This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animals' presence in literature, movies, television, and theatre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It's not for someone writing a synopsis of a movie to say that a story told by a character in it is 'unbelievable', especially when the film presents the same story as the literal truth (also I think Paul was meant to have 'spouted', not 'sprouted' the story). This article needs to be rewritten. Lexo 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just don't get why Debresser keeps on restoring the piped link in the date. Debresser objects that WP:EGG is non-specific, but I don't understand the nature of that objection - is the problem that the essay doesn't mention this particular film by name? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In simple words. If almost all film articles use a piped link for "year in film" (and in general they do), then some general rule which states nothing more specific than "keep links intuitive" is no reason to remove them. You'll have to come up with a reasoning why this would be non-intuitive (since "year in whatever" links are in use not only in film article), and show some specific discussion and consensus. Debresser (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been covered fairly recently on the film project talk page and has been getting addressed on a low priority basis by multiple editors (i.e. if you see it, kill it but no need to go searching for it). If you're still seeing it, it's because no one has been there yet. Millahnna (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The most recent conversation I can find is here at the WP:MOSFILM talk page (and there are multiple conversations detailing this going back to 2007 from what I can tell). The consensus has been to either kill the links as they stand now, or to make them more intuitive. Parentheticals along the lines of (see 1982 in film) have been suggested as being more clear in other instances where this topic has come up. At the time of that particular conversation, the decision was to not be so explicit in the Films MOS since the text was already existed elsewhere on the site. Apparently we should bring this up again as it's obviously going to continue being a problem. I have very little time to wiki for the next few weeks but someone might want to bring up the issue at the Film MOS again. Millahnna (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
My experience is that in the lead sentence of film articles, we have attempted smarter linking. Historically, we linked to everything—the release year in film, the country (then later cinema of said country), and basic genres. We've moved away from that, I think, in an effort to make blue links more relevant. For example, if we say a film is an American film, how does linking to Cinema of the United States improve readers' understanding of that one film? In contrast, linking to the director of the film is more valuable because there is a tighter relationship. My take is that general links do not inform the reader well in their direct presentation, but if navigational capability is that desired, they are better placed in film articles' "See also" sections. I personally have found that the general links do not get high page views anyway for all their proliferation; they're "skipped over" as commonly-accepted details. A comedy film was made in the United States in 2006. We don't need to read the general links to have an understanding of that. To put it better, links matter in their context. For individual films, we don't need to understand an entire country's history of cinema. However, we'd like to know in a world cinema article the various countries' history of cinema. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)