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 99.192.93.29 (talk) at 16:45, 27 June 2014 (→List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler). 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
Shortcuts
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(6 more...)

Featured article reviews

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

List of fiction works made into feature films

These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of "List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.

Golden Raspberry Award

A new account has been adding references to this parody "award" to biographical articles. This doesn't seem to be appropriate in award sections, but I just wanted to check with this wikiproject to be totally sure about that, and that somehow we haven't along the way felt that Razzie belongs in lists along with the Golden Globe, Academy Awards, and so on. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion may have some relevance. I'm not finding any discussion of the inclusion of this parody in award lists, per se. The subject has come up because there is a new user account, User:Fallacies4, that has been created for the specific purpose of adding "Razzies" to performer/director filmographies and award lists. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:ACTOR RfC is indeed relevant. The long-standing consensus for years have been not to include those awards in biographies. Nymf (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, then this one account's dozens if not hundreds of edits[[1]] have to be reverted, as they consist almost entirely of adding the Razzie to actor biographies. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion referred to above was not about the question, whether Raazies should be included in award lists, but whether there should be a category for Razzies. As I see it, this is a very different question, with no precedence for the current issue.Albrecht Conz (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, putting aside the RfC, is Nymf correct? Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just as an aside, there's a and it doesn't seem to be unusual that such awards are listed in articles, see for example the Ig Nobel Prize for Andre Geim. Albrecht Conz (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geim specifically commented on the parody award. Short of that, or a reliable source picking up the award and writing about it, I can't see listing parodies in bios as if they were awards. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point an additional issue is that the editor has been spoken to but is (or at least was) continuing to add the award without providing sources. I've left them a note about that and will consider it an edit-warring issue if they persist. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a consensus on this issue? I don't think that there is anything at all wrong with including so-called "spoof" awards on biographical pages. Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopedic after all and not simply a promotion of certain people. It seems to me from reading this thread that the issue is still being discussed. I think it should be fine to include them.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor's encouraged to discuss the matter, or at least provide sources, especially when we're talking about biographies of living people, they're in the wrong when their response is to simply keep reinserting the awards without providing sources. Nothing's stopping them from discussing the situation here, at their Talk page, at the Talk page of one of the editors who reverted them, at the Talk page for one of the articles they contributed to...
I don't see a consensus either way on the situation, but with regards to this specific editor that's becoming a secondary issue. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes to be clear I was referring to the issue of spoof awards in biography pages. I haven't even looked into the issue with the editor. It seems to me that these awards should be included otherwise there's going to be a lot of clean-up required on countless biography pages. Isn't it kind of like a good review from a critic verses a bad review? And an award is more or less a glorified review or notice. And the Razzies have justified their own notability.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Deoliveirafan. There seems to be issues with the guy who put in all those specific edits. OK. However, I've still seen no evidence for the claim that there's been a "long-standing consensus for years" to have those awards not included in biographies (and if that's not the case, the criticism of the editor in question - apart from being unresponisive - is invalid, isn't it?) Those awards certainly garner a lot of publicity - and I think they should be mentioned, if only to present a more balanced view (there frequently is a bias by editors / watchers of pages towards "positive" news). I don't see any general issues with sourcing, as the list of Razzie Awards is not only freely available but also comprehensively listed on respective Wikipedia pages such as Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress etc. Albrecht Conz (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given that these are not awards but rather jibes, they should be included in articles only if referenced by a secondary source other than a press release by whomever issues the award. They seem to be included in "award lists," but don't belong there. That is not to say that they don't belong in the articles at all. As for the need to cleanup the articles where the Razzies have been placed where they don't belong, so what? There are tens of thousands of articles requiring cleanup. This is just a drop in the bucket. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked for the old discussion which I referred to in my earlier comment (there's also a consensus through editing, regarding this), but as far as I recall, the general idea was to not include them unless the person won and accepted the award in person (i.e. "legitimizing" the award). Nymf (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I guess I can't argue with all of those clear statements and examples of legitimate consensus. Have fun with all that clean up Coretheapple. Here's two that you can start on: John Travolta, Battlefield Earth (film). Or how about this: Tom Wolfe.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Battlefield Earth was such a notable failure that it might belong in the article, and I'm tempted to believe that its Razzie award sweep was noted in the media. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So glad you mentioned the Travolta article. What a mess. Only one paragraph on his 1970s fame. I remember that; he was all over the headlines as a combination of Brando and Fred Astaire. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've inspired me to campaign for a new WikiRule: WP:GEORGECOSTANZA, which should clearly state that when claiming consensus it's not a lie...if you believe it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films

