Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Second poster image at 300 (film): Policy is clear - onus on the keeper
Line 189: Line 189:
: Here's the guideline: [[WP:Fair use]]. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
: Here's the guideline: [[WP:Fair use]]. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, the discussion was about if the image has contextual significance in the way it was used, and there was a disagreement about that. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]]) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, the discussion was about if the image has contextual significance in the way it was used, and there was a disagreement about that. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]]) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
::: The policy on the page is quite clear: the onus is on the editor who proposes keeping the non-free image to provide a clear explanation of all ten points listed, otherwise the image will be deleted. Perhaps our keeper could do that. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:44, 9 April 2010

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcut
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

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


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(8 more...)

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

Archiving useless discussion that degenerated into sniping. Long story short, a question has been asked about the use of commercial links for verification in media-related articles. Discussion is thataway. Steve T • C 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, don't bias the discussion in any way, Collectonian!
I disagreed with adding DOZENS of links to amazon.com in a handful articles, and suddenly it becomes an "attack". Last time I heard, adding links to largely commercial sites was called WP:SPAM. And gosh, I was "stripping". And "all". Wow. I thought only took out some.
Yes, read through the many opinions on both sides, by all means. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention you specifically by name, but I was referring to your interactions with ChaosMaster which came across as an attack and insulting. I also did not bias the discussion, I recorded the basic summary of what occurred (and yes, you did strip those types of links from several lists, an edit warred over it with over 4 reverts counted). And when I refused to agree with you on my talk page, you then turned just as snippy there, which would seem to be far more an issue than actually having sourced content.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As if a reader following the link wouldn't immediately figure out to whom you were referring.
And, you put a heavy bias on what the "right" attitude was.
I removed what were a very unusually large number of links to amazon.com and a certain mob started foaming. If some "pop culture" editors don't get their way, they immediately start distorting the facts, and using underhanded arguments. Yes, I do attack people who cheat and lie to get their way. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so now the many editors who have disagreed with your idea are all liers and cheaters? Might I suggest a revisit of WP:CIVIL since you seem bound and determined to call editors sourcing content to reliable sources as spammers, and now dishonest cheaters. And let's not forget "hysterical". If you want a read a bias, that's your point of view. I trust other editors to actual be independent minded adults, read the summary to decide if the discussion is worth responding to, and to read the whole thing to give their view. I'm sorry you seem to have such a poor view of the lying, cheating editors who disagree with you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Schmoes

I was editing the List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds article and getting it ready to be nominated for WP:FL, when an editor added a list of awards called the Golden Schmoes, which are hosted by website JoBlo.com. I was wondering are these and the Online Film Critics Society Awards usually included in film award lists? Are they prominent enough? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Online Film Critics Society Awards on the List of accolades received by Avatar article before nominating it for FL. Quite a few notable film critics are in the group so it seemed notable. Nice looking list by the way. DrNegative (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll leave the Online Film Critics Society Awards. What about the Golden Schmoes though? I've never heard of them.
Thank you, I went through the whole table yesterday adding in the dates of the ceremonies and making sure everything was okay. The only problem I had was with the written prose and trying to find an appropriate image, I haven't found any free images of someone holding an award yet. I hope Avatar gets FL. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found an image of Waltz at the Academy Awards, but only on the red carpet (not holding his Oscar) if that would be helpful for inclusion. Concerning the Golden Schmoes, I don't know if Joblo.com currently qualifies as a reliable source. It covers film news, but usually first gets it from other sources although they do get their own interviews and breaking film updates occasionally. The Golden Schmoes are voted on by the members of the site, so it probably is not notable for including for now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the advice and the image! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot description in No Country for Old Men (film)

There is an ongoing discussion here about properly wording a particular scene. It is a GA class article so additional input is welcome. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Examiner.com as a source

