Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured articles 22 Aug 2024 – Total Recall (1990 film) (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 30 Jul 2024 – Wolfman's Got Nards (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by CFA (t · c); see discussion 26 Jul 2024 – Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Morgan695 (t · c); see discussion 22 Jul 2024 – A. Sreekar Prasad filmography (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jeraxmoira (t · c); see discussion 28 Jun 2024 – ABC Cinema, Brighton (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hassocks5489 (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 04 Aug 2024 – Troika (1969 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion 12 Jul 2024 – Starship Troopers (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 31 Jul 2024 – List of accolades received by Carol (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Lapadite (t · c); see discussion 29 Jul 2024 – 96th Academy Awards (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion 21 Jul 2024 – List of accolades received by Parasite (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 03 Aug 2024 – Manifesto (2015 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lapadite (t · c); start discussion 31 Jul 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Jaguarnik (t · c); start discussion 12 Jul 2024 – Migration (2023 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Zingo156 (t · c); start discussion 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bremps (t · c); see discussion 01 Jul 2024 – Buzz Lightyear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion (4 more...) Requests for comments 03 Aug 2024 – RRR (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Robert McClenon (t · c); see discussion 30 Jul 2024 – Twisters (film) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WeatherWriter (t · c); see discussion 08 Aug 2024 – Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Crampsteed (t · c) was closed; see discussion Peer reviews 11 Jul 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Escape from the Planet of the Apes - does going back in time make a sequel a prequel?

My position is no, it doesn't. For the main characters the story continues forward. Take a look and comment at Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels or the following Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A decidedly unneutral and misleading title and description of the issue. The text of the RfC is:

Planet of the Apes prequels

A prequel is defined in the article as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." Until recently the films: Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) were all listed as prequels to Planet of the Apes (1968) in the list of Prequels.The inclusion of these films is now disputed. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation or three...

• The original films were a closed cycle with some character carry overs. That results in some of the later films becoming more and more prequel like for the original film.
• Rise seems out of place since it was, IIUC, tied to the remake. It would be a prequel for that, but uncrelated to the original cycle.
• FWIW, sequels move the narrative, not just the characters, forward. When time travel is an element in the narrative, the sequels can wind up being set in earlier times but still follow from the previous installment. Prequels generally fall into one of two types: a character from the previous installment tell how things lead up to the start of the series or a story set prior to the first installment and not following from the current narrative.