Ha, this was great fun drawing up. Still a work in progress. Still got a ton of arty/critically acclaimed films to see from 1980 to 2010. I think such a list would be useful for highlighting what needs to be worked on for myself!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such fun for you Dr B. I would love to comment on many of the choices but I will restrict myself to 2 comments about Gravity (film). As I was watching it I was stuck by how much it reminded me of The Perils of Pauline (1933 serial) which I saw many years ago. I somehow missed Sunshine (2007 film) on is release last decade. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it would make a good twin-bill with Gravity. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Gravity was going to suck big time when it started and seeing Bullock and Clooney in Space. But it was the way she found strength and his ghost image being there and the way she returned to earth as if reborn, not to mention the gorgeous cinematography and technical difficulties of filming it, I thought it was an amazing film. In my list, obviously there's ones I find truly great or great and those which I just find enjoyable but wouldn't exactly consider it "great" as such if you know what I mean. Most fall under "very good" really. I'll probably star more of those I consider "great".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Battleship Potemkin , Rififi or Persona? What the hell kind of list is this?! Seriously though, I love these best-of lists. Always interesting to see who rates what. I have two copies of this book (one at home, one on my desk at work) and I'm constantly refering to it to read about films to check out. I think I saw The Woman in the Dunes based purely on the synopsis in the book. Always a sucker for issues of Sight & Sound, Empire, etc, that have a <insert random number> of films feature. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship IMO is the most overrated film I've ever seen!! Aside from the attack scenes which were great, was the film really that great? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota Film Festival

Can anybody help re-build the Sarasota Film Festival with new sources? I took a look at it and the history section was basically a copy-and-paste copyvio of the about page on their website. I'm sure there are more resources off-line, and hopefully editors can dig something up.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NikkiFinke.com

Reliable source? This just launched today, and I'd say it is, given who the person is. And she's already doing some hefty reporting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under WP:SPS. RS for unchallenged and uncontroversial claims, but you have to exercise some caution since authorship and editoral oversight are no longer independent of each other. If the claim is anything remotely dodgy then find another source. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be considered reliable per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", given Finke's long history in the industry and work for Deadline and Variety? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see it as a pretty clear-cut case of an established expert. --SubSeven (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SubSeven.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in general, when you're talking about direct interviews, but in this case she's merely reporting rumors. Warner Bros. has not confirmed any of that. Given that she says that it will be announced at ComicCon, then I would wait for the official announcement. In general, ANY source that does not actually name names should generally be avoided. We're not a rumor mill or current events news organization. So, if she was actually talking to someone, then I think you can argue that she has the professional/expert status taken care of. But rumors are rumors, no matter who reports them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki Finke is an established expert so her new site should be considered reliable. That said, every article must still be individually reviewed as WP:CRYSTAL states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to see about the site as a whole, not necessarily in terms of DC film rumor article. But still good knowledge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the rumor-type content. --SubSeven (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this sockpuppet investigation, there's an IP editor who has been disruptively editing martial arts-related films for several years now. I guess he took a break for a while, because the last discussion was back in 2012. He seems to be back now, and I'm having trouble keeping the following articles free of his disruption. I don't like edit warring, and I usually try to keep to a voluntary policy of 1RR. However, this editor is absolutely determined to disrupt these articles:

I haven't yet posted any of this to the associated SPI, as I don't really know much about SPI or its associate protocol. I have requested assistance from an administrator on how to proceed, but if someone with more knowledge than me wants to go ahead with that, that'd be fine. I could really use help on this, as I don't have much experience with dealing with such disruptive users, and I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring, too. It's also very taxing and frustrating trying to keep track of these articles and the disruptive edits. I'm dedicating too much time to this, and I'd rather be productively editing articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing some of those edits go by, as well. Honestly, I kind of don't know what to make of it. I started watching a lot of the martial arts films a few years ago because of a completely different problematic IP editor (and in truth the Hong Kong films in particular draw their own kind of problem edits the same way kids' films do). I've been watching the slow burn edit war go back and forth and... honestly many of the IP edits seem to be fixing minute problems. On SPL: Sha Po Lang, in particular, the IP keeps undoing an edit that is adding overlinking and is putting up the wrong cast order, based on our project standards. A few days ago I followed all of the IP's edits, as well as those of the editor they are undoing the most. Either I'm missing something or the IP has the right of it in most of those instances. The other editor claims to be restoring cast order to that of the credits in the films (on the rare occasion that either of them uses an edit summary) but every source I've checked has confirmed the IP's order of choice. I lack copies of most of these films to verify the order of billing in the credits but on the one film I did have access to, IP was right and the other editor was wrong. I've been kind of politely ignoring the whole mess since the two of them seem content to just undo each other repeatedly and I can't verify very much of what either is doing. Millahnna (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of the IP editor's work does fix issues, but the rest of it seems pointlessly disruptive, such as genre warring. I would probably just let it go if that's all it were, but he's also changing sourced text now. I guess I could have brought this to ANI instead of here, but I've already contacted an administrator, and I think my concern that more martial arts films will be targeted is better discussed here. The biggest problem is that there's no way to discuss anything with this editor. He just wordlessly reverts any edit that he dislikes; no edit summary, no discussion on the talk page, no responses to requests on his talk page. If you disagree with this editor, you get reverted every day like clockwork. I've made changes to the articles that fixed errors, only to have him revert right back to an older version that still contains the errors. It's immensely frustrating. I guess this probably does belong on ANI, but I thought that maybe I could avoid a bit of drama and hopefully get a few more eyes on martial arts film articles. I understand that you believe the IP editor's changes are not as disruptive as me, but I'm glad that someone is watching these articles. I thought that maybe the articles were too obscure for the changes to be seen. If you agree with the editor's changes, maybe you could post to the associated talk pages and try to establish some kind of consensus, so that the edit wars end? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I see the IP's efforts as a bit of a mixed bag. I'd say it looks like one of the editors he's warring with essentially has the same problem; He/she's reverting to versions with errors in them while fixing some errors in the same reverts and very minimally using edit summaries. I've gone in a few times and fixed stuff that I knew I could fix only to have both the IP and this other editor both revert to their favored older versions. But maybe one or both of them knows something I don't, since I don't have access to most of the films in question. I think you're right that there aren't many of us watching the pages for a lot of these, based on the problems I've tracked in the past. Weird edits will go uncontested for months and by the time I spot them, things are such a mess I don't know where to start. Maybe an attempt at ANI to draw some attention to the problems would be helpful (you never know with ANI). I mean it would certainly get other editors' eyes on the pages, at least in the short term. But I don't know that there's much they could do. I generally try to stay out of ANI stuff because I find it frustrating and tedious (even if often helpful) but if you decide to go that route, let me know and I'll put in my two cents worth since I've seen a lot of the same issues that you have. Millahnna (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is basically nothing you can do as you can see from those SPI investigations. I filed a few myself but he's back on a different IP in no time. And yeah, some edits are ok but they are often mixed up with poor edits so unless you want to spend hours sifting through their edits determining what needs to be reverted it is best to just use rollback on their contributions. SPI is pretty ineffective due to the fact IP "hops" addresses, so rollback and AIV is probably the least taxing response. We can't stop it though, all we can do is contain the editor and hope they get bored. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. That's not quite what I was hoping to hear, but it was kind of what I was expecting. I guess I'll start working my way through the warning templates instead of attempting to communicate. Like Millahnna says, many of the edits are too borderline to qualify as obvious vandalism. Maybe I can get more traction at ANI if I get bored with reverting. Or RFPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revert all IP edits. Rather take out one or two good edits then leave hundreds of bad ones in. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, you revert all IP edits? I can't argue against most of them being unhelpful (that's basically a fact), but some are legitimate attempts at improvement. While they may be misguided–and frequently littered with original research–not every IP edit is toxic. I had a pleasant experience working with an IP on A Million Ways to Die in the West a mere week ago. He/she understood where I was coming from. We were able to find sources and work together, and the article is (albeit very slightly) better for it.
All IPs deserve the same due weight as registered established users do, as they are human too. Innocent until proven guilty, if you will. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All IP edits in the articles stated above. I revert a fair few that hit my watchlist too. Forget WP:HUMAN/innocent until proven, etc. You can't beat instinct and experience. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a bit more sense. I revert a good chunk of IP edits as well, but I wouldn't say to throw WP:HUMAN to the wind. It's applicable, since not all IPs are the same. Many vandalize, many are unreasonable, but "many" ≠ "all". That said, I see now that I misread your initial meaning, and I apologize for that.
I'm also getting off topic and never commented on the matter at hand. An attempt to get the articles semi-protected or pending changes could benefit you. Both are kind of unlikely, though. I would say the best you can do is what you've done. He's blocked for now, maybe it'll stop. If it doesn't, get him blocked again. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything to do about an IP who changes IPs a lot, other than to keep reporting them and hope for the best.
That could all be terrible advice, by the way. I'm just saying what I would do. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, about to suggest the page protection route. @NinjaRobotPirate: - if you still have issues with the above articles, log it at WP:RPP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the IP keeps coming back with a new IP addy, how close are the numbers? The vandal admin types might be able to range block. There's a recurring sock on Malaysia media articles who always hits a few films in my watch list (if you've ever seen that really odd overlinking edit that shows up periodically on the third Final Destination film you know what I'm talking about) that we were able to get range blocked for a period of time (no idea if still is). If the IPs' hopping meets their criteria, that might be an option. Millahnna (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the SPI, it looks like temporary rangeblocks have been applied in the past. Lugnuts makes a good point about page protection, especially if we can't get a block that sticks. The only problem is that this editor is patient and has a long memory; I've seen him resume edit warring after a month-long page protection wore off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have four IPs like that I watch (two "agonists", one plot bloater, and that gunspotter guy who's still on his three month ban). One of them I've had on my list of edits to double check every now and then for almost six years (and he had edits going back to 2005 with the same problems). I feel your pain. Millahnna (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP Film in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabeenot, thanks for the spotlight! I've added my answers. I hope others will too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my answers too! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-country films