Not sure if this as already been discussed but is Examiner.com considered to be valid source? For theose unfamiliar Examiner.com utilizies citizen journalism so basically anyone can report and has been noted for a lack of editorial oversight. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS requires that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Examiner.com has a well documented lack of fact checking and editorial oversight so it fails the requirements of RS by its very definition. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the article in question? Citizen journalism sounds synonymous with interactive columns. WP:RS says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It would help to see the article to see if this could apply at all. Erik (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was debating wether to add the casting relavation (Jay O. Sanders as Carl Ferris) found in this article [1] to Green Lantern (film).
Interesting I had to supply a secondary source because Examiner.com is blocked by wikipedia. So I guess that answers my question-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be worthy to note that comicbookmovie.com reporting the on the same article from the Examiner also has picture of Sanders on set.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a pretty hard time justifying myself using the Examiner as a reference in most circumstances. It's not reliable but that doesn't mean that it's always incorrect. If an Examiner article states a fact, it's OK to use it as a jumping off point and see if you can verify it through another source. If you can find a properly reliable source confirming this, use the good source. I find it akin to the trivia section on IMDb; some useful info can be found in the heaps of useless and uniteresting garbage that, if it can be sourced, can add some value to the article. But I would really not use Examiner directly since no one verifies if the information is correct before it's published. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using the website the other day and found it blacklisted. —Mike Allen 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing required

There are a few articles listed below which don't have significant references. An activist editor has noticed, so it would be good time to fix them. Take your pick!

Also ones which I am already working on

Ones which I've done so far:

Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually acquired a film dictionary recently. I will try to see if I can use it as a reference for quick definitions of some of these. Erik (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Particularly for the ones which have been marked as without references for several years. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film's FAR

I have nominated 35 mm film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Kansas City Film Critics Circle

Are these articles really needed? It seems all of the pages are basically an exact copy off their website. I could see having a main page with details about the circle but 40+ pages about each year of awards that can be found on their site seems pointless. It is duplicate information to have pages for Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor and then have the yearly pages too Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards 2007 --Peppagetlk 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy is bound to happen; these pages are supposed to be spun off from the main article because we cannot fit all the details in one place. These pages are lists, and lists are for navigation, so it is not a problem to have them. It would be a problem to have these lists under a topic that is not notable, and I suspect that this circle is not notable. I see that it has been deleted once before, and there does not seem to be any improvement to the main article based on my reading of the AfD discussion. I would recommend checking for significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, and if none are to be found, to add a CSD template since it has been deleted before and is not different from in the past. Erik (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge lists of nominations for GA

There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Film, which is part of "Theatre film and drama" at Wikipedia:GAN#Theatre film and drama. Some ways to improve this:

  • Ask your descendant WikiProjects to get involved in the discussions and actions below.
  • At the discussion at WT:GAN, let us know how you think the situation can be improved - or whether you're happy with things as they are.
  • Can your members do more GA reviews? This should only be done by members who are interested in doing the job well, as a poorly-produced review will probably need to be re-done at WP:GAR.
  • There's a possible COI if your members review Theatre and Films articles. However, there's also a backlog at Music, and if Music review Theatre and Films articles while Theatre and Films review Music articles there's no COI. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 17:35, April 5, 2010
Thanks for stopping by. I don't believe there would be COI if members from WP:FILM review film articles. In fact it would probably be in the best interest since we know how film articles are usually done per WP:MOSFILM and other factors. —Mike Allen 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mike. I don't think its COI at all (unless you're reviewing your own or your buds). Indeed, I think most reviews in most topical areas tend to be done by folks in those projects because they have the most interest and knowledge of what those articles should be like. Other than that, though, not sure of solutions. Can't really "make" anyone get involved, and I'd suspect those with an interest in reviews are already involved. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAGA specifies a very limited subset of MOS, which does not include WP:MOSFILM. So I think it's easy enough for non-WP:FILM members to review articles about films. --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is one of several reasons I don't do GAs anymore, that the criteria do not include any requirement for following the MoS for the topic to any degree. That aside, yes, anyone can conceivable do any GA review, however I wouldn't try to do a science review without at least some knowledge of the topic. Its easier for Film members to do film reviews because we know what the main aspects of the topic are and what should generally be focused on, versus someone who does, say, primarily military history and wrong thinks that the plot is okay at 2000 words because its comprehensive and has no idea how much reception is good for a film. Project members also can tell far more quickly if a source is a reliable one, versus someone who might wrongly think IMDB is fine because they like the site themselves. So yes, non-Film members can review film articles, of course, same as any topic, but I think its incorrect to state its as easy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"3-D" versus "3D"