- J Greb (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The terms are not mutually exclusive, any film that follows another in a production process is a sequel. Even the Star Wars prequels are sequels; a prequel is just a type of sequel where generally the events are set before those of the previous film and there is no direct continuation of the narrative from the previous film. I'm not sure how strict that definition is since it seems very woolly, but the POTA films where they go back in time don't make sense unless you have seen the previous films so I'd say they are definitely not prequels. Personally I would prefer it if we didn't invoke the term, because it is an "in universe" description and we try to steer clear of that sort of think generally, preferring stick to a real-world perspective. From the point of view of the encyclopedia it is just the next film along in the production process so we should probably just describe all prequels as sequels, but that's just my opinion, I don't know if there is a formal project approach to applying the terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the term prequel only has meaning if it is applied to a film that is made later but occurs narratively prior. There are only three cases: the film shot later is narratively earlier, later, or both (as in The Godfather, Part II). However, Betty, you are implying that we define it in terms of production; the film made later is the production sequel, so it's a sequel. The Godfather, Part II is a good film to mention in this context, because it is narratively both a prequel and a sequel, so what is the rule? But then what if the filmmakers refer to it as a prequel? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a fourth case like with Back to the Future 2, where the events actually intercept those of the previous film...a 'midquel'? 'Prequel' seems to be very restrictively defined, in that the events of the prequel should precede those of the earlier film, but that very much depends on the internal chronology of the film, and with time travel films it becomes very messy. Does Goldeneye with a pre-credit sequence set in 1986 make it a prequel to the Dalton Bond films, for instance? In view of that I think the terminology we use should focus on the real world production rather than subjective in-universe interpretation. It's not a big deal really, I don't really have a problem with the Star Wars prequel trilogy being described as such, I'm not for making things deliberately obtuse, but I'm against applying the terms when their application is open to interpretation. In the case of The Godfather 2, why not just state it is the second film in The Godfather trilogy, and then describe the structure of the narrative (which it basically does anyway), and drop labels that don't adequately convey the complex internal chronology of the work? Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I say ti depends if they're considered part of the same series as the previous version.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no one commenting here or at Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels supported his position Barsoomian has gone against consensus and restored the Apes sequels to the Prequel list. He is relying on a simplistic definition of prequel and a couple sources that made imprecise or sloppy use of the term, at least one of which contradicted itself. No one who commented here but him sees these films as prequels. I took them out, explaining why on the Talk page, and he reverted me again. He is determined to do as he wants. I have to ask again that others take a look at this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think there is a consensus on this? 'Prequel' is a word with a definition and it seems to apply to the film. In general, a prequel is a production sequel (it's shot later). There might be an example of a film that is released later but is shot before and has events that predate the first release. But that would be totally strange! Lord of the Rings was shot all together. Now comes The Hobbit, shot later with predating events. This is not a prequel? If this Planet... case isn't a prequel, what is? (I'm not asking rhetorically). --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, a list of true prequels would include Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Obviously we can use the word prequel in cases where it unquestionably applies: The Hobbit, Star Wars Episode I, etc. However, being a longtime Apes fan and owning all the films, I don't feel comfortable using "prequel" to describe Escape. Escape doesn't just tell a story set chronologically before the prior films, it takes characters from those films and transports them into the past through time travel. This continues their adventure from the previous films, therefore it storyline doesn't entirely precede those of the first 2 films. I consider Escape a sequel. However, I do feel comfortable saying that together, the last 3 original films (Escape, Conquest, and Battle) serve as prequel stories to the original Planet of the Apes, since they set up the world in which the original takes place. I know that sounds confusing, but basically no, I wouldn't call Escape a prequel. I'm more comfortable just calling it a sequel, and I'd probably feel the same way about any example that entailed characters from a prior film time-travelling to the past. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If what Illazilla says is accurate (I havent watched the films) then I don't see how it's anymore a prequel than Back to the Future III is to BTTF I and II. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The time travel thing escaped me. But perhaps there is a consistency to this if we look at it from the characters' personal chronologies....? No, there is no word for a story told later with the same character who's in an earlier time but he's older. That is not a prequel. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a word for it: Sequel. It's a story of what that character experienced after the original story. In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole pre-se argument will shift per film series but in this instance the "Time paradox" argument is correct. Escape would only be a prequel if Zira and Cornelius effect on the story had been mentioned in the first two films. The extraordinary escalation of this to "Dispute Resolution" status may be a perfect example of The Butterfly Effect". For me there are too many absurdities going on now that Ray was writing about more than 50 years ago. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The idea of an RfC is to comment at the actual article, not to form a subcommittee on each page and caucus. Please see Prequel and take a look at the numerous references I have cited there before jumping to a conclusion. Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not making up your own rules. One such "rule" I particularly dispute is the that the labels "prequel", "sequel", "reboot" are all mutually exclusive. They are not. Whether each is applicable is a separate question. Barsoomian (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1)An Rfc is totally different from and "Dispute resolution" so it looks like you are doing the forum shopping and b) I know our prequel article (remember that wikis cant be used as a source) as well as having looked at your few sources-which are not all the ones available BTW-that back up your bias. Interestingly, there are no sources from the year that the film was released that call it a prequel. Your obsession is fine for you and would go great at a blog but they are not encyclopedic. Given the state of things at this point you may well get your way but don't be surprised if things change down the road. MarnetteD | Talk 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's Gothicfilm who is forum shopping. He insisted on starting a new discussion here after the RfC at the article. When no one except myself and him were active, and he continually deleted text supported by reliable sources, I went to dispute resolution. "there are no sources from the year that the film was released that call it a prequel." What? There are literally thousands. Just about every review does so. I already cited these below in the discussion at Talk:Prequel:

• Rotten Tomatoes " The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype that many other summer films did, " Nov. 04 2011
• Huffington Post "So effectively does director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand..." and "by changing its title from an oblique reference to the prior Apes series to one that specifically situates it within that brand, it also changes how we view the story. Once you state explicitly that your story is a prequel to Planet of the Apes". 08/09/11
• Chicago Tribune "'Apes' prequel stands alone, upright" August 04, 2011
• The Telegraph "Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining prequel with marvellous special effects." 11 Aug 2011

