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 184.60.165.136 (talk) at 11:02, 24 March 2012. 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 bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcut
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(9 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

United 93

The cast and awards sections could use a touch up, if anyone would like to help. RAP (talk) 20:41 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I created Collage film, importing text from a section on collage film in Collage, not realizing that Found footage addresses precisely the same topic (with the exception of "collage films" that are created by physically collaging found objects onto clear filmstrip, which is a secondary meaning). I believe there needs to be a merge. IMO, found footage is not synonymous with films made from found footage, and so I prefer to merge to Collage film. I believe an article can be written on found film as an example of a filmic found object. The discussion is at Talk:Collage film#Merge discussion. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still want to list "Coordinators" on our main page?

I know that things have changed over the years and that the number of participants in the film project has fluctuated. There is nothing wrong with that and this has happened in several other projects. I am wondering of we should just remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Coordinators section on our projects main page. Per this User talk:Erik#Are you there Erik hasn't edited since last November and I miss his input. The other editors listed are all still active but I think they are pursuing regular editing rather specific project items. If there are any other sections of our main page that you think should be updated please fell free to suggest them. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The role of co-ordinator is a complete chocolate fireguard. However, the people appointed to this are useful. I did the role for a year or two, and there was nothing I couldn't do if I wasn't a co-ordinator. People generally head to the article talkpage for help, or here and don't need a group of five or six people to contact on the off-chance. Lugnuts (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Five days later and no reply from any of the elected co-ordinators. I've left a note on the talkpage of all of them, apart from Erik. Maybe they can give a detailed update of what they've each done for the Film Project over the last 6 months in their role as co-ordinator. Lugnuts (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not check in until notified... been somewhat busy in real life. While the role of co-ordinator does not require any special tools, having the admin tools is quite valuable in the instances where someone wishes a film article usefied, or undeleted and moved to a userspace for further work. I see the role of co-ordinator more in being able to set a good example to other members, being able to knowlegdably answer film related questions when posed, and to be able to guide and counsel others in the creation and editing of film articles. I have had many folks track me down and ask such questions on my user talk page... more in the last six moths than previously... which I believe was encouraged by my name being on the co-ordinator list. Pretty much, I have tried to continue the same editorial work in the last six months as I have the previous six. This includes the creation of at least four new film-related articles, the improvement of perhaps three or four dozen film-related articles that were slated for deletion, and the continued counseling and mentorship of quite a few new editors. We're not empowered bosses. We simply "lead" by example. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts Lugnuts and for your reply MQS. I do appreciate your time in responding. Looks like there may be some value to leaving that section there - though I might suggest removing Erik's for the time being. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinators are very important for setting up drives to keep the project clean such as Spotlight cleanup, Tag & Assess 2009-2010 and the ongoing drive to improve all core articles to start or above. Let's not forget about the anniversary collaboration on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Full Metal Jacket. The coordinators are usually the most dedicated in getting these projects completed which leads other people to get excited about the project too. That said we could probably be more focused on the current drive but it ain't easy. --Peppageಠ_ಠ 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to echo a lot of what MQS and Peppage have already said. I have been very busy in real life the last month or so and thus haven't had a lot of time to contribute to the project. However, I do think coordinators can play a role that is more a "lead by example" or a point person for various drives and cleanups. While the distinction is not something too important, it is beneficial to have a list of users as go-to people on the Project for new (or experienced) editors looking for support. BOVINEBOY2008 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still quite roaming around in editing. I still wonder whats gonna be my task in the absence of Erik. However, what I have done these days is assessing the articles under the project lead by WikiProject India; Tag & Assess 2012. I have primarily assessed and assessing quite alot of film related articles along with another editor and bringing many articles under the WikiProject Film. My Contributions will confirm my work; so have a look at it :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I couldn't inform you one such thing. WP India/Film/Indian cinema task force has now appointed User:Vensatry as the volunteer coordinator for the WikiProject India film related articles. That doesn't means I will stop contributing to the project, I ll always make available for WP FIlm. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tag & Assess doesn't need anyone to lead it, just a bot to do the flagging, which anyone can request. Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But ya, we preferred assessing by humans! Unassessed and Unknown film articles together equals to almost 10K articles. So thats wat I'm doing right now :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Western films

