Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 →

Contents

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

I think people will need to keep watch out for vandalism and inappropriate chat on the talk page of this film article. Due to the nature of the film and one comment posted already I have a feeling it might be prone to vandalism. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD: List of stock characters in comedy

Didn't see a place to put film-related AFDs, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflation in grosses

Cshay (talk · contribs) is changing articles to only mention inflation-adjusted grosses, which reflects cinema admissions rather than the amount of money made. Can anyone point out the MOS on inflation-adjusted amounts on Wikipedia? Alientraveller (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to say that a movie is the highest grossing film over a 70 year period if you don't take inflation into account. The movie industry indeed does this for marketing purposes (it makes recent films alsways seem the most popular). But marketing aside, it's a meaningless statistic if you don't take inflation into account. Cshay (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what you're asking. I see what he did on Titanic, saying that you cannot compare films across a 70 year gap, and removed the "highest grossing film of all time" bit. I think Box Office Mojo actually has an "adjusted for inflation" page that lists the money films have made as adjust for the current year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My concern is whether inflation trumps the true amount of money made. The fact is what Titanic earned is a larger amount of notes and coin dispensed by moviegoers than those who saw Gone with the Wind. What would start happening then? Would we have to start inflating opening weekends every few years or so? It might be a WP:DATED violation. Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, inflation would be the "true" amount a movie has made. What I would simply state would be where it falls in "unadjusted" dollars, which is completely fine, then state where it falls in "adjusted", and then also compare ticket sales if that information is available--which someone (not us, but someone in that field of work) could calculate based on what they know ticket prices to be back then, compared to how much the movie made. We wouldn't have to re-adjust every weekend, heck, not even every year. Inflation doesn't go up that much, and generally whatever ranking you are currently (if you're top dog) you're going to be there still. Only new films are going to creep into the list, no old films are going to surpass some film that that have sat behind for the past 30 years. Do I think we need to ignore completely the unadjusted figures Cshay, no I do not, so please do not delete things that have been common practice without discussing it first. I appreciate you being bold, and I completely understand where you are coming from, but listing a film's ranking in unadjusted dollars is not wrong so long as it is clear that it is unadjusted dollars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
One thing to take into account is BOM only inflates the North America grosses. All we need to do is link List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada, and note it's just an NA thing BOM does. Alientraveller (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the inflation adjusted list of top movies. [1] Cshay (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not link to a Wikipedia article as a source. It's far too easy to mess with that information, as well as the fact that we cannot say that that page will be around forever. Someone might find problems with it years from now and delete it. It's best to link to a real source. That's fine that they o nly use NA grosses, just make sure that the sentence clearly states that this is ALL TIME NORTH AMERICAN, and you'll be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The link I provided above is a third party source. I'd like to add that I believe that Alientraveller still doesn't comprehend that the inflation adjusted figure is the only meaningful figure. Even now, he is editing articles in such a way that the inflation unadjusted figure is trumpeted as the most important, with the inflation adjusted figure being a sort of bit of trivia. I would request that he try to read a bit about what inflation adjusted statistics really mean. Cshay (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Never liked maths. Alientraveller (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Inflation is great, but that doesn't mean we should remove unadjusted figures. If it is relevant to include inflation adjusted, then it is probably relevent to include unadjusted and state in simple "dollar for dollar terms" this is the number. Personally, I like to see what it made in unadjusted dollars, in comparison with others, and then followed by the "But if you adjust it really is this". That's my personal preference for reading. Include everything that is relevant, and to me that is both of those rankings (unless the film is so far down that it doesn't matter for either one).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I found direct away links to IMBd in cast list?

That's the q. As in Dreamlanders. I've edited several film articles but never came across this rather than a red link, but I won't change it if it's something thats allowed. Thanks. MikP (WHAT?) 02:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, external links should go at the bottom in an "EL" section. See WP:EL for more info on using them. Specifically: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A film talk page that needs a little help

Today I came upon The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom. The talk page for this film does not have any of the film projects templates on it. I have not worked with these before and I know that there are specific items that the project likes to put on these pages and that they need to be nested. Anyone who can help in this situation your efforts will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Article now assessed and tagged for the Film project :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Added an infobox, more work is needed to improve the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
My thanks to all for the help. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rescuers

The article for the Disney film The Rescuers could really use some serious project help. It has excessive non-free images, a glut of trivia, almost no references (it has quite a few IMDB trivia section refs which have been removed), an 1166 word plot summary for a 77 minute film, three OR song sub-articles and an OR filled song section, a completely unsourced section on "Significance", and fails our MoS badly. I tagged it for most of these issues back in April, and no work has been done. There are, unfortunately, no experienced editors giving this article any of the attention it needs. So anyone want to jump in to tackle this article into decent shape? I'd do it myself, but I'm in an unrelated dispute one of those inexperienced editors who occasionally plays with the article, and he's claimed he will discount anything I tell him about the MoS, guidelines, etc. So I'm afraid if I do the needed clean ups, he'll just revert and start an edit war or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more inconsequential sections. I think that there is a lot of worthwhile content that just needs a lot of shaping up. I've watchlisted the article, and I'll see how else the article can be developed. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 05:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodtimes Film Notability Question