Barsoomian (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought we were talking about Escape. You're talking about Rise? Rise is a reboot. Have you seen the original films? They tell the whole story of the ape revolt: In Escape Cornelius & Zera travel back in time to the '70s & give birth to Caesar, the first ape who can talk; In Conquest, Caesar leads the apes in a revolt against humanity; In Battle, the apes & humans coexist in a world ravaged by nuclear war, until some radiation-scarred humans attack & Caesar established apes as dominant. Rise contradicts these 3 original films by portraying an entirely different origin story for Caesar, a different story of the ape revolt, and a different means by which humanity is mostly wiped out (a virus as opposed to nuclear war). Rise is, in every sense, a reboot of the franchise. It would be as if I made a Star Wars film depicting a completely different origin for Darth Vader than those portrayed in Episodes I, II, & III. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure Rise is a reboot of the franchise. That's not the question. Rise is also prequel to PotA (1968). Same as your hypothetical SW movie could be a prequel to "New Hope" while contradicting SW I, II, III. "Prequel" is relation between two works, not a statement of how a work fits into a "franchise". A single film or book can have many "prequels", completely contradictory. Why not? See the RfC for more details, I don't want to just repeat this over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's quite wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes, since it contradicts it where details of events before the rise of the apes are concerned. In the original Planet of the Apes, the Icarus is sent out into space in the early 1970s. In Rise, on the other hand, it gets sent out during the events of that film, and it clearly isn't set in the early 1970s. You can't reconcile them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why doesn't anyone respond to the RfC? Why can't anyone read the prior discussion before leaping in? I've laid all this out, cited references. Please take the time to read them if you are gong to join this debate. Barsoomian (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Dispute Resolution

I'm now being asked to continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Prequel discussion. I said I'd prefer to keep it on the Talk page, but Curb Chain (talk) and JJB seem to want to have it there. The big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel has to fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise. Can someone tell me what the rules at Dispute Resolution are? I have no previous experience with this, and I'm so far carrying the water over there on my own. Can Curb Chain and JJB at Dispute Resolution override the consensus here because Barsoomian, alone in his quest, found a minority of writers who made imprecise, sloppy use of the word prequel in their articles on Rise? - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Can I say it might help if WP:FILM people would post their comments over there? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would, but the discussion is so long and confusing that I don't even know where to place my comments. Is there any edit warring at any Apes articles that needs reverting? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at the moment, and they're all on my watchlist. Protecting the integrity of the original series is in fact the first thing I set out to do on WP a year ago. All the articles had real problems, especially the leads and the credits. (Someone had even listed the producer as co-directing all of them, and no one had reverted that - it was there on all five articles for months! In fact I think that was my first dispute, as someone reverted me at least twice when I took that made-up nonsense out.) I addressed all of that, but the Apes articles are still well short of what they should be. But at least now people can look at any article's lead and know where that film falls in the series, and who made it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please continue at Talk:Prequel in the RFC or a new section. My take here is that (I did not read to confirm Gothic's characterization that) there may be project consensus; but at the article itself we have a newer decent consensus among Gothic, Barsoomian, Betty and myself that the article is stable except for a portion of the ongoing WP:DRN request, and that that portion is at a temporary impasse. However, nobody else has chimed in with sufficient comments or sources to demonstrate that this page's generic consensus should be brought over to the specific case. I believe that article talk will resolve the loose ends, and readers here are free to chime in. JJB 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One guy from Dispute Resolution to override consensus?

I thought this debate was all but wrapped up, but unfortunately the Dispute Resolution guy JJB for some reason now seems to want to to advocate for Barsoomian, the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at the Prequel Talk page. He closed the Prequel discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yet we continue. It now appears JJB wants to override WP:CONSENSUS and declare the last three of the original Planet of the Apes series films to be "prequels". He found a tiny number of sources that imprecisely use that word, and - despite having it pointed out by Betty Logan that People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else, he wants me to find sources that describe Apes films like Escape from the Planet of the Apes as "not a prequel". He wants me to prove a negative. That's seems unreasonable to me. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before. The fact that only a tiny number of sources have called Escape a prequel ought to be enough. WP:WEIGHT says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. He is now claiming that WP:SILENT acceptance is (until noted otherwise) a change of opinion, from prior activity to present inactivity, and allows him to override the consensus from a week and a half ago. This is the new way to override consensus? Declare it inactive? Though I note Barry Wom came over there today to comment on how consensus is being ignored. They are now talking about taking this dispute to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard which it seems to me would once again bring in people like JJB from DR who don't care about these films, or film genres or categories, and thus have little problem with overruling consensus and calling them prequels because a small number of sources did - never mind if those sources were less than rigorous. Barry pointed out how some of the citations provided are a bit desperate. You can comment at the new discussion started at Talk:Prequel#Apes source analysis. Probably better to comment over there rather than here, to once again demonstrate a move toward consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing your friends again, I see. Urging them to ignore Wikipedia:Editing policy, ignore WP:RS, and now to ignore Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and just go with your gut and overrule those "people like JJB from DR who don't care about these films", as only the true anointed ones have any say on any subject peripherally related to film. Barsoomian (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up B, I don't watch all the boards. I have already encouraged the workgroup, in the section just above, to join discussion at Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels, which has now moved on to Talk:Prequel#Apes source analysis because of overflow. We also opened a side question at WP:NPOVN#Prequel. I agree with Gothic on following up at one of those links. JJB 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film - to do list?