I think members of this project need to take a look at this category, which I think is very problematic. Is "Neo-Western" an established term in use by critics? The description on the category page, which is very long, looks to be entirely original research. A discussion needs to commence as to whether this category should remain. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call myself a cineaste (not in public though, Christ...), and I've honestly never heard the term. GRAPPLE X 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the actual list, a lot of those are either straight westerns, or that lovely crossover between westerns and noir (Bad Day at Black Rock for example). I'm also suspicious of the fact that the category contains an actual paragraph of explanatory text, rather than having a parent article. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, straight westerns, western-noirs, or revisionist westerns describes all of these, I think. The Straight Story was categorized here, but I removed it, as it is not, to my mind, any kind of western at all. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the term either, but it seems to pop up quite a lot in film books, so while it doesn't really exist as a genre term it is frequently used in analysis: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=neo+westerns. Betty Logan (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough to justify the existence of this category? Looking at that list of titles, and the brief excerpts provided, it is not clear that all of those critics are using the term in the same way, or in reference to the same films. This still seems, as I said, problematic. A good rule of thumb for me, though this might not be policy, is that if there is not enough in the way of reliable sources to justify a main article on the subject, there is not enough basis to justify the existence of a category. In the absence of a clear definition, supported by reliable sources, it is left to the judgement of editors whether or not a film should be thus categorized, and that is unacceptable. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that without a genre article which can be supported with sources, this category could probably be done away with. GRAPPLE X 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a similar debate recently in regards to 'epic' as a genre rather than as a descriptive term, and the consensus was that to group films that were not explictly recognized under those genres constituted original research. I think a similar argument applies here and would have no problem with the category being pulled from the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a quick scan of the list. Removed Thelma and Louise "a road movie"; Removed No Country for Old Men (film) a thriller ... but (neo-)Westerns? Not in my estimation. I agree that, first, the category should be pulled from all the films listed, and then that there is no justification for the existence of the category. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If references were found (and I agree that the name is obviously a less-than-good choice), this might not be a bad list. But yes, I could see this easily being deleted at CfD. - jc37 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples of this term's usage. Its definition may be a problem, but it is recognized as a genre. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recognized as a genre by whom? Are there reliable sources that can be used to create an article? As it stands, the films listed in this category seem arbitrary, as does the definition given on the category page. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts of your Google search on the term indicate to you that it is not? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, listal.com list only two:- "Kid" (1990) and "The Brave" (1997)

Mubi (Europe) list just eight. Of course, Wikipedia has first mention on Google but that has to be discounted here in this discussion. In my opinion, it is not a genre and is unworthy of inclusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right, but based on what? What does it lack that a genre or subgenre has? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up briefly: although I share Gareth's skepticism, No Country for Old Men (e.g.) -- both the film and the McCarthy novel -- has been called 'Neo-Western'. To have a definition means to know why and that's not clear. However, the term is widely in use, so apparently it refers to something to some writers. I don't have my mind made up. Jacobite's thoughts, too, I find entirely valid, but I don't see what the standard is. Are Neo-Westerns just Westerns or are they not Westerns? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the usual definition of neo is new or revived, and as I am certain that nobody has a problem with western, there are in my mind the films referred to as a spaghetti western. The present list strays a long way from that. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think our issue here is how the prefix combination applies. Instead, my perception is that we have a term that is in use by different writers who may have all arrived at the term via examples but with possibly different notions of how to apply it. It is used by English speakers writing about film, so prima facie they are not mistaken. Is it a figurative expression? Is it industry argot? Is it in some cases defined, or is it defined in a family concept way? Genres themselves are all family concepts (I mean, no exception comes to mind). There was just added to the article on No Country for Old Men, this passage:
William J, Devlin categorized No Country... in the “neo-western” genre, and further explained how it is different from the classic western. “No Country for Old Men demonstrates a decline, or decay, of the traditional western ideal,” he said. “The moral framework of the West-or the country, or the world-is changing. The traditional western framework that contained innocent and wholesome westerners striving to live out the American Dream, typical villains driven by greed and power, and the heroes who fought for what is right, is fading. The villains, or the criminals, act in such a way that the traditional hero cannot make sense of their criminal behavior. While the traditional villains, such as Ryker and Wilson [in the traditional western Shane], are immoral and clearly 'bad guys', we can understand them because their actions are rational. We can see their actions are based on moral egoism, measured by their own self interests. But in the world of No Country for Old Men, the 'bad guys' act irrationally. They don’t even act with criminal passion. As such, Bell cannot comprehend the enemies he should be confronting as the hero of today-for him, 'it’s hard to even take measure.'"
Okay, so that's one writer's take on what the difference is about. I don't think it betrays anything seriously amiss on the genre page. Sorry, this is a long post. Ring Cinema (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed A Perfect World (1993) which is another "road movie" and not a western, "neo" or otherwise. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Urban Cowboy a "romantic-drama" and in no way neo-western, unless the inclusion of a mechanical bull counts!? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the film about?