User:WARNER_one has been attempting to switch the order of how a co-country production is given in a number of films (many by C. Nolan, but it is extending out from that) (eg whether a film is "British-American" or "Amercian-British".) From what I can tell most of these aren't correct, but I would ask , how is this usually determined for such films? Is there a single RS we use? Is is based on which country (in terms of production team) has done the most work on it, etc. It would be helpful to have a few eyes on this user's edits since they seem contrary to what others have said. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film explains how to fill in the "country" parameter, while MOS:FILM#Lead section says to avoid nationality mashing-up by explaining in the course of the lead section how different countries are involved. I think we tend to mention the same countries in both the infobox and in the lead section's opening sentence, even though I think we shouldn't always do that since the contributions vary. That being said, I'm tired of seeing these singular initiatives that focus on such minutiae. If it's not obviously one nationality for the opening sentence, then we shouldn't have anything at all there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what Erik said, as I have done/seen, if there are multiple countries that are associated with the film's production, I have omitted them from the lead. See Iron Man 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with these two. I tend to remove the nationality from the lead if it isn't just one country. I think this distinction should be in the MOS, personally. It'd keep lead sentences like this from happening. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is, actually! :) The guidelines state, "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." It should be cited to resolve multi-country disputes (in the lead section, anyway). But of course, it does not necessarily resolve disputes about whether or not one country or more is behind the production. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been attempting to witch order but instead re-switch. The pages of Inception, The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have all been "British-American" not "American-British" since creation. It has been other users who have changed these pages due to apparent evidence of Lumiere. A website which as I have said before is a PROJECT and should be researched before being used as a regular reference. Hope I could answer your question. Though do research before calling my actions "incorrect in the future.
WARNER one 9999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "project" doesn't bar it from being a reliable source. The Lumiere database is published by the European Audiovisual Observatory and funded by the European Commission, so it's basically the European equivalent of the AFI or BFI. It's pretty clear from their background that the reason they refer to themselves as a "project" is because it's an ongoing data collation exercise. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have another conversation about this going on here Template talk:Infobox film#Country parameter and citations. We may want to consider merging the two. OTOH if everyone is happy with them running concurrently that is fine as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this one has more or less wrapped up, MarnetteD. It's in WP:FILMLEAD not to include more than one country in the lead, so that's that. Though I am curious about that other conversation. Thanks! You gave me something to talk about. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet for Wikiproject Film at Wikimania 2014

please note: This is an updated version of a posting that I previously made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox help requested

Hello WikiProject! I need a little guidance. At The Rugrats Movie, Rugrats in Paris and Rugrats Go Wild, the infobox has grown a little bloated with starring roles. I checked the instructions for Template:Infobox film, which instructs, "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." What I've noticed, is that the theatrical posters don't have Starring credits, for example here and here, and the opening credits for Rugrats Go Wild (courtesy of Netflix) only lists the producers. The closing credits for The Rugrats Movie (around 0:54) list all the voice talent in a giant block. Same with Rugrats in Paris (around 1:20). How should the infobox be handled in this case? There are a lot of characters in the Rugrats. Do I just wrap all those names in a {{plainlist}} and call it a day? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see at The Rugrats Movie in the "Cast" section that there is a "Main" subsection, which seems to group the voice actors for the babies together. That seems reasonable, considering the nature of this film (and the others as well). Could we not use that as the cutoff? Otherwise, for something like Rugrats Go Wild, you could avoid listing any cast members in the infobox; the Featured Articles of Star Trek films do this, e.g. The Search for Spock. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik that neglecting the cast and including a link to the subsection is fine. That said, you could take the "Main" characters from The Rugrats Movie and apply it to the other two. That way, if the actors change, the order remains basically the same. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas, both, thank you. I think I'll avoid reordering them, as I don't know much about the series, but linking to the cast section makes sense to me. Muchas gracias! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production companies in film infobox