I have analyzed the condition of various film articles and i feel if there was a list people added titles to, then various editors could take on a seperate project to improve it's standards. Any thoughts? RAP (talk) 23:49 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are there no review score boxes

I don't understand why don't articles on movies/films use review score boxes. There is one, but it is never used. I think review score boxes are a pretty clever thing, since just by looking at it, you can see if it's critically acclaimed/panned/generally favourably received/mixed reviewed etc. So, why not? --Khanassassin ☪ 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Every time it is attempted, the Film project coordinators tend to shoot it down in preference of prose. The latest incarnation was by User:Galmicmi and the immediate deletion discussion for it can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the general feeling is that we're not all that interested in what individual reviewers thought of the film; generally, we just let the two aggregators (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) represent the strength of critical opinion. We then draw on film reviews to address specific aspects of the film, and a score box is redundant in that capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Mojo title include an optional accessdate parameter

{{Mojo title}} is commonly cited as a reliable source for a film's box office. As pointed out at WP:Citing sources#Web pages, the date of retrieval is important for WP:verifiability (or more precisely, it is "required" if the web page's publication date is unknown). I'm thinking of submitting an {{Edit protected}} request to add support for accessdate as an optional parameter to {{Mojo title}}. Making it optional is both necessary (since {{Mojo title}} is also used in the external links section), and practical, (since requiring its use would break a large number of existing uses). It would be proposed to be implemented based on how accessdate is supported within {{cite web}}.

Before I submit such a request, I am posting this proposal here, for feedback and comments. 68.165.77.180 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. The alternative is to use {{cite web}} as seen on Batman (1989 film), which is suboptimal. jonkerz ♠talk 13:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Turning Trollhunter into Trolljegeren?

I have proposed a rename in Talk:trollhunter based on previous discussions, especially in WT:RM#Strange move closure?. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff comparisons

If anyone is having problems with the fuck awful new "compare versions" screen, you can restore the old color scheme: preferences->gadgets->appearence->check "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design". Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU. So much. GRAPPLE X 12:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Passion of the Christ

There has been a sequence of edits at The Passion of the Christ that myself along with three other editors have been reverting. Anyway, as a consequence, we have been threatened with a block for tag-team editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:71.239.128.44_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_31h.29. Personally I don't feel it is justified, but that is besides the point, because either way the involved editors no longer have a mandate to revert the article, so some independent opinions would be particularly welcome at Talk:The Passion of the Christ to clearly establish a clear consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Cannes Film Festival‎

Hello. All the main line-ups for this years Cannes Film Festival have been announced. I invite members of the Film Project to help expand/create anything related to the films, actors and directors for the 2012 edition. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Three Musketeers 2011 mobile site casting mistake

Milady isn't played by Reema Khan...the regular site doesn't say this but the Mobile site does — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.101.113.75 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

National cinema navigation templates

I've spotted that on a lot of foreign-language film articles, the navigational template for the relevant national cinema is included at the bottom of the page. For example, see Template:Cinema of Sweden on the Secrets of Women article. Now, to my mind, this shouldn't be there, as I was under the impression that navboxes should only appear on articles which are included in the template as per WP:NAVBOX. Also WP:MOSFILM. Anyone have any opinions on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would do away with these where they're found. The template should be placed on the pages it lists; otherwise it simply functions as a decoration that doesn't help navigate been relevant pages. GRAPPLE X 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