A few weeks ago I asked Are some people here being payed by the commerical film review sites? Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (film) lacks any mention of the plot in the introduction, which is what I pointed to as a general problem in that post. __meco (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the connection. Why do the reviews sites prefer no mention of the film subject? (I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead section could mention something about the film's contents without spoilers. That would serve our purposes just as well in almost any case.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial post was facetious in that people looking up the Wikipedia articles of films they wondered about watching wouldn't get a clue from reading the first few paragraphs and thus would be encouraged to go to the commercial movie sites instead. __meco (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are supposed to relay the basic premise of the film in the lead, the MOS clearly requests this. Articles promoted to GA status generally will do, but developing articles will often omit many details that are requested by the MOS. I don't see this as a project problem though, unless articles are being passed at GA and perhaps B class level without adhering to the MOS. Lead issues are usually addressed throughout the natural course of article development. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that what a film's about is kinda the first thing that should go into an article, and when it's there, there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section. __meco (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you have a crack at trying to do just that for this article? Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheye lens

This article contains a list of the FEW fisheye lenses. I´m sure its:

  • not too long
  • has its value especially because it includes nearly all 35mm fisheyes
  • is currently removed by one editor, also former talks show that the list is wanted.

Please help or talk. Tagremover (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War motion picture hoax?

On YouTube, some joker has posted what he claims is film of Civil War soldiers marching in 1863, shot by a "Léon-Alexandre Cànular." This film supposedly has been preserved by the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. But there's nothing about this Canular on Wikipedia, no reliable sources turn up in a Google search, nor in Google Books. The YouTube poster, OnlyJasonere, apparently has his post rigged so nobody can leave a comment contradicting him. Just wondered if anyone on this project knows anything about this hoax? Google reveals at least one newspaper, in Winston-Salem NC, has reposted it as a genuine motion picture from 1863 - but of course it's not. (More likely a clip from Birth of a Nation, IMO.) Wonder if Wikipedia needs an article on the hoax itself? Textorus (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that fact OR fiction, you can find almost anyhthing eventually being posted on YouTube. Hoax or not, we might have an article on the film if it received significant coverage in multiple relible sources. Just as you, I note that the youtube clip is discussed in Salem News, as does My Local News without them calling it a hoax. These two seems to be the totality available coverage. While a no-longer-available non-RS Facebook posting speculates that it might in fact be a hoax, the so named Leon-Alexandre Cànular is unsouracble as a period photographer, and so hoax or not, we do not have enough proper souces speaking about it to merit an article on the topic one way or the other. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a hoax even if there are sources out there that have been sucked in. The first "motion picture" was a galloping horse many years after the civil war, and that was done by having a series of cameras lined up to take multiple pictures because film cameras didn't exist at the time. They came much later (1890s I think), and as you can see the civil war footage is made by just one camera, so is certainly a re-enactment of some kind. If reliable sources document the hoax we can add it to the List of hoaxes, but we do need secondary sources documenting it as a hoax. Secondary sources documenting it as real footage are not establishing its notability as a hoax, they are mistakenly establishing is notability as real footage; the real problem is if the sources document it as genuine and no sources document it as a hoax, because an editor could quite legitimately create an article documenting it as genuine footage under our rules of verifiability, and if no sources counter that claim we can't prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend agree with your conclusions, but as not enough sources cover it in any sort of detail, hoax or not, an article would not survive an AFD. And the two sources that do dicuss it, do not do so in any detail. And when sources DO discuss it as a hoax, then perhaps it might be added to List of hoaxes. For instance, the Dell Fart Art Video HAS been somewhat more widely discussed... but even IT is not notable enough for an article or inclusion on the list. So until we have more sources, we really should not lend it credence one way or the other. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Total hoax. Taken from a clip of reenactment footage from one of the Gettysburg reenactments. Both clips and some commentary available here: http://lotu2.blogspot.com/2011/03/confederate-soldiers-marching-1863.html Surprised it fooled anyone, they are clearly reenactors, even with all the film effect to make it look old. Anon.

