characters and a "series" of films that remake the exact same story over and over again. Technially, Batman Begins is part of the Warner Bros. Batman film series, because THEY own the films, not Burton, Shumacher, or Nolan. Even if they were to change hands, it's still all part of a set series of theatrical releases about a particular comic book character. That is what makes it a "series". It is a series of Batman films, not "Nolan's personal series" or "Burton's personal series".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see it that way. I'm not giving preference to fans, I'm deferring to the reliable sources who say 'this film is unrelated to those old films'. It's using RS like it's supposed to. As for Halloween, we know that #3 is a part of that series because there had been an intent to do a different story each time, not all michael myers. As for H20 and such, they're all the same production company, and meant to build upon the same basic story. If production company and ownership is a part of things, then Hulk and Incredible Hulk are clearly unrelated, because not only do we have RS, but we have different production companies. Same for the Punisher films. but in cases where we do have the same production company, we need to figure things out more. James Bond apparently rebooted with Casino Royale, but it's owned by the same company. That, like Batman, provides us with problems. And frankly, as companies merge and conglomerate, this problem will probably get worse. We need to determine what's what. Perhaps we can consider all films attached to a character fro ma given company (or the new comapny, if acquisition is involved) as a 'Franchise', and the related films as series, meaning batman would have one franchise, two series, and a one-off film. WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into this. Films that we have multiple sources saying 'not connected' shouldn't be connected by an ephemeral perceived fungibility based on 'the character's still owned by the same company, so it's all the same'. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated in continuity, but not unrelated when it comes to what they are, which is another film in the series of films about said character. First, Dimension Films made H20, they did not make Halloween I and Halloween II....or IV and V for that matter. They didn't acquire the rights till VI. You are making this all about continuity, and YOU'RE choosing what continuity is relevant based on who says it is? You're not being objective, you're looking of people that say, "this film is not connected to the previous films because it starts the story over". Does that really mean that is isn't part of the same film series? No. It means that it's part of a new continuity. You're trying to attach this fannish "canon" aspect to the film's when it isn't relevant. Who cares that Batman & Robin isn't connected to Batman Begins, it's still part of the giant film series on the character of Batman. If you want to use commonsense, then use it to realize that "followed by" is not necessarily (nor has it every truly been established as such) about what film follows one in continuity, but merely what film was released after this one. Hell, how would you handle Superman Returns? Technically, it's a reboot of the franchise, but it also kind of follows after Superman II. It negates Superman III and IV, but at the same time does not officially declare continuity with Superman I or II. It falls into this loop hole of in AND out of continuity, reboot/retcon. Is it part of the Salkind film series, or is it its own film? If we chose your method, we'd have a mighty large dilemma on our hands. If it's part of the Salkind films then it goes at the end, but since the Salkinds didn't make this film and it effectively ignores two of the Salkind films, does that mean it's its own new series that just uses previous films as backstory? Now, with my method, we have an objective, standard operation. It's all part of the series of films released about Superman, thus it goes at the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superman's not a hard example, we have Singer's direct comments that he built upon those two, and not hte other two. It's part of the same series, but needs some explanation int he prose, like I proposed. Same for Halloween. There's nothing 'fannish' about making clear to readers which films constitute a continuity. Finally, that's exactly the question I'm as king here. What should we use to define a "series"? You are saying well ,we have a series here and here, thus we know what a 'series' is, and this is a series. I'm saying ,should a series be all movies about a character, in which case from 1943 to 2008 is one batman series, and 1940 to 2005 is one pride and prejudice series, and 1930something to 1990's is one romeo and juliet series. Further, under your assertion, all three Casino Royales are all part ofthe 'James Bond series'. We need a clear definition of how Wikipedia will define a Series, and a Film franchise, and are they the same, or one a subset of the other? if subsets, then which it the larger and which the smaller? Please do not define the series by extant definitions of the series already on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are including serials, which are not feature films. The series of feature films on Batman spans 1966 to 2008, and that is how it should read. You are trying to give preference to these select groups that follow the same "continuity". This is an encyclopedia, we should treat it as such. Batman Begins clearly states in the lead that it reboots the continuity of the film series (notice how the lead actually refers to the film series as a whole and doesn't say "starts its own new series"). What you are trying to do is say that we need to segregate the films into who is directly connected to who, while I'm opting for a more objective approach that lists them ALL in the order of their release. It doesn't take precedent over which films are part of the same continuity, which hardly matters (except to fans). We can cover continuity changes in the prose of the article. Your rebuttle argument for Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice is based around using examples that are ALL exact replicas of each other, only released at different years. There is no "series" there. The Batman film series is a series of films on Batman. The same goes for Superman, Friday the 13th, James Bond, so forth and so on. There is no series of films about Pride & Prejudice, there is a "set" of Pride & Prejudice remakes, which is completely different. There is no change to the film itself, it's an exact replica using different actors every few years. It's not a series of films, it's a set of the same film refilmed over and over again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to take the time just yet to get caught up in this, but The Dark Knight is recognized as the sixth Batman film, in line with what Bignole was saying about companies' franchises. The 1966 Batman isn't a part of it since it was a spin-off of the TV show. Just wanted to throw that in. (By the way, it may be worth taking a break and seeing if other editors will pitch in with their perspectives, so don't get too long in the tooth with this back-and-forth banter.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)No, it's not different, per your argument that movies about the same characters constitutes a series. Let's hold off on this and wait for more input. and "Batman film series" is not the same as "a series of films on Batman." Consider that I point to the superhero shelf in a big box store and say sir, here are all our superhero films. There's a series of Punisher films, a series of batman films and so on". ALternately, I go to a film class, and hear 'Today we'll be discussing pop cultural trend reflections in mainstream film. Consider, for example the Batman film series you all saw as kids in the 1990's.' In the first, you're being told here's all our films in a messy pile. In the second, you're being specifically referred to a set of related films all of which reflect the teacher's topic. (Industrial, Goth, Techno and Rave, by the way). The aisle jockey sees the label 'superhero' and lumps it all together. The professor sees a group of closely related films supervised by the same guys at the same time with citation that they're related. That professor, looking at the same citation we use, would suggest that the Nolan films are a different series. You keep insisting I'm talking about in-universe, while I keep explicitly talking about real world stuff.
I think the best think now is to let others reply, we've both given quite a bit of fat to chew. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a way to mask an insult by referring to me as an aisle jockey and you as a professor. Nice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, totally not. Trying to show that two different perspectives exist on it, but the question is which way is right for wikipedia. No insult intended. After a couple years of working well together, I think you'd know better, and I hope you'll understand that's not my intent here. ThuranX (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