GoodTimes Entertainment is fairly well known as a distributer of low-budget films, especially low-budget animated films usually just distributed to bargin VHS and DVD. I'm curious as to whether the project considers these individual films to be notable or not. Most don't have articles, but a few do. I went through some today, and they were all lengthy plot summaries with no refs and nothing asserting any notability at all beyond, I guess, their existence: Aladdin (1993 film), Pinocchio (1993 film), The Three Musketeers (Golden Films film), Sinbad (1993 film), Thumbelina (1993 film), Beauty and the Beast (1993 film), The Little Mermaid (1993 film). Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it I always end up following you around here? :P But, to the point, if you don't see any assertion of notability, you can go ahead and prod them, if you like, or just be bold and try to find some sources. Some of these may be notable, some not. I would reccomend either taking these to AFD or prodding them, since they don't seem to be notable individual films. --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I would, but the person who created them and I have been in a recent conflict, and he's already been blocked twice for his harassment of me for AfDing some other stuff he created. So I figured before I do anything, I'd get some feedback here to be sure my view isn't colored by the conflict. I don't think they are notable myself, decent though they sometimes are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, since we agree that they may not be notable enough, I could AFD it myself, so it doesn't seem like you're trying to delete the person's contributions. How does that sound? --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. So far, I haven't seen any notability among those lists (or the rest, because there are more, but those were the first batch I looked at. {{Goodtimes}} if you want to check the rest (9 in all). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Needed copyedit

I have recently asked my fellow LoCE members to help me in copyediting Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film), an article in which I'm a major contributor, but we have a huge backlog at the requests page, and I was hoping someone from this project could help us out a bit, as I'm hoping to bring this to FA status eventually, but it needs a good copyedit before it can even reach GA. Anyone up for it? --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion - List of German language films

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A discussion which should be closed by now but for some reason isn't. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
God, it's still open? How the hell can it still be open after over a week has passed? I just don't get it... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD - Category:Punk filmmakers

Discussion can be found here Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The result was listify and delete the category. The article can be found here. Please feel free to help improve it. Lugnuts (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Low budget films category

I would still like to know about a low budget films category. I asked above if there is one as I don't see one in the cat list, unless I missed it. Shouldn't there be one? I will wait for responses on this. I've read the page on creating categories and I'm still not clear, can someone give me a little help on this, I'm willing to do it (create Category: Low budget films). MikP (WHAT?) 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once you're done, I'd love to see a link to that category on this talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a clear definition of "low budget"? I'm just trying to pre-empt someone taking it to CFD if/when the category is created! Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Something clearer probably has a better chance of success. (E.g. Category:Films produced for under $1 million. But this will still encounter problems for various reasons - inflation, exchange rates, and OR in some cases. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I will hold off for now. MikP (WHAT?) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe help expand/improve the article low-budget film? Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. Among other things, it includes the statement "For example, a comedy film made for $20 million would be considered a modest budget, whereas an action film made for the same amount of money would be considered low budget." Based on whose criteria? This to me constitutes POV, not fact. Also, nothing in the article is referenced. MovieMadness (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali

I am not sure whether it's against the rule to advertise a peer review here. Still doing. Please excuse me in case I am not following the protocol.

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak section on Pan's Labyrinth

I frequent the Pan's Labyrinth article, not because I feel I can add anything to it (GA already, yay!), but because it was *probably* my favorite film of '06. It's on my watch list, and I try to help manage what I feel is unnecassary. As of May 18, roughly 10 o'clock EST, nobody has responded to my concerns that a section entitled "Del Toro on this film's ending" may be problematic. From the start, it showed spelling and grammar problems. Those were corrected, but what we're left with is pretty uninformative. Mind you all, it is interesting, but I find it weak in comparison to the rest of the article, especially when we could take the sliver of information and add it to another section. Anybody agree? MwNNrules (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A section on critical interpretations may be warranted; within the context of such a section, his thoughts could certainly be added. In any case, it's far too thin to command its own section, and definitely not within the plot section, which is strictly supposed to be devoid of any outside interpretation (even from the creators). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. MwNNrules (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Marychan41 added it back a few days ago. I've been slow to it, but I plan to find a way to add the information somewhere appropriate. I'm still surprised by how long it's been there, considering how meager it is. --MwNNrules (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it to Reception for now, although a separate section for critical themes and interpretations may be warranted should sufficient references exist. The Plot section should be a straightforward and uncritical description, per our style guidelines, and any outside elaboration on the contents would be POV (even if it is by the filmmakers - see intentional fallacy). The work itself should be the sole source for the content of that section. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. --MwNNrules (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, an IMDb question

