Talk:Filming location

Hamilton, Ontario

Greetings & saluations, yesterday I posted up the link to the Hamilton Film Office in the External links section and Ckatz removed it without any explanation given for the removal. I feel that if it's ok to include the link for the New Jersey Film Office then it should also be ok to include the link for the Hamilton Film Office as well. So I placed back to External links section. Have a good day. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, anyone interested in the explanation can see it here... the reason has been provided quite clearly in edit comments and on the user's talk page. (On a related note, the "external links" section needs a complete clear out per WP:EL. I'm trying to find an appropriate page at the Open Directory Project as that is Wikipedia's recommended solution for links sections like this one. Thoughts on a good category? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... this should work: "Film commissions at the Open Directory Project". I'll put it in tomorrow. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain to me why you think it's ok to include the link for the New Jersey Film Office and why it's not ok to include the link for the Hamilton Film Office. You still haven't answered that one for me. Thanks. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this page for an explanation... just because a section is loaded with bad links, it doesn't mean we can add more bad links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. So if you think the page is "loaded with bad links" then why do you not go ahead and remove the other ones that you think are bad? What is a good link and a bad link for this article? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above... that is exactly what I have proposed. I've even created a replacement link that resolves the issue as per Wikipedia's suggested course of action. However, I'm not prepared to get called on the carpet for reverting when I can just add it tomorrow (as mentioned above). This is especially relevant when I have no assurance that you won't just revert me again. Come on, let's try and resolve this amicably - please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend, I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in an edit-war. I have been here for almost 2-years now and have never had a problem with anyone here and I certainly don't intend to start one now. It just seems to me that you just might have something against Hamilton, Ontario since yesterday you went and removed the link for the Hamilton Film Office from the List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario article. Are you going to tell me now that too was a bad link??? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my actions. I did not "remove the link for the Hamilton Film Office"; there were two links to the HFO, one to the main web site and another to a booklet on the same site entitled "REEL CHOICES: HAMILTON, Why Shoot Anywhere Else?" (86 Page Booklet). It is the latter that was removed, as per the external link guidelines. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That link should not have been removed from the List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario article since it was one of the sources used for citations in that article. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is already in as a reference - number 8, to be precise. (This aspect of our discussion, however, should probably move to that page if need be.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK that issue is resolved. Check out my latest suggestion over at the discussion page for Hollywood North. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-compliant links

I've put in several External links which document the Filming Location topic. These Links used to be on this page before, but were all deleted. 08 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.193.253 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The links did not meet the standards outlined in Wikipedia's external links guideline, and were removed. Please do not restore them again. There is now a link to the Open Directory Project, which is Wikipedia's preferred solution for problem link lists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge. ([F]or older proposals, if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags, and, if necessary, close any discussion.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I suggest we include material about Location shooting in the Filming location article. When there is enough written about location shooting, it may be split out into its own article again. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It's useful to have a separate page explaining what location shooting is. There are a number of articles that link here, which proves that it is relevant. I don't think it matters that it's short; loads of articles on here are short. It will grow with time. --Lobo512 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. These pages mirror the categories on Commons. I added text to the Commons category pages to explain that Location shooting deals with activities of film crews, and Filming locations concerns the locations where films are or were shot. Filming locations is a much larger category that can contain every place where any film was shot outside a studio. Location shooting is an activity, the kind of work that film crews do, just as painters paint and waiters serve. I think it is useful to maintain this distinction, even though most users will probably be interested in only Filming locations. Downtowngal (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. The two pages overlap in scope. This can be seen by the duplicated content in the ledes. Remember that Wikipedia articles are generally about things and not terms. Having two articles is a form of content forkery. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. And I guess considering the length of time that has elapsed since the merger was proposed, the hatnotes should be removed. "Filming location" is almost so general it is not useful i.e. somewhere where filming takes place. "Location shooting" is very specifically the filming away from the studio, with it's own logistical issues. It seems to be a perfectly acceptable (and useful) separate issue (I came across the article while looking to wikilink to an article about a histrocial building that had been widely used as a filming location). Sionk (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable source

I'd suggest anyone removing the link to Wiki 24 citing "reliable sources" should follow that link and read up on the reliable source documentation. It is not an "extraordinary claim" that I am citing, and even though the content being linked to is "user generated", it stands up for itself if you take the time to look at it. It is a list of pictures from the TV show 24, together with links to google maps street view where it was filmed and anyone with a pair of eyes can verify it's the same place. It is a perfectly reliable source unless you don't trust your own eyes--Acer4666 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Substitute Locations example list too long

The list of examples of substitute locations in that section is excessively long, it's become listcruft. Five or so examples should suffice to get the point across. I am going to pare it down. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Add a picture

Guys i will add a picture, okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)