I think both of you make good arguments, but we should remember that we are not limited to filling out the preceded_by= and followed_by= fields. We have ample space in film articles' lead sections (and the relevant sections) to explain the development history and the changes in continuity. I think that there are imperfections with both parties' arguments, considering the messiness of how storylines will reboot, will be reinserted, or will convene (think The Avengers). My impression is that it would be best to follow a chronological production order and use the article to explain what is new and different about the film. The film infobox should contain simple, out-of-universe information... if there are discrepancies with directing credits or writing credits, we elaborate on that within the article. Another possible solution is to identify films as "(reboot)" in the field... for example, at Batman & Robin, we'd have the link: Batman Begins (reboot). Although I don't know what the inverse of a reboot is. :) I think that even if we look to reliable sources, we're going to have different perspectives anyway. For example, in the business of making money, it would be focused on the franchise. In the business of academic criticism, I think it could actually go two ways: the overall cinematic role of a superhero (or superheroes) or a director's interpretation of the superhero(es). Just my thoughts so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit torn on this one myself. I think that for the purposes of the film infobox, however, it was meant to connect films that were explicitly part of the same storyline, so I would lean against including every film in the franchise in a connected fashion. (In any case, it would be expected that the lead would mention connections between prior serieses within the franchise, as well as whatever footer template for the franchise would occupy the bottom of the article.) These have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, so simply saying, "but James Bond" isn't really a worthy comparison until we look at the Bond series as well and decide how to handle that against the intended parameter function. (And deciding whether Superman Returns follows Superman 2 or Superman 4 is going to be a whole 'nother can of worms no matter what...) In other words, let's hammer out how we want this to function in the abstract first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion either way. Both sets of information could be entered in the "followed by" field (eg. Batman and Robin could have "End (series)" and "Batman Begins (franchise)" separated by a line break). Succession boxes in the footer are easier to implement with additional information to specify the franchise/series or series/sub-series continuity. It's more complicated but another field could possibly be added to the infobox as "franchise" (separate articles already exist for Batman (film series) and James Bond (film series) for this field to link to).
As an added complication, how do you intend to include the animated films, which intercut the production runs of the live action series? The serials have been mentioned but feature film versions were often created from them (although I don't know if this was the case with the Batman serials). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, if the infobox fields are causing this much bother, why not just get rid of them? PC78 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting the Gordian Knot, are we? :) I would not mind doing this, since we can use the lead section to point out a film's predecessor and successor, as well as explain the connection between them. It's a big step, though... do others see problems with this? Obviously, we'd need to go through Category:Sequel films and ensure mention of the predecessor/successor in absence of these fields (if it is decided to remove them). It does make it so much easier for straightforward sequels, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so in favor of cutting the infoboxes. The above about listing with tagging notes MIGHT work, but I'd really prefer that instead we use Franchise for all character related movies, and Series for each continuity. Most of these changes could be handled with a bot and a few page moves. As to the animated movies, since most have zero bearing on the live action films (I can think of a single case where it bounced back and forth, TMNT), and thus shouldn't affect things. All the comics related animations are already separated, so that presents no problem. ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me either - were we to get rid of everything which presented a small fraction of cases where there was disagreement, we'd have no tools or templates at all. The solution is to discuss this and figure out what guidelines to implement. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but being on the ouside of this discussion looking in, it does appear to be a matter of extreme triviality. Of all the things we could be noting in the infobox, do we really need to be saying whether or not a film is a "reboot" of a franchise? As Erik says, there is ample space within the article itself to discuss such things. To pick two such "reboots" off the top of my head: Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond series, and yet is still regarded as the 21st Bond film; the new Star Trek film is a reboot/prequel, but it's still the 11th Trek film. And again, as Erik says above, there are plenty of sources that refer to The Dark Knight as the "sixth" Batman film. The infobox is supposed to provide a snapshot of cold, hard facts, and the fact is that Batman & Robin is the "preceeding" film to Batman Begins. Any talk of a reboot and its significance should be discussed and cited in the actual article. But as a solution to the problem, I would much rather lose the two infobox fields than have the infobox littered with notes about "reboots" and such. PC78 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film series lists in terrible shape!

The film series lists are all in terrible shape. There are film series broken down into their sub-series and scattered throughout the lists. I am trying to straighten them out, but I know nothing about the Japanese films on that list. I am hoping and praying that someone here can sort through that mess (Super Sentai, Kamen Rider, and Godzilla). I am also trying to co-ordinate those lists under on the film series talk page. Please please please, come and help get these lists under control. Thank you. - LA (T) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather I/II and IMDb rating/rank

Hi, I'd like some expertise from regular WikProject Films editors for an issue here:: Talk:The_Godfather#IMDb_rating

I was reviewing comments in the The Dark Knight - IMDB rating section, and decided to remove any IMDb rankings on articles, per Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Critical_reception.

A certain editor claimed that those rankings should stay on the Godfather articles. He admitted that the ranking system may be flawed, but claimed the films' longevity at the top of the list should still merit article inclusion as a "fact."

Thanks for taking a look (and helping out). --Madchester (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A certain editor"? Why not name names? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So interested editors can be drawn into discussion based on the circumstances of the situation and not the identity of the opposing party. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's reasonable. I was afraid I had cooties or something. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The article contains Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg, a non-free image that claims as its fair use rationale, "Used to illustrate the formative years of the fictional Indiana Jones character as a teenage Boy Scout." This is a claim not independently supported by the article, and the image's caption refers to Ebert's review of which only this brief fragment is related: "After young Indy discovers his life's mission in the early scenes..." This fragment mentions nothing of the particular shot or of any element within it. Per WP:NFC#Images, there needs to be critical commentary or discussion of the film to support the screenshot. There is no explicit commentary talking about how young Indiana Jones is holding the cross, either in terms of production design or thematic approach. The image does not seem appropriate for inclusion, and I would like other editors to review this situation. In addition, the image's so-called rationale for Scouting in popular culture may also need to be reviewed. Thanks, Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial comment was a misunderstanding of the underlying context. With the caption only referring to the abstract notion of a quest, I did not realize Ebert's direct reference to the scouting in the much-later Reception section. It took the image out of context for me. I think its new location directly adjacent to the context is less controversial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current use of the image is fine, though it should really be reduced in size per MOS:FILM guidelines. Personally I find the other image in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade more dubious, as it merely shows the reader what the characters look like. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad point to make, considering that they already have identifying images at Indiana Jones and Henry Jones, Sr.. It seems to fail WP:NFC#Unacceptable use under Images, #5: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Consider this all resolved? Alientraveller (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on if those had contested the other image are fine with this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that hundreds (probably a few thousand) of film articles display one of the templates in Category:American films by year navigational boxes. Each of these navboxes contains a total of ten links—one for each year in a decade—to a "List of American films of [Year]" article.

Is this useful or template clutter? Note that virtually every film article contains, or should contain, a piped link to a "[Year] in film" article (e.g. 1957 in film), and it wouldn't be difficult to add a "see also" link to a single appropriate "List of American films of [Year]" article (instead of to the lists for an entire decade). I personally would prefer to generally avoid placing a navbox in an article unless that article is actually linked in the navbox (for instance, Glory (film) should contain {{Edward Zwick}}, since the template contains a link to the article about the film), but that's just me...

Thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point to make; if the templates aren't even directly encompassing the articles in which they're implemented, it does seem like overproliferation. Why not contact the creator of these templates? Maybe we can figure out a different solution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I've notified User:Lugnuts of this discussion and invited him to participate. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Jesus, we're not actually putting these things in articles are we? These templates may link to list articles, but this is really the domain of categories. Personally I would TfD the lot as needless overproliferation. It's actually Blofeld of SPECTRE who created most of these. PC78 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this needs another looking over in some formal setting - if that's TfD, so be it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Erik for alerting me about this - I've let Blofeld know about it too. I personally don't see any problem with having these placed at the foot of an article. For me they provide a handy link to the films that were released in that country in that year. It's unlikely that an average user would stumble upon List of American films of 1928, for example, by accident. Finding that page can then result in the user improving other film articles of that year, or maybe even turning some important redlinks to blue. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are connected at the bottom of articles to the films of that year or decade for navigation and comprehension purposes to organize cinema. We do this for every other cinema but with America we had to be more cautious because nobody wanted "generic" templates so we had to do by decade. I fail to see how these small templates harm or clutter the articles and they ar eintended for quick navigation of American film which I believe they do well. Again, why was it only Lugnuts who had the decency to inform me of this discussion ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure, Blofeld. I saw that you were the creator of these templates and had you in mind when I told Black Falcon to contact the creator. I'm not sure if the templates should be deleted, but I don't think that they belong in individual film articles. Then again, I see that "List of American films of XXXX" already have the infobox breakdown at the top of the articles, so wouldn't templates at the bottom be redundant? I just think that the template is so above an individual film that there is no explicit relationship. A lot of films come out for each year, and I don't think the template in each film for each year is helpful. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Erik that there is no explicit connection between one film and every other film from that country released in the same decade. Each film article should be in a "Year films" category, and that should be quite sufficient. I'm not even convinced that we need the "Cinema of county" navboxes in every single film article, either. PC78 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm thinking in terms of newer vistors to the site. They read an article from a given year, Perhaps they'd like some list of other films in the same year or period in which they can browse. Category:American films or Category:e.g 1977 films doesn't do this rather List of American films of 1977 does. I really don't mind as long as there is some link to connect to the bank of film articles in the lists. Iwouldn't mind if there was a See also List of American films of 1977. As long as there is a link it doesn't matter. At the time, creating decade templates seemed the most logical step to improve connection between articles.Personally I think having a full list by year greatly improves our comprehension. I'm sorry if nobody here appreciates that I want to enhance connection across articles by year but I and many other users find them of use. When the cinema templates were initially nominated for deletion before, a lot of editors turned up to protest at their deletion. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if nobody here appreciates that I want to... - this is not about you; please confine your discussion to the issue at hand instead of implying that other editors should be grateful and are not allowed to question things on their merits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shut up Giro. It does involve me, so please quit your public ownership pretensions. I absolutely said nothing at all about my contributions or "what I have done" nor did I explicitly state that I "owned" the templates or that a consensus or project discussion wasn't a good thing. However you have made it look like I was trying to justify something based on my overal contributions to the project which is totally not what I was saying. "Appreciate" was probably not a tactful word to use and left the wrong impression. Rather it was me (and Lugnuts) who distributed the vast majority of these templates which we are talking about so "I" partly have some responsibility for them as they exist whether they are public property or not. I fully agree it should be WP:Films having a responsibility for them rather than "myself" but as I was the one who distributed then the discussion does partly involve me whether they are WP:Films group material or not. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one trying to make this about me; I would ask that you retract your comment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blofeld, try to realize that we recognize that you do a lot of work, but also try to recognize that not all your work will go over well with editors. That's why Girolamo is asking to focus on the merits of this particular template instead of implying that we cannot criticize any contribution you make. We determine the validity of contributions through policies, guidelines, and consensus. Meanwhile, some more discussion related to the templates is going on below, and I'd appreciate it if there could be feedback about addressing this kind of navigational outreach. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Doesn't seem helpful at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has absolutely nothing to with just this discussion. I don't mind either way what happens to the templates whether they are replaced with a see also section or not. Consensus is great when people ar emade to feel equal and free to express their views. My main concern is that EVERY time I comment on a WP:Film discussion page I end up being prompted by Giro or made to reconsider my values or made to feel like my freedom of speech is no longer acceptable. If I can't freely express my views without somebody hovering every time then I really don't want to be part of the project. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple link to List of American films of 1977 in a "See also" section at the foot of an article should suffice, or a piped link such as "1977 American film" in the lead. But in what way do these lists "greatly improve our comprehension" of a film article? In their present state, these lists don't offer anything of the sort. In what way does a category not provide a "list of other films in the same year or period in which [a user] can browse"? Sorry, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of weight in your arguments. PC78 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The cinema templates that were nominated were {{CinemaoftheUS}} and others, having been discussed here. I noticed on that template's documentation, it says, "Due to the huge amount of American films and also due to objections that have been expressed about its use, please, do not transclude this template in American film articles, but only in general articles about the American film industry." I think that editors here have similar concerns about this widespread transclusion. Why can't the "Films by year" link in {{CinemaoftheUS}} be "exploded" to list each "List of American films of XXXX"? For example, in combination with the template's existing links, have below it the following:
  • 2000s: [[2000]] • [[2001]] • [[2002]] • ...
Obviously, with the years, I mean to pipe "List of American films of XXXX" in each one. That could be a switch off in expanding navigational accessibility while not transcluding the templates in individual film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now back to the discussion. Well all the other cinema templates do this if all the years are available which I've always thought maximises navigation. I thought however that one template linked to all the years in American film would be considered "generic" and wouldn't be well received by the community for America this is why the decade ones were created to "lighten the blow". Either way I think there should be consistency across ALL articles e.g each for a template OR see also section. If everybody can agree on a template or form then I think the project should have a responsibility for ensuring that most articles have a consistent format in the guidlines for year plates or see also sections ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000?
Personally I would prefer not to have links to individual year lists in these nav templates; {{Cinema of Korea}} (for example) looks rather cluttered with the links, IMHO, and the lists themselves have their own seperate nav templates. With regards to these "American films by decade" templates (which is what we should really be discussing here), it seems to me that if a decision was made not to use {{CinemaoftheUS}} in individual film articles, then the existance and use of these templates appears to go against the spirit of such an arrangement. PC78 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd bite the bullet and list these at WP:TfD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14, for those who are interested. PC78 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the use of Wiki Autodating format

There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an ongoing discussion at: [1]. Time to get involved with your reactions and comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Propaganda films

I feel the category propaganda films and its subcategories are not being used in a consistent way, and this inconsistency gives the appearance of bias. See the discussion at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I think that clear criteria for inclusion would help editors be more consistent, so I've put up a proposal here.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to involve WP:CANVASS. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it is not canvassing to give notice to relevant projects. (If this is what you are referring to.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is canvassing, it just doesn't violate the policy (I don't think). I posted here (the relevant wikiproject) and at the village pump. I don't think this is excessive, partisan, I think my message explains my opinion without biasing readers, and I'm using on-wiki communication. I wasn't aware of that policy when I posted, but I don't think what I did violated it. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I see the hint of is an attempt to label some films as "propaganda" according to political beliefs, especially in the arena of "global warming" which tends to get me to think that there is an agenda behind this seemingly innocent proposal. FWiW I could be completely wrong here and be seeing boogeymen when there are none, but I want to make clear what my reservations are. Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I believe that's what the actual debate is about, so your above comment would be more relevant there. Canvassing only covers debate invitations, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I see a meatpuppet involved, now disclosed, I continue to be leery over the actual intentions of this proposal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This is understandable. However, I don't think calling me a meatpuppet is fair. It's true that I have edited on this issue both logged in and logged out. However, I tried to be consistent so as not to appear to be a sockpuppet, and when I accidentally broke my pattern, making it possible for it to appear that I was two different people with the same opinion, I immediately disclosed that fact (in a reply here). I also posted the message at Category talk:American propaganda films to avoid confusing or misleading editors who weren't aware of the history. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to have Lady MacBeth concerns here, which are not allayed by this remark. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Please - let's take this all to the talk page in order to have a consolidated discussion in one place. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is where I made my concerns known. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Filming/Movie Locations FamousLocations.com

Hi, I run a website FamousLocations.com and we list 233,000 movies and 4,600,000 locations around the world. We list movie locations for the movies. We are a free site and offer great movie/film location info and are interested to get listed on the movie pages at Wikipedia for the pages.

Please have a look and see what you think.

What do you think? Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.21.68 (talk • contribs) 09:01, August 4, 2008 (UTC)

I talked with the above editor and encouraged him to post here. I also instructed him to read WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I hesitate with this particular website since Wikipedia is not a link farm, and it does not get any results with a search engine test unlike IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search using various combinations of film site, film locations, filming locations, famous locations for film and each time the FamousLocations.com site came up as the number #1 listing so that there is some merit in the use of the site for research purposes. I think this topic needs to have more discussion but there does seem to be some great information here (3.6 million sites listed). For example, when I typed in a search on "Jesse James", I got back 83 "hits" including "Mr. Wong meets Jesse James (1982)" which gets me to think, how did I miss that one? But seriously, when I looked up "Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford The 2007 at Locations In Winnipeg" because I was actually on the film set of this movie, it accurately listed all film locations even a couple I wasn't aware of. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Are we looking at this website as a reliable source to use or an external link to implement? I had been thinking about the latter and mentioned the search engine test in the context of independent news coverage since there are a lot of movie websites that have been solicited but may not have pre-established notoriety. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't yet vouch for the reliability of the source as I have only just come upon it this morning, but it sure "nailed" the "Jesse James" test and with some further testing, it may work out to be a useful source of information. As an external link, it probably qualifies. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If it can be demonstrated that the site gets its information from reliable sources, then it may be of some use. If its information is user-submitted, much as the imdb is, then it will not (other than as an external link perhaps). Do we have any information either way? Steve T • C 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to its FAQ, its pretty much entirely user edited, so no different/better than IMDB and not WP:RS. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


From FamousLocations - I have changed my user name to flocations.