The discussion about including production companies in the film infobox, either by adding or changing a field, had stalled. Please revisit the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Round 2. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cannes Film Festival juries

I've created this. Can somebody populate? Should it be judges or juries?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler

This list article is particularly problematic because it contained copious references to the "Golden Raspberry Award" that we discussed above. I'd say about a third of more of the list consists of this parody "award"; I've removed and it's being edit-warred. This is a good example of why we need independent sourcing for parody awards, and they should not be inserted in articles and lists unless they're written about by someone other than the "award" issuer. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple and I have been discussing on the Sandler list talk page the question of whether or not the Razzies raise a BLP issue. I have now started a section on WT:BLP to specifically address that concern. Anyone with thoughts about whether or not there is a BLP problem are invited to contribute to that discussion. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)[reply]
I think there's also an NPOV problem, as 1) this is not an award but an attack and 2) the Razzie people, whoever they are, have a real problem with Sandler and have showered him with them. Before removal, the article was dominated by razzies. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are NPOV problems, then that is worth discussing. If there are more specifically WP:UNDUE concerns, those are also worth discussing. There might be good reasons to exclude mention of Razzies from particular pages, but that does not mean that BLP is one of them. My disagreement with you has been consistently on the specific claim that you have made that there is a BLP problem with including Razzies. I believe you are wrong about that and that is why I have opened the discussion at WT:BLP. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)[reply]
  • Comment I think this falls into a wider debate on how we handle awards, which I don't think we do very well on film articles on Wikipedia. Personally I don't think the Razzies are any more a BLP issue than say a bad review, which we will include to be consistent with WP:NPOV. Indeed, that policy is relevant here, since by ommitting the Razzies we are arguably not being neutral. I would be interested in coming up with some criteria which we can apply. Here are some possible ones from the top of my head (I don't necessarily advocate them, I'm just kicking them into the arena):
  1. The Award itself has a dedicated article on Wikipedia.
  2. The award win itself has been covered by a secondary source
  3. The recipient personally received the award, or someone officially accepted it on their behalf
  4. The award has international standing or by an organization or media outlet with a "national" presence
Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, I agree with your view on both the BLP and NPOV status of the Razzies. As for your ideas, here are a few quick thoughts on them
  1. This seems like a solid criterion. The Sandler list includes an award he received from the relatively obscure Gijón International Film Festival, which has a Wikipedia page, but whose awards do not. Including this one on his awards list seems of borderline notability.
  2. This sounds good, but probably is a very low bar. Even very small film festivals that give awards get coverage in their local news outlets. So it might not exclude much. But if this is read too strictly, then things like Oscars and Emmys for the more obscure categories that the public does not care about (ones that do not make it to the televised broadcasts) could be excluded from pages.
  3. This could be a problem, depending on what is meant by "received it on their behalf". Marlon Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather to the Oscars on his behalf, but did not accept the award. Also, it is standard at major awards for the presenter to claim they accept the award on behalf of the winner, but it is never clear that they have been authorized by the winner to do so. Did Woody Allen really accept all those awards? So this criteria could exclude awards we would want to list or include ones that were not actually accepted by the winner because someone claimed to accept it for them.
  4. This sounds like a more strict version of #2, so might have the same issues.
Finally, just as a further thought, some awards pages are called "List of awards..." and some are called "List of accolades...." On the issue of the Razzies it could be a NPOV problem to exclude Razzies from a list of awards page, but not a list of accolades page, since the latter more clearly has a positive connotation. That won't settle whether they should be mentioned on actor or film pages, but it could help with list pages. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)[reply]

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2

A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt performer

Hi! I have just rewritten the article Stunt performer, and wanted it reassessed on your group quality scale. Also, do you think that there is enough material out there to sustain the article Stunt double, or should it be merged into Stunt performer? Thanks! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination

I have nominated the film article Subway Sadie for Featured Article consideration; as it pertains to this WikiProject I leave a notice here. Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subway Sadie/archive1. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Combing articles

Would somebody combine Bollywood films of 2015 into List of Bollywood films of 2015? Robert4565 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=614655552"