They were originally added to all World Cinema articles, as a help to navigation to the lower-profile articles. I thought it was a good idea to allow quick access to "hidden" film articles, such as Swedish films of the 1950s, giving the casual user more info. However, per the policy points cited above and previous discussions, it's been agreed not to include them on all articles. Lugnuts (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(Originally a section below moved up here) I was always under the impression that navigational templates should only be listed in articles that are listed in the template. On this basis I had removed some Template:Cinema of the United Kingdom and Template:Bollywood with edit summaries of "Removed navigational template the article is not listed in", for example in Lalkaar. Some of my Bollywood template removals were reverted along the lines of the films are located in the year articles, so therefore they are listed in the template. I think this is incorrect and that the articles would need to be directly listed in the template. For example Template:Cinema of the United States specifically states "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." Am I wrong in my thinking this and should this cinema navigational templates be located in individual film articles? Aspects (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be bold and revert it back, unless of course, the film is actually in the generic template! Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in WP:NAVBOX or WP:MOSFILM that says navboxes can only be placed on articles linked from the navbox. Certainly we don't always post a given navbox on every article mentioned in that particular navbox (usually because the article already has a more appropriate navbox or navboxes). There is no need for navboxes to be in exact one-to-one correspondence with their articles; we have categories for that. In the case of my new article Asmaa, I included {{Cinema of Egypt}} as it's a nice little introduction to Egyptian cinema, which I think is useful to our readers in the absence of a more specific navbox that mentions the film. I envisage that, sooner or later, a more specific navbox will become available, for example, one for films by the director Amr Salama, who is young, energetic, and likely to make many more films, or one for the outstanding lead actress Hend Sabri. When such a navbox becomes available, it can then replace the generic one. The argument that we don't add {{Cinema of the United States}} to United States films doesn't carry any weight, since our American cinema coverage already has a wealth of navboxes. It would obviously be absurd to place that one on tens of thousands of American film articles, but it makes sense, in the cases of countries where our coverage is more limited, to use the country template on a much smaller number of films where a more appropriate navbox simply isn't yet available. --NSH001 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed something. Previous consensus has stated these shouldn't be on every single film article. Look through the talkpage archives. Lugnuts (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be on "every single film article", far from it. I am saying there are some articles on which they are appropriate. If there is a previous consensus, then I would expect it to be reflected in WP:NAVBOX, or WP:MOSFILM. --NSH001 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Rob Siden (above) has already stated this: "Now, to my mind, this shouldn't be there, as I was under the impression that navboxes should only appear on articles which are included in the template as per WP:NAVBOX". Where does it say you can? Lugnuts (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what Rob Siden said, so I looked at WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOSFILM, and neither of them states what he says is his "impression". So far no-one has produced a valid argument that we should never use such navboxes on individual film articles. I am saying that what matters is to provide information that's useful and helpful to our readers, and to do that, it's helpful in some cases to provide a national cinema navbox if nothing better is available. The question now is to gain consensus on the set of such articles (which might be an empty set). But I would suggest a guideline something along the following lines:

1. They are not appropriate for the major film-producing countries where we already have good coverage. I leave this to the Film Project to define, but it would include USA, UK, and probably quite a few others.
2. For minor film-producing countries, or countries where our coverage is limited, they are permissible, because they are then very useful.
3. They should be replaced by a more specific navbox whenever one is available.
4. They should only be used on individual film articles, not on actors, directors, etc.

--NSH001 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked these and most editors seem to agree. Can we please remove them from all the articles on individual films? I can help out by using WP:AWB. jonkerz ♠talk 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Film templates in the infobox

Please see this discussion about the template Film US. It raises other questions about the year and language categories that are auto-populated from the infobox. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A request for editors to keep their eyes open

Hello project members. It looks like we have an enthusiastic editor who wants to add their thesis style WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to various film articles. These are the three that I have found so far

• Mes5523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wzk5057 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psupsychmom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.111.229.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AGF leads me to think that they may have started with good intentions but the willingness to create socks is a worrying trend. If you will just keep your eyes open for new versions of this same MO it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that if new socks pop up please feel free to add them to my list as we may have to file an SPI if this continues. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw this cropping up this afternoon, but saw only the last name. Thanks for keeping us informed, and I will keep my eyes open, as you suggested. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?

I posed a question on the Walter Hill (filmmaker) talk page, because I would like to know why that article was moved from Walter Hill (director) with no discussion or explanation. The parenthetical descriptor "director" is far more common on WP. Does anyone here have any thoughts about this? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging into things it looks like it was moved back in August of 08 [1]. As you can see no reason was given. Strictly speaking one isn't required nor is a discussion but it is a good idea to do both. Also naming conventions have changed over time but I can't remember the term filmmaker ever being recommended over director and it seems to generic to me - isn't everyone who works on a film a filmmaker? Specific job descriptions as the qualifier would be better. I would say that, unless there are specific objections, that you could go ahead and move it back in a few days and I actually recommended this almost a year ago [2]. Other opinions are welcome of course. MarnetteD | Talk 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Filmmaker redirects to filmmaking, which seems to be more about film production than film directing. The opening line on the film director article states "A film director is a person who directs the actors and film crew in filmmaking". I would suggest the disambig of director is the correct term to use in this (and probably the majority) of cases. Also, I hate that double mm in filmmaker... Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I posed this same question over at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, as well, and the feeling there is that it should be moved back. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes, trivia, etc.