FamousLocations is a wiki site and we rely on people in the business sending us information such as actors/directors and film makers, which is first hand information. We do vet/monitor the information and cross reference with many sources including books. We do get notified of wrong info and have an active community within the filming industry/business and they do help keep the information as accurate as possible. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocations (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like all external sites, it has to be checked for reliability and individual submissions have to have some verification, but I was impressed with the initial results of a check. I certainly think it can exist as an external link. Hi Collecti, I had been meaning to say I do enjoy your submissions but check out the argument at MoS on dating, I again brought up the old argument that ISO dating "stinks." Knowing how you feel about it, make your thoughts known. FWiW, sorry for the ramble on... Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I have two issues with the website so far, though. As a reliable source, I'm not sure if it meets the criteria. It appears self-published. As an external link, I think we've tried to keep the links to what has had pre-established notability. The website has not had any press coverage, so I'm concerned that we're providing the notability for this particular website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We have been developing other projects in the past few years but in the last 12 months we have attracted one of the founders of Amazon Europe to the company. The site has just finished a major revamp. We have not done any PR since the revamp but in 2002 we got Yahoo Award, we were featured on many radio shows and 1000’s of websites. We are now set fare to regain that position. The problem we had is we were received so much information the only way forward was to rebuild the site as a wiki base to let users in to give it to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocations (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the dilemma that I see - if the information is cross-referenced, then it implies that other sources exist which likely are more in accord with our RS policy and should simply be sought out themselves. If it isn't cross-referenced, then there is no way that we reliably use the site. Also, does the site itself indicate its sources (online and cross-referenced) or name its editors? Finally, there may be a dilemma that the site may be more reliable for recent films, but it is also more likely that such films have more available and accessible sources which pass RS that already divulge such information (e.g. local community papers when shooting on location, online interviews, etc). My inclination, therefore, is to advise against using the site for direct sourcing, although it may be useful - much as the IMDb is - as a starting point for research. Not so certain about the EL issue at the moment. Anyway, that's my two cents... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We source most of the information from User input due to the scale of the subject but we vet the information using books/IMDB/etc and we also use moderators similar to wikipedia. Most of the information is public domain I.E. what actors/directors related to the movie/film and the film locations. So it pretty accurate, our main focus is on a niche market of Locations used in the movies, TV shows, etc. No other website on the Internet presents the information in the way that we present the locations using Google Mash ups. We also link the actors to the famous locations. The website is also very useful for travelling. If you wish to go to a famous location or destination and want to know other famous locations near we present this information for users. We have 233,000 movies and growing and could have a link to each of the pages on wikipedia for the locations made in the movies. We also are a very usful source for travel and to find out why the locations are famous. Any other questions please let me know. Thanks David (from Famous Locations.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete list tags

Wow, this is the most beautifully organized project I've ever seen! Well done. One request: When creating a list of film-related topics, please use {{inc-film}} (newly created) or {{inc-video}} if it also involves other media. There are currently tons of film articles in the blanket {{listdev}} category, and this will not only help diffuse that, but also give your project a central place to see the incomplete film lists. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about FamousLocations or something else? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean any list related to film that might fall under Category:Incomplete film lists.Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind compliment! I'm sure everyone who is actively involved with this WikiProject appreciates your assessment. We try to keep things active here. :) I was wondering for what kinds of lists your template would be appropriate. Some lists will never be complete (such as genre), while some lists could find some degree of completion (such as year). What's your suggestion on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a {{complete-list}} which would place the list in (predictably enough) Category:Complete lists; along with Category:Film-related lists or one of its sub-cats that should do the trick. The kinds of articles that would use {{inc-film}} are List of Argentine films, List of films shot in Toronto, etc. (Unless suddenly Toronto were made off-limits to filmmakers.:) ). Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... List of Argentine films shouldn't really have such a tag, since it's merely an index for other sub-lists. Not sure I like the wording of {{complete-list}}, i.e. the command not to remove or add entries to a list, which doesn't seem at all appropriate. What about fluid lists that are constantly evolving, which are neither "complete" nor "incompete"? PC78 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; I was just going through and changing {{listdev}} to {{inc-film}} without evaluating the article content. I've removed it from Lists of Argentine films & will keep an eye out in the future. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there's a number of things I don't like about {{complete-list}}. The horrible pink colour, for one; why not just plain text like the others? Why use the template at all? Even if a list is "complete", it may be necessary to add or remove items for whatever reason in the future. We don't tag articles as being "complete". PC78 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this violate WP:NDA? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that {{Complete-list}} does, actually; I'm very tempted to take it to TfD (it doesn't appear to be widely used, anyway). {{Expand list}} is used in thousands of articles. I assume it's a stub tag of sorts for list articles. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the film icon

Hello, I would like to see if there is any interest in replacing the current film icon, label below as "Current". The current icon was implemented after a previous one was deleted. Some discussion took place back in July 2007, and we apparently ended up with this one. I think that what we have now is slightly cartoony where it seems that we have other sleeker possibilities, shown below:

  • Current
    Current
  • Option 1
    Option 1
  • Option 2
    Option 2
  • Option 3
    Option 3

These were found at Wikimedia Commons. If there are any other free options, feel free to identify them here. Do you think that the icon is worth replacing? Do you find any of the alternatives acceptable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like both Option #2 and #3, in that order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
FYI: Remember that the icons will usually be compressed like at {{Film}}, so some may look better when smaller. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how each will look in practise:

User page transclusion removed.

I'm not too fussy to be honest, but for the sake of giving a useful answer I'll say #2 is my favourite, and #1 my least favourite. #3 is already used in various other film-related templates, for whatever that's worth. But any would be preferable to what we use now, IMO. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with this! Where else is #3 already used? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see that it's used in "Year in film" articles. I think #2 looks best, too. Hopefully we can hear from even more editors. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the second one as well. I remember that I used to like the original symbol that was used by the project over a year ago, but I forgot what it looked like... I think the second image looks more modern for our adapting and expanding project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Erik) The clapperboard image (or rather, various deviations of it) are also used in the gamut of Category:Film country templates and Category:Film country list templates. On the other hand, a deviation of image #1 is used in {{Future film}}. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one PC78; I was literally in the middle of working on something like this myself when I saw you'd already beaten me to it... For the record, 1 looks like a UFO, 2 and 3 are the best. I'd be happy with either, with a slight preference for 3 if it came to a tie. Steve T • C 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say go with Option 2. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also go with number 2, although I'm pretty much fine with anything (including the status quo). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three I prefer option 2, but I might just like the current version the best... and I think we should have a box for it next to the others. gren グレン 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also like option two. It has some of the same features as the current icon. I guess I like having a bit of the film coming off of the reel. Though the way things are going I suppose that we will have to have a few bits of data coming away from the microchip when film becomes extinct in a decade or so :-( MarnetteD | Talk 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Movies won't become extinct, don't worry about it. Now that movie makers have the right technology, do you really think they're just gonna give it up? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like option 2 as well. Oh, and I like to think that MarnetteD meant the "film" itself would become extinct as filmakers begin using digital cameras to capture and project everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making clear what I did not Bignole that is exactly what I meant. Just think there was a time that we had to wait until the filmstock had been developed before we could see what we had just taken a picture of! MarnetteD | Talk 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a very strong consensus for implementing #2. I will request the change for {{Film}} and personally make the change to {{WPFILMS Sidebar}} as well as any other locations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the project userbox and {{Film-stub}}. These are the other templates that use the icon. PC78 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've taken care of it. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or not. Bugger. The old image is far more widespread than I thought. PC78 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing screenshots from articles