Directing and acting styles and production

Hi, guys! I am working on Gran Torino. When talking about the director's filming style and method of acting of the actors, that goes into "Production," correct? Do some film articles have entire sections dedicated to them? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! All that goes under the production section. Filming section under the Production section to be precise. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2 review discussion

I've started a discussion for the Cars 2 reviews at Talk:Cars 2#Negative vs. Mixed to see if "negative" or "mixed" is cited terminology in the section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split up List of banned films

I have converted the List of banned films from an awful mish-mash of bulleted lists and random tables into one big sortable table. Took a long time I hafta tell ya! I had already split out some of the longer lists on a country basis to separate articles. I would like to continue with splitting the list on a country basis where it is justified. The remainder, liting of five or so per country, should then go to Film censorship and the List of banned films page is then set up as a disambiguation page for all the separate articles. Does that sound like a good plan? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - nice work on cleaning this mess up in the first place! Lugnuts (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Looks good to me" to split or "looks good to me" as it is? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, sorry - the split looks good. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all - nice work, fella. That must have taken ages to do. I've taken the liberty of adding some table formatting to the main list.
Secondly, I can see an argument for re-merging the list rather than splitting it any further. Now that the list is in a sortable table, it's possible with one click and a search to not only answer e.g. "What films were banned in Burma ?", but also "In what countries was A Clockwork Orange banned ?" or "What films were banned in the 1920s ?" If a list is sortable, does it really matter how long it gets ? Further entries can simply be added at the end of the table. Just a thought. Barry Wom (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I just had a look at the list of films banned in Chile and I can understand leaving it as a separate list. Blimey. The censors have been busy down there. I wonder what was so bad about Superstar of Lesbianism numbers 5, 8, 9 and 13-15 when the rest of the series seems to have been allowed ? Mental note: some research required. Barry Wom (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival

African, Asian and Latin American Film Festival (Milan, Italy) released text contents under a CC BY-SA license (see footer) as part of the project Share Your Knowledge developed within WikiAfrica (GLAM). OTRS declaration sent.

I'm going to upload texts from their website like this one. --M.casanova (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casanova. I've made some slight tweaks to the above article such as adding the country in the lead ("a 2011 Egyptian film" instead of "a 2011 film"), the word minutes in the infobox and moving the CC BY-SA link to the External links section. If you could base your templates on this layout, that would help. Keep up the good work! Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year discrepancy

Dead Man's Shoes (1939 film) is a bit confused. The infobox and IMDb say 1940, while BFI, the title and category say 1939. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American FIlm Institute says 1939 too, per this. Lugnuts (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we decide the year is the first year the film premiered. I think AFI and BFI declare the year as when the film was registered with the institute. Can we find a source of its premier? BOVINEBOY2008 21:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=483674193"