OK, so there's this Iniced (talk · contribs) who's got it in his head to zap all the "notes" sections in all the cartoon articles. Tortoise Wins by a Hare is just one of many examples. What say y'all? Is he doing the right thing? Or is he getting carried away? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia goes. Reliably-sourced stuff should be integrated into prose; generally not in a section to itself but merged with the usual "Reception" or "Legacy" headings that are often present. GRAPPLE X 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but if the trivia list is sourced it shouldn't be removed simply because it is in list format. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just remember not to call it "trivia" as deletionists jump on anything labelled "trivial". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

As they should. Notable facts about something are not trivia: trivia is not important, and shouldn't be included in our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But the whole of DYK is trivia under another name! Lugnuts (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally DYK's hooks should be Quite Interesting. If you can't picture a DYK hook, or indeed a "trivia" item in a random article, making QI then it probably doesn't belong. I should probably codify that in an essay. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The addition of incidental or tangential information that is, nonetheless, significant, can be successfully integrated as prose rather than in list form. I agree that trivial or "useless" information is, well, useless. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

• I took a look at one of the deletions and even though it is unreferenced, and needs a tag, a wholesale campaign to delete all "notes" should at least trigger a WP:BRD response. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Mass reverts are only appropriate where an analysis suggests a significant negative impact. Otherwise it's just edit warring to make a point. it is, after all, easy enough to hit the rollback button a few dozen times once the discussion has been had, whereas it may not be necessary at all if the work in question turns out to be a net benefit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the first instance of a discussion about a rationalization to delete all notes sections, so no consensus was ever present on any of the article talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

There is already a project-wide consensus that trivia should be discouraged. It should be assumed that this editor is acting in good faith to improve the project. There is no need to get the blessing of any particular group of editors before acting to improve the encyclopedia, and BRD is not a commandment that any bold edit must be reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The question remains, whether notes are trivia, but written in list form, have triggered a response. If the individual notes sections provide authoritative and verifiable information, the statements themselves can be incorporated in other sections or rewritten, but what I see is a knee-jerk reaction to all "notes" sections without any discussion, and that concern has led to an editor seeking a consensus in this forum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Having taken the time to inspect a bunch of these, the content is at very best borderline, and the removal of long-term unsourced content marked as trivia should not be at all controversial. The most notable material removed consists of production observations like someone appearing in the credits or the score being changed: in the event that this material is desirable, it can easily be fished out of the article history when someone is driving to improve the page. Having yet to have received a response from the user, we should assume that he is not blindly removing sections which happen to have certain titles or formatting, but is selectively removing content which he has concluded is inappropriate. Not difficult when the topic area in question has so much low-hanging fruit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the recent edit history, there is no mention of talk regarding the changes, merely a long list of deletions of notes sections, with only one mention that it is "trivia." I have given a AGF reading but in some cases, there is a lengthy passage that is removed, that does provide production notes that could be sourced with a modicum of attention to the references that are already present in the article. The editor in question, has also not replied to any of the concerns now enunciated, but then again, this is early in the process. I would err on the sign of caution in having mass revert campaigns, such as this, especially since many of the deleted sections were tagged for others to assist in finding cites. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

There is a note that the aforementioned editor has left, sorry, I didn't see it until now: "ah i see. well i read and taken on board what i see here. and note i sorry if i have go a bit far in me notes trivia removeing. if it a bother than i stop as i don,t wish to make bother here. sorry if i have>." Not exactly a scholarly response, but obviously, exhibits a level of concern. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

UBL or Plainlist?

Which are we supposed to be using for Infoboxes? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that UBL doesn't work in all browsers. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've been using UBL so better I know now before I keep doing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

Can someone help me reduce the plot section of this article of an Indian film? I'm planning to take it to GA soon, and unless I patch up this issue, I don't think it can be considered as a candidate. Secret of success (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Plainlists in infoboxes

Has there ever been a discussion of the use of plainlists in infoboxes? If so, where is it? There is a question above about plainlists vs. ubl, but I really prefer neither. Is there a preference for one of these two formats vs. simply having the names, separated by breaks? This last is my preference, but I noticed that this is being changed in a lot of film articles (see here) with no comment or explanation. I really feel this should be discussed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive 39#Using Plainlist in Infobox film

L&S it's an accessibility issue that is getting rid of the <br> useage as well as bulleted lists and ubl.

- J Greb (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What I learned from reading that discussion is that most experienced film project editors are dubious about the use of this style. In his response, Pigsonthewing displayed an attitude of superiority and arrogance that I don't find particularly helpful. He was the one who changed the style in the film I linked to, and offered no reasoning at the time for the change. If this is an "option," why force the change and not even bother saying why? I find that tremendously unhelpful. And, quite frankly, his explanation of why it is necessary to get rid of the <br> was overly technical, so I still find the necessity of this change baffling. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What I got out of it - and for clarity, I've butted heads with Pigsonthewing on other issues so keep that in mind - is that it 'is a technical issue that hampers the accessibility of the articles as a whole. If the html or a bulleted list causes software that converts the text of an article in to speech for someone with a visual issue, then the accessibility issue trumps the consensus to do it our way anyway.