I'm wondering why User:Erik thinks it necessary to remove every screenshot from a film article he comes across even if it identifies the main characters or is used for criticial commentary on the given film in the plot? It has become highly restrictive and in many cases I consider the removal of certain screenshots which identify key parts or charcters in the plot a negative thing rather than an "improvement" ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Non-free images. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not for overuse of unnecessary screenshots either but I;ve seen images removed which have helped identify a key moment in a film and the main characters. Personally I think a film screenshot providing it identifies a major point in the film which is discussed in the text is far more encyclopedic than a film poster will ever be ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not (sure) everyone on this page is using the same definition of critical commentary. :) Steve T • C 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, forgive me for editing your contribution, I think you may have meant to add a word in the sentence. Delete if inappropriate. Bzuk
No problem. :) Steve T • C 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that removing some of these images from the articles is a negative thing. However, we are constrained by certain site-wide policies regarding fair usage. One of the principles is that images used for identification or illustration are insufficient to justify fair usage - copyrighted images used within the text must provide critical commentary to support specific passages written in the text. It's a hell of a raincloud to deal with, admittedly, but the diktats for this come from the general site-wide discussions and subsequent site-wide image purges, so there's little we can do about it at a project level, unfortunately. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The main point that was made was that plot summary does not count as critical commentary, it's just a factual account written by one or more users. It's not for us to decide what a "key moment" is in a film. A scene is only significant if it has been discussed in neutral, independent sources, in which case it should be discussed elsewhere in the article and appropriatly referenced. PC78 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After feuding with the image police on this issue, especially since there are a number of editors who feel it is their perogative to enforce a binding and very arbitary intrepretation of the guidelines. There is a specific case to be made for film article to use screenshots as they are often the only available imagry used to provide "critical commentary" and unless it detracts from the article, I consider images to be of a benefit to the reader. FWiW, I don't particularly agree with the above sentiments as I feel that the guidelines are being interpreted to the disadvantage of the project but surely from the edit history of those involved, to the gleeful satsisfaction of being a powerful editor with a mission... Sorry for my pessimistic outlook, but I do think that the image issue is one that needs addressing. Bzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
OK, to expand upon my original reply, let me try to expand the point. Non-free content must comply with United States copyright/fair use law. There's no way around that. But the fact is, a hell of a lot of the images used on Wikipedia simply don't. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but it helps to have a base position on which I hope we can all agree. Now, fair use law is actually quite specific in determining what meets the criteria. A surface reading of "screenshots may be used for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" will leave an editor with the impression that almost anything is permitted, as long as we describe the event in the plot section. This is not an accurate reading. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, if its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, and if no free equivalent is available. Per WP:PSTS, only simple, descriptive passages can be used in (for example) plot sections that draw from the film as a primary source. So what is required is "critical commentary" from a third party source on the image. If it doesn't have this, the image cannot be used, even if an editor believes it will be genuinely insightful. Our idea of what's useful can't trump the law. :( Steve T • C 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict the third time; this what it feels like, Steve?) I've removed screenshots that are only added to articles for decorative purposes because screenshots need to have critical commentary, not just to identify characters or to show what an editor considers a key moment in the film. Wikipedia wants free content, so it should not be surprising that it needs to be "highly restrictive" about the presence of non-free content. When it comes to films, we have a lot of sources commenting on different aspects of cinema, either technically or thematically. We can provide screenshots to significantly illustrate these sources' commentary. However, what is the critical commentary for images like the three at Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, the five at Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, and the three at Austin Powers in Goldmember? For example, for the character Fat Bastard, we could easily find critical commentary about the design of the character and what was needed to realize the look, and support that commentary with an image of Fat Bastard in the film article. Instead, a lot of these images are just scenes from the film. If we're showing these, why these? Why not another batch showing some funny antics going on? Screenshots need critical commentary, and plot details don't qualify. With a lot of articles on current films, some editors are doing better about relating screenshots with critical commentary in the article. I've tried to do so with the work I've done. I've even gone back to my very first image on Wikipedia and removed it because it didn't have any commentary -- it was just one of the many scenes in the film. I do wish that there was more flexibility with including non-free images, but the criteria isn't unrealistic. With enough work, we can justify a fair number of non-free images supported by the article's commentary and not fret about possible removal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way the images are used in the fight club article are cleverly done (although an excellent article, I've wondered how it reached GA without a standard cast section which even a starter article should have). However I've seen images removed which do actually help articles encyclopedically and there seems to be some belief a screenshot should only be used in any section other than the plot. For example Vanaja (film) currently up for GA had one screenshot identifying the young dancer performing in front of her mentor. This was clearly for identification purposes of a notable scene and main characters which was discussed in the text. I always thought such an image was acceptable and meeted general fair use requirements. If it isn't then we are going to lose thousands of screenshots which identify a main characters or a scene in a film because it doesn't reach the new criteria that an image must be used only for discussing cinemtatic techniques or themes of a film. IN addition to this many editors are going to be drilled repeated orphaned images from all the images being removed which have full rationales and seemingly some legitimacy for fair use. I fully support Erik removing images which are decorative but I'm sure some screenshots can be saved if a proper caption is added and it specifically improves the article in a key scene and is encyclopedic. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do that better. I really have left alone images that seem like they have some basis in the article. Most of my removals have been from the Plot section because it's not critical commentary. I suppose I've switched sides, so to speak... in the past, I think that we at WP:FILM have cited tradition to keep non-free images deemed inappropriate by outsiders. Tradition was what was cited for list of episodes and list of characters, too. I just think that as I've edited more and more that there are a lot of possibilities. With Fight Club, I added images that I never would have considered "key moments", but when the right context is provided, these images make a whole lotta sense. From what I've noticed, I think that it is very easy to implement images for big-budget films with lots of production design. Superhero films come to mind, so do war films. With the most famous films of all time, there are a lot of iconic scenes cited, like "Here's Johnny!" at The Shining (though it could use citation to support it). More challenging films, I think, are contemporary run-of-the-mill dramas or romantic comedies, which may get some thematic coverage if they're lucky -- or perhaps famous humorous ones, like the deli scene in When Harry Met Sally. While I'm taking away images, I really am looking for ways to add other images that could have their foundation in Wikipedia for all time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support you removing unnecessary images of characters which really aren't essential to the plot. I know some articles abuse the fair use criteria and many of these decorative images should probably be taken out. However I think we should try to bring the film to life on the article page by one screenshot of a very important scene or main cast which are specifically discussed in the plot I personally think should be acceptable providing it enhances the understanding of the section of the film being discussed. I always thought "limioted use of screenshots to provide visual commentary" was acceptable under fair use providing the nyumber of images are strictly limited and they ar eused in the most productive way possible in relation to the tex. I believe this helps the user in an encyclopedic way as it visualises the important moment being discussed and at least identifies the film on screen. If this isn't acceptable then we are missing out on visual media which is very important to a visual based topic like films. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erik and others, the deletion of screenshots has become a bit of a "cottage industry" to some editors who have a passion for only removing and reverting material. I tend to see these enforcers as having very few substantive contributions but they pile up a huge number of edits in indiscriminate removals. I tend to give the orginal poster the benefit of WP:AGF in that they found or made a screenshot for a specific reason, that is to illustrate and enhance the reader's knowledge. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC). Just to clarify this statement further, Erik, I certainly do not put you into the category of the "do nothingers." You have made substantial contributions to film articles in many ways. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
With respect, the article actually has to have a reason, you can't just assume that there is one. From what I've seen, many people will upload an image simply because they can. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Bzuk means is that the editors did have reasons for adding the images, but they're not reasons immediately apparent in the article. The addition of non-free images isn't an act of vandalism; it's with good intentions, but not done in the best way. Human beings benefit from visual aids, so God knows I try to break up a huge block of text with images (free or non-free) or quote templates. No offense taken, Bzuk... believe me, it'd be nice to have ten or a hundred of me working on Wikipedia articles and adding non-free images where it suits the commentary... so much work that could be done! :) Deletion is definitely easier than inclusion. I just hope I can provide some Featured Articles that can demonstrate how non-free images can be tied into the existing content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is blatant, there are numerous ways to "connect" an illustration to the article text and would it not be contingent on the editor questioning a usage to "tag" the illustration first and allow the original poster to justify the reason for use. Many of the film articles are "a work in progress" and the simple expedient of advising the editor who posted the image to provide a rationale, would be much more preferable to me than the "blanket" removal that I am seeing at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, unlike the many other problems that can be found in a "work-in-progress" article, this one has external ramifications for the site, because it involves possible copyright infringement. Increased editorial contact, of course, will go a long way towards both engaging the issues directly and educating our users, thus averting possible future problems. However, since this matter has external legal implications, it can't as easily be dismissed as something to be gradually dealt with over time as the article develops. We generally handle textual copyright problems in exactly the same manner - immediate deletion from the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) The problem is that illustration/identification/description for its own sake is not considered enough for fair use. Much like Erik, I used to look the other way when these occurred, and furthermore, I have actually spent a decent amount of time in the past fighting with the "image police" at the image use policy discussion pages. But here's the sober reality: we can write the project style guidelines to say anything about images that we want - we can even require random screenshots - but at the end of the day, the image police are going to come around and eventually delete these pictures anyway, frequently without any regard whatsoever or willingness to engage in discussions. (I have just been a "victim" of one myself this week.) And they can and will, because the site-wide policies supersede ours. Therefore, my conclusion is that it is better that we do this "in house" with our own experienced editors, who will be more apt and willing to help confused editors, engage in discussions where there are contested removals, and repurpose images for critical commentary where possible. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Blofed, I've had a look at the Vanaja article, and I think this is a good example of the problem we're faced with. What makes the scene notable? So far as I can see, there is nothing in the article to substantiate this claim. Where is the discussion of that particular scene in the text? The removal of this image (here, by User:Mspraveen) was quite correct, IMHO. If you want to show what a character looks like, the the appearance of the character must have received some commentary in third party sources. Screenshots of living actors will be especially tricky; at what point are you showing the character, and at what point are you merely showing what the actor looks like? PC78 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, I had suggested the removal of that image on the talk page. I tried to explain the reason and suggested another possibility (production design of a particular area that was spruced up). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterrate "tagging" an article for change is much better than simply removing an image and then the "orphan image" syndrome goes into effect, making it doubly difficult to reconstruct the original image. I still feel that there can be some defining statements that can be made at WP:FILM that will assist editors in providing screenshots with a proper "anchor." FWiW, I'm enjoying the opportunity to at least discuss this issue as it was almost impossible to do with the image cops. Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, but why just tag? I've always been somewhat conflicted about tagging, because it essentially is saying "we've got a spill on aisle four, but I don't wanna clean it up". Would it not be better to simply remove the image and then maybe leave a standard template-based message on both the article talk page and the uploading editor's user talk page? This deals with the problem proactively while also providing notice so that it can be re-included if any editor wishes to do the necessary legwork. Again, consider how we deal with text copyright problems - we don't tag it and hope it goes away - we actively remove it as soon as it's identified as such. As a legal liability, it can't be dealt with on the same leisurely timescale that an article without an infobox can be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take the image to IfD. This gives notice to the uploader, and allows time for concerns to be addressed. If it doesn't happen, the image (should) get deleted. Seems fair enough to me. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I had a thought... I've generally had the perspective of building up the content before finding images that work with it. Perhaps we could go the other way and think of screenshots that would certainly be useful. For example, we could find content for iconic film scenes and write up the commentary in the article and plug in the images. Another twist on this approach is to include images based on wins for Best Costume Design; surely the winners' designs get some commentary and would warrant that kind of illustration within the relevant film articles. Do the same for characters known for make-up or prosthetics or scenes with famous visual effects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well the thing is its not as if people can't google image the film or actor in two seconds flat and see hundreds of images from the film discussed. If people want to see images of film then its not exactly impossible to achieve this and in far more abundance than wikipedia could have even with one or two. However I've always thought a screenshot of an important scene, perhaps the Vanaja one wasn't but there are many examples where there are, improves the article and useability of wikipedia. While we want the best possible encyclopedia of the highest quality and accuracy it also has to have an element of enjoyment to read it and often images can "almost bring the article to life" providing it abides by copywright law and general WP Policy. The definition of certain laws on here seem to be of much debate, I remember the months of discussions on whether a screenshot is acceptable in an actor biography too. There are many who think it is an utter abuse of copywright, while others think it is very encyclopedic and enchances useability of the article. Me, I'm on the fence on the issue as I see both arguments but i generally believe the limited use of screenshots to identify a key scene or the main cast in a scene in the film is a positive step for the article rather than a flaw providing the useage is strictly limited. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Fair enough, but please understand that as things stand with the fair use policy, identification is not considered critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know but if anything isn't considered critical commentary it is film posters. Screenshots of important scenes in films which are discussed in the text have more encyclopedic value than film posters. I'm not sure how one is considered unacceptable yet another which provides a lesser insight into the appearance of the film is considered to meet image requirements when it does nothing to aid the article in terms of critical commentary. Whether film posters are essential or not, they are still copywrighted images and in relation to the new requirements seems something of a double standard. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to recall anyone defending the use of the poster images, IIRC. It's a very good point in its own right that merits its own debate, but other stuff exists is not sufficient for this discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about other stuff exists. If somebody is trying to implement a policy that images of films can only be used for critical commentary the selective nature of the implementation seems to be more of a view of the editor removing them rather than any serious licensing issues. To remove screenshots of films claiming that they a merely decor as only images for "critical commentary" are permitted yet to retain posters of the films seems rather odd. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about that. You have essentially said, "but what about the posters? They're not critical commentary either." This discussion is about screenshots. And this is not "somebody trying to implement a policy" - this is and has been the site-wide image policy for sometime now. As I have said, the issue of the posters is a cause for concern, and it too merits discussion - but independent of this one, because it touches on similar, but not identical, issues. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Film posters are different, IMO. They serve as an identifying image for the article as a whole. PC78 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right, PC78, Wikipedia:FAIR#Images allows for cover art. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it also says at WP:FAIR#Images that Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. If you are discussing a film whther it is a plot or cinematic techniques and use a screenshot to discuss the content of a film then this should meet requirements. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as far as I can tell, "the cinema" does not mean a particular film - it means within the context of a national cinema. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit you've just quoted quite cleary says "critical commentary and discussion"; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The guideline seems to support everything that's been said so far about screenshots requiring critical commentary. (Actually Giro, film posters would appear to fall under "4: Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary". Personally I would argue that film posters, used in the context that we use them in, should be treated in the same way as CD covers and such. It's something worth discussing separately, perhaps, but it's not what we're discussing here).PC78 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 1. is explicitly for identification of a work itself, though. 4 would be appropriate for adding poster images elsewhere in the article (which would need critical commentary). The description of 1 also notes that these images don't have to have critical commentary themselves if the work itself is the subject of the critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the reason behind "tagging" a concern. It puts the onus back on the originator to justify its purpose. I do not think the moving of the image to a "delete" status at IFD at all works as I have seen images summarily removed on the basis of "conversation" there, not consensus. It gives the editor who has the "whip hand" far too much power and it rarely accomplishes what it is supposed to do in that IMHO, it does not provide a forum to help establish the credentials of the image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Erik: If I'm reading any of your comments correctly you said you could give some examples of featured articles where images are used in a neat way, could you show me some example? I'm just curious because I'd love to see an article like that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not featured (yet), but Erik's work on Fight Club is a good example. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great example, thanks. This discussion is getting large, maybe we should split it up in sections. Never mind, it's not that big yet. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, done anyway. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll finish it one day, I swear! :-P (Of course, Wikipedia is never complete...) Blaziken, I meant that I have a desire to provide Featured Articles that use screenshots indisputably. It's just a challenge for me now because a lot of my aspirations require actual research, not just Googling and using newspaper databases. Also, I just did a little bit of brainstorming about dealing with the images, since Girolamo mentioned the "in-house" approach. Since we have some departments, it may be worth having a non-free images department. If we do implement the new draft at WT:MOSFILM about non-free images, we shouldn't rush and delete everything that's questionable. So here's my proposal about a possible structure. Maybe it could be an essay instead or something instead, but it may be helpful to follow a certain structure or to request help when dealing with non-free images. Criticize harshly if you like -- I just think it would be a good converging point between the purging approach and the mass-uploading approach. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My final point, reverting or deleting is a technique that is mainly used to deal with vandalism. I think using it as a "hammer" is not justified. I think what we as a group want to do is identify questionable use of images and help the editor who has used them to find a reasonable solution that will either allow their use or have that editor withdraw the image if it is not appropriate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Soundtrack covers