I see that Alice in Wonderland repeats the hyphenated version again and again. Why is it so when all of the promotional and branding material, not to mention the film itself, use the plain "3D"? It looks strange to visitors. Tony (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). From what I can tell at 3D, the two are interchangeable. Is there a manual of style on or outside Wikipedia that addresses this matter? Erik (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how the Wikipedia article has it written (3-D film). The article had 3D and 3-D used interchangeably and we are supposed to be consistence so I chose to go with how the article is written to avoid an unnecessary redirect. I assume it's a preference and not a standard. However, if their are guidelines to prove otherwise, we should follow that. I wasn't aware of any. —Mike Allen 23:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no guidelines: that is not my point. Why have we falsified the way "3D" is used in the films themselves. Our readers never see the clunky version on screen or posters or tickets or in online or print schedules. Never. They use what in my view and, by the way, clearly the view of the producers and PR film people, is a more attractive and easier-to-read version: plain "3D". Some scientists use the hyphen, I know. That's fine, because it is optional. But we should go with the overwhelming wall of relevant sources, which use "3D". And then there's the potential for chaos if you use the hyphen within: this WPian knew better: "I came to this article hoping to find out about the techniques used for 2D-to-3D post-conversion". Talk:3-D_film#Post-conversion. Please note the previous section there, in which someone had already raised the issue. Tony (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally it's not an issue to me as I don't see a small hyphen as "clunky" and I have not seen anyone edit war over it or really seem concerned about it, so I assumed it was not a problem. It seems you are concerned about it, and I would like to see what anyone else has to say about it before making a guideline, or whatever. So for the record of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  :) —Mike Allen 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the average reader is going to get confused if they see "3-D" or "3D". I have enough faith in the average reader that they are intelligent enough to know those two figures are one in the same. BTW, Some movies do us the hyphenated form. Another example, and another. Just food for thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "3D" is an absolute abomination, and I'd sooner see an article of mine deleted than changed from "3-D" to "3D". I'd edit-war to my very last breath to keep an article like Perverted Criminal from being so bastardized, and I think any editor with even the slightest respect for Wikipedia would do the same. Dekkappai (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Not to be overly obtuse, but 4-D film seems to have this figured out: use whichever one is applicable to the given film. Jaws 3-D uses the hyphen. My Bloody Valentine 3D does not use the hyphen. My feeling is that, as the new wave of 3D films and technology (such as 3D television) become more prevalent, the hyphen will not be used much at all; that doesn't mean, however, that it shouldn't still be used here when applicable. -- Chickenmonkey X  sign?  03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "3D" at IMDb shows these results, and it seems to me that "3D" is more common than "3-D" in titles these days. For individual film articles, we should adhere to whatever is typically written with the film. For Alice in Wonderland, it would be more "3D" than "3-D", especially with the whole "IMAX 3D" experience. We don't have to constrain ourselves to the hyphen in 3-D film; we can pipe the link for articles that use "3D" more popularly than "3-D". Would that kind of approach work for everybody? Erik (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have a lot in common with other versions of English. The guideline there is that if one particular version of English is closely associated with the subject matter (i.e. American subjects would use "color", English subjects would use "colour", and articles about computer languages, for example, would use "color") then you use that version. If you extend that logic then the film articles should use the version it is marketed with, since the subject matter is associated with that particular usage. In the cases where neither prevails, the most important thing is article consistency. For instance, if an article is written in British English, then converting it to American English where the subject matter doesn't warrant it is not permitted, and vice versa i.e. you retain the language version the article is originally written in. So the situation here is clear cut: use the version the film is marketed with, and if both versions are used in the marketing then whichever version the article author adopts is retained. Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekkappai, could you specify what it is about "3D" that gives you such as sense of revulsion? And could you explain why more recent films appear to go with the term, prominently? Clearly they see it as preferable. Mike Allen, I meant no judgement on your choice of "3-D"; it's the kind of thing I'd do, then perhaps later rethink it. Chicken monkey (and Erik): I like your idea very much, and it should appeal to WPians who want our text and stylistic choices to match what is used out there. It requires no change in the title of 3-D films; but it would involve changing the text of Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and the article on Avatar 3D, since those films don't use the hyphen. Does anyone object? Tony (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am mostly positive that Dekkappai was demonstrating mock fury. Erik (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, hi Erik & Tony. I must apologise for my outburst, Tony. I can't explain it, but I was just shaking with outrage at the potential loss of this hyphen. On further consideration, it couldn't matter less to me whether the term is hyphenated or not, or even both within the same article. I will bow out retaining what dignity is left me and leave this decision in other hands. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but I was just shaking with outrage at the potential loss of this hyphen." Quote of the year right there! I've never read so much about something I care so little about. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment request