- J Greb (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that screen reader software (and other software which can read our articles) "knows" what a list is and can present it as such, whereas a bunch of things separated by line breaks could be anything. In addition, using list format means that we don't need to insert raw HTML into article content, which is discouraged in favour of using wikimarkup. Lastly, if the amount of whitespace is an issue then this can be trivially resolved by adjusting {{plainlist}} itself: that's one of the great benefits of the template system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)

Previously-uninvolved editors are encouraged to take a look at this article, as there are currently two disputes raging over the plot and the reception sections. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And also see this on the Admin noticeboard. Stating that because the plot hasn't changed in two years as grounds for not changing it now has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that idea is ridiculous on its face. Any issue can be revisited, and a two year old consensus on a plot summary is not set in stone. Clearly, other eyes are needed on this, as these two users cannot come to an agreement. Taking it to ANI was also ridiculous. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not retarded or ridiculous. Since the summary has been relatively stable since the thorough editing it got two years ago (there weren't any changes in the plot since then) there's good reason to think that it doesn't need a massive makeover -- which is what I said, not your retarded mischaracterizations, Lugnuts and Jacobite. So if you're going to comment, maybe you should know what you're talking about, both of you. There have been many changes by consensus in the last two years and I've worked with many editors on that article. Since apparently neither of you did any research, allow me to also mention that the other editor involved has violated the admin's terms of engagement repeatedly; I have not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it and my opinion hasn't changed. Thanks for your time. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about your carefully reasoned argument and... no, wait, you just said something without knowing what you're talking about. Never mind. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great. I look forward to more valid contributions from you in the future. Lugnuts (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo movies external link template broken

The template Template:Ymovies_name is broken, the page is locked. Can an Administrator fix it?.--Wikien2009 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it broken? I just tried a couple and it seems to work. Can you point out the articles it doesn't work on? Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've you try to add the template to an article it won't work any more, see here. They changed the way they link to person pages. It used to be http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/[NUMBER ID] but now it is http://movies.yahoo.com/person/[NAME ID]. For example see Brad Pitt#External links. A similar think happening to the movie pages.--Wikien2009 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably better if it was deleted as imdb does the same thing, and yahoo movies template is barely used. A bot could delete the template from the articles.--Wikien2009 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The template is used in over 300 articles, so I wouldn't say it is "barely used". Also, I have checked a few of these links and they are all working, so there is no reason to remove the template on that basis. However, there may be a valid argument they are redundant, and I am all for keeping external links to a minimum. It doesn't seem to be much different from IMDB or Allmovie, so I'm fairly indifferent to the link. We sprobably should have a clear out of the EL link sections, is anyone strongly in favor of retaining this template? Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Delete. Next. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why we needed it in the first place. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, You can no longer add this template to new articles as the linking system is different, as stated in my previous post.--Wikien2009 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion started by admin who hasn't got the time to notify the project

Please see this discussion. Obviously, Tumperwad is too busy/important to notify people directly affected. Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Crystal GA/FA Push

I am considering taking The Dark Crystal to GA/FA status. Please see this discussion page. Anyone willing to help is welcome. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Zhivago#Requested move

This renaming proposal is currently discuss. Feel free to improve the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

3D in Lede Opening sentence?

I notice people doing this a lot "Whatever is a 2012 3D horror film". Now to me this seems incorrect if only because there are few, if any, films that are released exclusively in 3D. If it is not only available in 3D how can it be described as a 3D film? I liken it to a discussion I, Betty, Grapple and others had over at Avatar where someone was calling it a "motion capture science fiction film". Am I right in saying this is nothing something that should be there? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, standard practice is to release films in both 2D and 3D, not the latter exclusively (I can imagine this will end within a few years once the ridiculous practice of charging extra for tickets to 3D films ends). As such it's not really worth mentioning it right up front. Properly discussed, it either belongs in a production section if the film is a deliberately-shot 3D outing, or a release section if it's tacked-on as an afterthought; it could be mentioned within the lead if it's the former (Avatar, Amityville III', etc) but it's not really important enough for the very first sentence. GRAPPLE X 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Grapple, I agree. Even if a film was released exclusively in 3D, it would be worth discussing in the lede but I don't think it should be used to describe the film, its a filming style. Would be like saying "Whatever is a 2012 shaky cam action film" (which would apply to so many films :( ) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead is a 1977 what the fuck is going on in this film film written and directed by David Lynch... ? GRAPPLE X 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I actually agree with that one, I could have done with being fully prepared before I read that plot summary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What about films, such as Piranha 3D, which explicitly mention the fact that they are in 3D in the title? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well 3D still wouldn't be the genre and from what I remember it was also released in 2D. I think it gives a false impression that it is a 3D exclusive title that can only be viewed in 3D to call it a 3D film in the opening sentence. I think discussing whether it was a post-convert or filmed in 3D should be mentioned in the lede, just not the opening sentence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should watch Eraserhead instead! Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you could pay me to watch that. Sounds crazy as hell. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Its one of those films that everyone (with a strong constitution that is) should experience once. Others include this and this. Getting through them is a bit like going on a survivor course and you'll be pretty wrung out at the end but you can't call yourself a film buff without seeing them. Well, I exaggerate, you can call yourself one but you will never be properly warped :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I just knew that first link was going to go to Salo before I even hovered over it! I think the most disturbing part was when the lady playing the piano just snaps and hurls herself out of the window. Eraserhead is amazing. I got to see it at an independent cinema a few years back with Inland Empire. Don't get that with the Odeon. Lugnuts (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"An infamous scene shows a young woman forced to eat the feces of the Duke", whaaaaaaaaaaa? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately our most reliable indie cinema (actually the university-owned one!) has yet to show Eraserhead, but I did manage to catch The Elephant Man with a Q&A session with Lynch himself. Man's a hoot. I'm also shocked and appalled that the "must experience" list doesn't seem to include this, this or this, all of which are both fine examples of virtuoso film-making and thoroughly romance-destroying. Also surprisingly difficult to get through Irish customs sometimes which is strange. GRAPPLE X 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And to think Pasolini was killed not long after it was released...! Lugnuts (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So I watched Salo and I hate you all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(>")> ? GRAPPLE X 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WPSG