Sorry to further extend this discussion, but I just want to see some clarification for my benefit and I'm sure for others as well. This was touched on a bit above and also in the recent Little Miss Sunshine A-class review. A CD cover for the soundtrack was removed from the Tropic Thunder article that I uploaded. I acknowledge that the image is very similar to the movie poster, but as I discussed with Bignole (who removed the image), I think the image represents the information concerning the soundtrack as the film poster encompasses the entire article. Rather than create a whole new article for the soundtrack which I don't see to be necessary unless there is enough information to warrant it (I've seen numerous soundtrack stubs which will likely never be expanded too much further), is it frowned upon to include a soundtrack cover on the film's article? And/or does the issue of the image being similar to the movie poster warrant the upload of the score's cover since it differs from the poster? Critical commentary on CD covers is rare concerning soundtracks (I've never seen anything myself on comments concerning the cover), and that is the only reason I could think of for possibly removing a cover from the article. Granted, there isn't too much information present in the soundtrack section as of now, but it will be expanded as more sources become available. I'm not upset over the removal, but just want to clear this up, and possibly include it in the upcoming image MOS change for future editors' guidance. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's the same as posters - you are allowed to use cover art for identification purposes, so long as the article contains critical commentary on the subject being identified. Might want to refer it to the fair use editors, just to be safe. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article on the albume, but not in the film article. Unless there is critical commentary on the album cover, you don't get free reign to use in the film article. It's the same reason we don't allow DVD covers without critical commentary, or images in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the criteria of when to use soundtrack images a little strange. Ideally, if a soundtrack has enough background information and reviews, it could be spun off into its own article. When we do so, it "becomes" OK to use a soundtrack image. What if, though, one makes an editorial judgment to consolidate soundtrack information to the film article for sake of comprehensiveness? Does it not become OK to use the image anymore? I'm not too gung ho about using soundtrack images since so many of them are slight variations of the film posters, but it seems like an odd threshold. For what it's worth there is related discussion at WT:NFC#NFC in infoboxes where we could ask about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the use of a non-free image here has to be clearly connected to text and necessary for the understanding of the article. Unless the soundtrack is especially unique, it's difficult to even make a case for it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I touched on this subject above when I mentioned about using film poster images in very short articles. I've had a quick look at Tropic Thunder: the section on the soundtrack is very brief, but the reality is that there are many album articles out there with equal or even less content. In essence, you're saying that if the soundtrack section in Tropic Thunder was split into a seperate article, then it would magically become OK to use an image in the infobox. It seems to be a remarkable double-standard to me. PC78 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once it becomes part of its own article it's now representing the entire article. In the film article, it's merely decorative because there's not enough information to warrant a separate article (i.e. it lacks notability). We don't allow DVD covers in an article without some type of commentary, so why would we allow CD covers?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about cases in which soundtracks can have a separate article, but an editorial judgment is applied to keep all film-related content under one roof? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the information is in it's own article or in a dedicated section of another article is neither here nor there, IMHO. It's not a question of notability; a subject need not have it's own article to be notable. A well-developed film article should ideally have a well-developed section covering the soundtrack. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, because most soundtracks aren't notable. A single line discussing the soundtrack is all that is needed. We don't need a track listing. We aren't Amazon, we aren't here to promote a product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat disagree with excluding track listings in their entirety. I usually prefer to exclude them if they are your basic songs ("Intro", "Outro", etc.) due to availability on commercial websites, but if the soundtrack consists of popular songs and/or various artists, then the listing helps in terms of navigational purposes. Getting back on topic, though, Bignole, what if a soundtrack is notable for whatever reason, yet information about it is kept in the film article anyway? Can there not be a soundtrack cover if the preference is to keep all the information together? For what it's worth, we should use this discussion to improve the "Soundtrack" section at MOS:FILM. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like you've pointed out, it's typically a variation of the poster, and I don't see why we need two images depicting the same thing. If it's on its own then I can see why you would identify it, but if we already have one identifier in the article why do we need two? What makes it stop there? Why not have an identifier for the DVD covers (as there are usually multiple DVD covers). If there is a book released to tie-in, why not an image of that cover? I mean, if we have developed sections about the DVDs and the books, should they need images depicting their covers as well?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, if they are relevant to the context of the article, then yes, they should need images. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "relevant to the context of the article" to be "critical commentary". In which case, sure they should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the argument to have is that a poster is appropriate for a film article and a cover is appropriate for a soundtrack article. We need to avoid the assumption that readers will traverse between the two articles because if there is a soundtrack article, its stand-alone notability should already be established. Another point to make is that while WP:ALBUM does not directly say anything about where to use a cover, they do offer templates that shed some insight. {{Album cover article rationale}} says, "This template provides a fair use rationale on the image page of an album cover, only for the album cover's article itself" (emphasis theirs). {{Album cover fur}} says, "This template is optimized for album cover art used in the article about the album. Other contexts may work, but it may not." An approach to take is that if an editor wishes to provide soundtrack content solely in the film article, he or she sacrifices the opportunity to have a visual indicator since the soundtrack is relegated as a sub-topic. This approach could be compared to lists of fictional characters, in which there could be background and reception about each one, but only they only use non-free images if there is direct commentary about the appearance. Just drawing in some outside applications. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing within the image fair use guidelines that says that cover art is only permissible where there is a separate article solely devoted to the actual item - it merely states that it's only permissible where critical commentary about the item exists, and that commentary on the cover itself is not requisite. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that this is true, but I think it is fair to say commentary about the cover itself is a definite lock-in. It's less appropriate to include cover images if they don't meet #8 of WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." So it seems realistic to say that a slight variation of the film poster in the soundtrack image would not make it appropriate. So what about cases in which the soundtrack image is significantly different from the film poster? Do we still include it in the sub-topic? What does it mean to increase the readers' understanding? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, my time zone must be way off compared to you guys, this discussion went further than I thought it would. A lot of you are bringing up the same questions I had, so I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. I'm glad that Erik mentioned above that this discussion would hopefully improve the MOS concerning soundtracks, as this was one of my goals coming from this. As Bignole mentioned above with having book and DVD covers, there is definitely a gray area on what images can be included, especially if the soundtrack isn't split off. Commentary on the cover is a requirement of the criteria, so are we limiting the upload of soundtrack covers to only ones that have been commented on (which will likely be none of the images that are variants of the movie poster)? I mentioned before how the score differs in appearance then the soundtrack's cover, but I don't think that it should be uploaded solely because its image differs. As a side note, if the images are not included, we'll have the infoboxes remaining, but it is likely that we will not be able to generally find free images on the soundtrack (although I'm not eliminating any possibilities) to put in place of the cover. The infobox parameters discuss putting the album cover in the infobox, so are we to take that to mean that the infobox should be removed as well or that there has to be a separate article for the soundtrack? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think there has been a misreading of requiring commentary about the cover art. Read WP:NFC#Images again with the perspective of not needing commentary for the art itself. The "item" in question is the content that the cover art represents, so the art can be used as identification. I'm actually requesting a re-wording at WT:MOSFILM#Critical case commentary revisited for the "Home media" section in relation to this. I think it's fair to say that explicit commentary would make a cover image appropriate, but it's not required. As long as the cover art is in compliance with WP:NFCC (especially #8, significance), it can be included. "Significance" may require editorial judgment, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted summary