Could someone take a look at True Lies for a re-assessment. It's currently evaluated as a start-class, although it's easily beyond that status now. Shadowjams (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree; minus the overly-long plot summary, there is not much in the article. The "Reception" section is certainly a start, but there is nothing about the film's production and themes. Erik (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD release dates

Anyone know of a reliable source for DVD release dates? (Specifically region 2...) --BelovedFreak 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find in reviews, news releases, or an official site, Amazon.com (or for Region 2, Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.co.jp) is considered acceptable as a last resort type source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Currently using Amazon, just looking for something better.--BelovedFreak 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know some editors fall back on web store listings (amazon.com etc.) when all else fails; others are opposed to that, and I can see why these sites are considered a last resort. There's no one source that's suitable for all, or even most, films. Really, your best bet is to use Google News or similar to look for news stories from around the time of the film's DVD release. Many film periodicals re-review notable films upon their DVD release, so look out for those, as they'll usually note the date too. Perhaps the BBFC database would be of use for some films? For an example, see here; those might be release dates, but I'm not too sure. Ah, no, they're the classification dates; never mind. Steve T • C 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. It's The X-Files (film) I'm looking for, by the way. I haven't found anything in gnews so far. I think I have some old Sight & Sounds, and maybe some Empires or Total Films from back then, so I'll have a sift through.--BelovedFreak 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found this from The Digital Bits. Reliable? Don't know. Gary King (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's a thought. I should still have every SFX magazine in storage in my parents' cellar. I'll have a quick look when I'm over there at the weekend. Steve T • C 07:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gary, I'll look into that, and thanks for that Steve, I would be grateful. I'm looking for Region 2 DVD released January 24, 2000. Unfortunately my own collections only go back to about 2001.--BelovedFreak 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the link provided above by Gary says the date was the 23rd of Jan.--BelovedFreak 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second poster image at 300 (film)

The Featured Article 300 (film) uses File:300 monster.poster03.jpg in the "Depictions of Persians" section. There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the image is appropriate to include. Editors are invited to weigh in; discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with Fair Use in the US, but IIRC there are guidelines as to the resolution of images which are allowed in various cases. I'll have a look now. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the guideline: WP:Fair use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion was about if the image has contextual significance in the way it was used, and there was a disagreement about that. Erik (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on the page is quite clear: the onus is on the editor who proposes keeping the non-free image to provide a clear explanation of all ten points listed, otherwise the image will be deleted. Perhaps our keeper could do that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=355015893"