I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Errors from HotCat

• It's a Wonderful Life‎ (1946 James Stewart film) This evening, I reverted an edit by Lobo512 (talk):(removed Category:Films set in the 1940s using HotCat) – My edit summary reads: Wrong! World War II finishes (1945) during the story of this film.

Surely, these quasi-automated revisions may cause many incorrect deletions and should be curbed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

HotCat is a crock o' shite. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts – exactly in line with my thinking. Once again your propenseness for brevity on Wikipedia continues to impress. I am still smiling when I remember our previous (our first) encounter here  – The Godfather, and especially your edit summary when I replied ... crisp and accurate. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Wind

Why did you delete Breaking Wind page? --87.7.56.56 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I followed the link you posted and saw a deletion in 2005. Doniago (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look there's been an article on that film on Wikipedia. As DonIago says, the deletion log shows an article of that name was deleted in 2005, so don't think it can be the same thing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasons given for deletion would lead me to believe that it was a joke page regarding what happens after one has eaten beans. Now there is at least one film that has shown that aftereffect. The IMDb link is for a film that was released last month on DVD in the US. There is nothing wrong with creating a new article for it as long as WP:NOTABILITY can be established. I would suggest that the article be named Breaking Wind (film) to avoid confusion with the earlier article and the medical condition. If any of you have a better name please feel free to use it instead. MarnetteD | Talk 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD is correct -- a review of the deleted material shows it was a joke page (that was already well-described at Flatulence) but had no relation to any film. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There would be no need for a disambiguator, as no other page with this title exists. Breaking Wind would be the correct title for the page, with maybe a hatnote directing to flatulence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Halloween III on Featured Article Review

I have nominated Halloween III: Season of the Witch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please see if Listen To Britain can be upgraded from start class, please?

Ganpati23 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In the talk section on Listen to Britain I've explained the improvements made, error corrected, refs and reading added etc.

It was rated as start class, but I was wondering if it's now worthy of being up-graded.

I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are for start/C/B class, and I realise that all I've added is a discussion on the film as a work of propaganda, not any scene-by-scene textual analysis, but I believe that what I've added reflects the latest academic research on the film as a work of propaganda, providing some contextual analysis of the situation facing Jennings at the time, as well as discussing what he was trying to achieve and how he went about it.

Previously, there was only an introduction and a section marked plot which wrongly suggested the film had a spoken introduction, though this was ONLY for the US release, as the whole point of the film was to get the world to Listen to Britain without a word being spoken. I've corrected this error and referenced it.

The refernces need tidying up as I don't know how to do that ^abc thing where 3 different refernces for the same page are shown as just one number in the reflist with ^abc by the number. But I've provided online links to two of the sources in the reading section. (Should I call it 'bibliography' instead, btw?)

So please tell me how I ask for its grade to be reviewed, how I find out if its been changed, and where I can get advice about what would need to be done to improve it sufficiently to get its grade improved.

Many thanks.

Ganpati23 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of film accidents

Can anybody think of any and help improve this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This might help, can't recall off-hand how many were accidents though. I'm also 99% sure that the original Ben-Hur featured more than a few stuntmen being killed. GRAPPLE X 21:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily production report and Production report

Is there a reason for having both? Neither is a redirect and they have near identical content. They both appear in the Filmmaking navbox so I assume a few sets of eyes have glanced at this... --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)