I would like to summarize my thoughts in a way that will make sense to everybody. First of all, if we look at WP:NFC#Images, I think it is fair to say that theatrical posters are considered "cover art" of a kind. The normal kind of cover art is the kind seen with books and albums. When it comes to films, there is no kind of explicit cover art in its theatrical medium. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is unrealistic to replace theatrical posters in infoboxes with DVD covers. Unlike other kinds of posters that could fall under "Other promotional material", a theatrical poster can adequately identify the "item" (the film) as long as critical commentary exists about that item. (This may be something to apply for expanding stubs before adding images in infoboxes.) Now we can consider the use of the theatrical poster (or another cover image) in the infobox adequate for purposes for identification because "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". With this in mind, we need to recognize that this image is used to identify the entire topic of the article. After this usage, it would not be appropriate to add other cover art (soundtrack covers, home media covers, other posters) unless its significance can be demonstrated in a fashion that goes beyond identification, which has already been established by the infobox image. In conclusion, I think that as long as the soundtrack is considered part of the film article, the theatrical poster or whatever image exists in the infobox already identifies details of the soundtrack as part of the film. The same would apply for home media covers. To warrant inclusion within the film article, soundtrack and secondary cover images need to demonstrate non-identification significance. How does this line of thinking sound? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the "soundtrack covers" part (as per other discussion), because this is a discretely different item being discussed which is related to the film, but is not the film itself. Whether or not it has sufficient information to demand splitting to another article per Wikipedia conventions is not relevant in my mind (nor would I hazard to guess that it would make a difference legally) - significantly different items in different media are each allowed cover images. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that soundtrack information and home media information are significantly different from other information about the film? I would disagree because we're adding such information to the representative film articles in the first place. I don't see why we're identifying sub-topics where the overall topic has been adequately identified. As it's been said, soundtrack covers and home media covers are often redundant to the theatrical posters. So where is the significance in presenting a secondary identifying image on the basis that it's a different-looking representation about a part of the film's package? I have to admit I'm trying to figure out what you do advocate. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm only discussing the soundtrack material, because it is a completely different medium and can be considered a separate item in its own right. That we are grouping the soundtrack within the film article for convenience is not a relevant factor, IMHO. That would imply that splitting it to its own article suddenly makes it alright to display the cover. The thing is that the article can discuss two discreet items of distinctly different character - each of which is permitted to use a cover image for identification. I wouldn't be in support of this for the film and DVD release, because there is not really a large enough difference between the two. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think he's saying (or at least if he's not, then it's still what I think) that a soundtrack CD is inherantly different from a DVD release, because the CD does not contain the film. And also (as I said myself above) that it makes no difference whether the soundtrack is covered in it's own article or in the film article; either way, the commentary directly relates to that item. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what Erik is saying, which makes sense. Girolamo's point that the soundtrack is a more different medium in comparison to the film then a DVD does present a separate type of commentary. Should we make it a part of the MOS that soundtracks should be split off since it differs from the film and would be the only true way for a non-free cover to be used to represent the soundtrack? Or by keeping the soundtrack within the article does a cover adequately represent the information present? Although a poster is similar to a soundtrack cover, I don't think that it necessarily represents the information detailing the soundtrack. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction that Girolamo is trying to make, but I was referring to how both soundtracks and home media could theoretically be spun off with enough content directly about each item. For both of them, there is background information, reviews, and sales figures. It's a bit of an argument to get into the nitty-gritty of comparing and contrasting the soundtrack and home media to the fictional work. Nehrams, I don't know if it should be encouraged for soundtracks to have their own articles... looking at the category, there's not too many stellar articles. In addition, I noticed that the soundtracks seem to fall under WP:ALBUM and not WP:FILM (at least not from the samples I checked). Perhaps what we could do for MOS:FILM is to write content about the soundtrack as it relates to the film, and point to the soundtrack article with {{main}}, having the infobox, cover image, and track listing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'm one of the largest advocates for not having the soundtrack split off. I looked at many soundtrack articles prior to this discussion, and wasn't impressed. I was just presenting it as a possibility (just trying to be diplomatic). If editors were against including a soundtrack section within the film article if a non-free image may be not allowed, then I'm sure some editors would possibly want it split off. That sounds like a good idea for modifying the MOS guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested article for upcoming film Morning Light

In October, Walt Disney Pictures will release a documentary adventure film called Morning Light which follows a yacht race team, headed by Roy Disney, that competed in last summer's Transpac (well-known California to Hawaii yacht race I'd never heard about before). The film has received plenty of coverage in the sailing community and there is now a teaser site and trailer available. It is also listed on AllMovie and IMDb. Yet I was surprised to find no article for the movie.

So, I have created a first draft of a new article, complete with a low-res version of the movie poster. (I think I got the non-free rationale correct, but if I've got it wrong, please someone let me know.) The reason I am not moving it into the mainspace myself is because Disney is a client of my employer. I've been given permission by the lead coordinator here to make simple edits on existing articles, but I wanted to play it safe with the creation of an entirely new page, even though its notability and verifiability are without question. Someone please let me know if you can move it for me, or if it needs additional work first. NMS Bill (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, still a bit of problem with the redlinked dates... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Go ahead and move it! :) As long as you stick to descriptive information and back it with citation, you should be OK. When it comes to the film's release, it may be a good idea to let others shape the "Critical reception" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if you think it's OK for me to move, then I can do so. I noticed the redlinked dates, but hadn't checked WP:CITET for an example at that point. Now I see it's like 2008-08-06, so I'll update that first. Thanks, all. NMS Bill (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page is now up: Morning Light. Erik, thanks for the suggestion -- once the film is released, and if no one else gets to it first, I'll do a section on the reception in the style I've seen on other film articles. NMS Bill (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted trailers?

I realize that movie trailers released between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice aren't eligible for copyright, and that that is a boon for finding libre images of many actors and actresses such as Angela Lansbury. How, though, does one know which films' trailers fall into that special and limited category? Anybody know? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1977? Are you sure? I know that {{filmimage}} says 1964, but I'm not a copyright expert, so I don't know where that comes from. Either way, I would imagine that the trailer's copyright year would be for the year the trailer itself was released. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 1977 is wrong. Trailers made previous to 1964 hold a 28-year copyright and entered the public domain in 1991. (Trailer rights are held separately from movie rights since trailers are released before the film is considered published.) However, the Copyright Act of 1964 changed that and provided film with a 50-year copyright. The only trailers released after 1964 which might be in the public domain are those which were released without any copyright notice -- such has the example about the trailer for The Shootist. At least that's my take on it. CactusWriter 08:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Films participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles from this Wikiproject are up for deletion

They are Timeline of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike and Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, just to let you know. Dalejenkins | 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class review for Rang De Basanti

I only mention it here because I commented on this article earlier today, and, perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of soundtracks has arisen. Since this is pertinent to what is being discussed above, some of you might want to take a look. PC78 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rumoured films

Would you add rumoured films to the filmography of an actor/actress? I've seen quite a few "rumored films" in several filmographies. In my opinion, "rumors" are definitely out of place in an encyclopedia but what's the consensus? ► robomod 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that rumors are out of place. The minimum threshold should be that it is publicly reported that an actor is in negotiations to join the film. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter do this often. However, I would not suggest listing such potential involvements in the filmography sections since negotiations may not pan out or production may not take place. Where have you seen the rumors? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already removed an entry from Kate Hudsons filmography and synchronized it with IMDB's filmography. At that time "Nine" was nothing more than a rumour. However, I recently skimmed a few articles where I found 2 filmographies with one "rumoured" and another "supposed" film. I just did a quick search but couldn't locate them. Maybe it has already been removed by someone else but I'll come back to this as soon as I find them again. Thanks so far for your opinion. ► robomod 09:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film actors at CFD

Discussion can be found here. Could also impact on Western film actors too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film assistance needed

Hearts and Minds (film) could use some expert film article assistance in adding and properly presenting content on the film. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, guidance on how to present reviews of a rather controversial film, so that all perspectives are properly represented, would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's virtually impossible to find a well-reviewed (in terms of breadth of reviews) film that does not have a fair share of both good and bad reviews. The best course is to follow NPOV principles - dispassionately discuss points which were commonly praised and commonly criticized, while briefly quoting some of the most representative and salient pieces of each. The goal is not to present the film as being "good" or "bad", neither of which would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, but simply to encompass most of the critical approaches to the larger aspects of the film. Given that this won an Oscar and was given a Criterion release (with several essays), I don't think it should be difficult to find and discuss the praise given the film - which the current diff is lacking. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be cautious when citing Wikipedia!

This interesting article talks about a student who didn't get college credit because he used Wikipedia and possibly improperly sourced part of the plot summary of a film (it doesn't state which film). Just wanted to point it out since we don't get to much publicity concerning film articles (even though it is not in positive light). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film stubs by country

Just to let everybody know this has been created. The Bald One White cat 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've now got a new edition at Category:Mexican film stubs which Lugnuts is taking the intiative to administer to the articles as we speak a smany of those articles were not even stub tagged at all. If anybody has any suggestions for other new stub templates that it has missed please mention them and we can stub propose them together. Its a pretty useful project category I think for our to-do list. To expand these stubs!!! Cheers The Bald One White cat 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Most of the films were tagged with {{Mexico-stub}}, or just not tagged full stop. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from Iwo Jima (again)

It's been a while since I tried to rework Letters from Iwo Jima from its long sysnoposis, to a shorter one (though it's still, as noted blow by blow). It seems that more small, insignificant details are slipping in. Though this may sound obnoxious, could somebody try to rework it? I'd do it myself, except I'm retiring from wikipedia. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=232161220"