Is IMDb regarded as reliable source for the list of awards an actor received?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think stuff like the official Acamedy award website is more reliable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest using IMDb as a stepping stone. Sometimes non-notable awards are listed, so you can take the keywords from a film's award page and search for the main website (like the Academy Awards, as TheBlazikenMaster suggested). If you can't find a main website or if you find a website that seems too bloggish, then it is probably not worth inclusion. Another way is to check to see if an award has a Wikipedia article and review its references to see how prominent it is. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, guys. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If the IMDb is the only source for the award, I would imagine the award probably isn't notable - between official websites and press articles, there should be some more reliable source to mention it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure awards are newsworthy. That being said there must be a news report about them. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Letters from Iwo Jima: ridicoulously long plot (Continuation)

Okay, since it would ne unlikely that anyone would look at the previous section, I would like new posts to be centered here. Me and some editors have taken out quite a bit, but I still think that the plot section is overly long. So, I would like some editors to take a look at it again. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely getting there! I would suggest taking a few days away from it, in order to give yourself "fresh" eyes. It still feels fairly blow-by-blow, so I'd recommend continuing the process of minor pruning and consolidation/summarization. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of article, please

I would appreciate if someone could please re-evaluate Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). It was originally pegged as a stub, but the article has since been expanded and that original designation may not be adequate. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed to start. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If anyone else has input on this article, feel free to weigh in. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a more extensive review, then a project peer review might be in order. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I substituted an image of the videotape cover for the inappropriate sketch of Brel and completed the missing infobox data. I also rearranged the structure of the article and added a couple of additional production details I found. MovieMadness (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hancock

Hello, there is a dispute about the "Release" section at Hancock (film) having weasel wording. A couple of editors believe that this section has weasel wording and that it sounds like a press release. I'm in disagreement and have explained my stance on the article's talk page. I've been working pretty closely with this article, though, so I'd like some independent opinions and fresh eyes to review the passage and the arguments. Feel free to put me in my place if you think there is an issue after all. :) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson

WP:FILMS input would be welcome here. This is debate amongst the WP:PW booger eaters for some time. Check out this, too. --Endless Dan 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Movies that have began filming.

I have a question, how do we know the release dates of movies that have began filming? How do the movie makers know that? I mean for something like a fantasy movie it might be a harder job than it looks. There have been some movies that are in production but are sometimes been delayed because they are harder to make than the directors/producers thought. So my question is how do directors or producers know when the movie is going to be released? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be assumed any release date announced for a film still in production is somewhat tentative. Studios with a potential blockbuster frequently will reserve a highly desirable holiday weekend opening as much as two years in advance in order to keep the competition away. MovieMadness (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the film industry can depend on historical data to know the schedules for pre-production, production, and post-production. I'm sure that if filmmakers hire WETA Workshop, that company can tell them how long it would take to create effects based on their previous work. I agree with MovieMadness about holiday weekends -- after all, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull took in a huge haul over Memorial Day weekend. There are also summer weekends to consider. I read an opinion that Prince Caspian did not do as well as anticipated because it came out after Iron Man but before Crystal Skull. Also, films that may have a chance at winning awards is usually released before awards season around March. That's why the later winter months have very few quality films -- the possible award winners were released before the deadline, and studios save tentpole films for the summer. 300 is an exception to this and possibly a reason to why it hauled in so much, with so little competition. There is an film, Ashecliffe, being worked on by Martin Scorsese. From what I can tell, it's pretty well along in production, yet its release date is October 2 2009. That's the October after the next. I think this goes with what I said about awards season -- Ashecliffe may not be guaranteed to come out for the 2008 awards season, so it's being held off until it's close to the 2009 awards season. It would be cool to expand film release with this kind of information from reliable sources. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Erik, have you ever been to a movie school? I somehow have feeling that you have since you have so much knowledge on movie making. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with U2 3D critical reception

I've been working on U2 3D since its creation and all I need to do is expand the critical reception section before I nominate it for GA-status. I'm having a bit of a problem figuring what to write because it is a non-fictional concert film and with a 92% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, every critic seemed to say the exact same thing in their reviews. If anyone could help me out or give me some tips, I'd really appreciate it. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Horror films

Could someone review this article? It is currently B-class, but editors have suggested that it doesn't show an exact global view of Horror Films. Could someone give feed back? Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Low-Budget Films Taskforce

Has there ever been call for a task-force to focus on notable low-budget films, or is there an existing task-force with this subject in it's remit? Many fantastic directors such as Christopher Nolan, Robert Rodriguez, Darren Aronofsky, Peter Jackson and Richard Linklater, not to mention greats like Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, have started their careers with films made for as little as a few thousand dollars. A cursory glance through wikipedia will reveal film articles like Eraserhead, Slacker (film), Following (film), π (film), Clerks, El Mariachi and Bad Taste, not to mention articles like Low-budget film, which are in need of attention. With so many low-budget films being produced now given the low cost of digital video equipment, it'd be great to show a little love to those articles covering the best in low-budget filmmaking. JMalky (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic; George Lucas and Steven Spielberg also had begun their film careers with student-made films which nonetheless showed promise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
Exactly, the list is endless. I wonder though: would there be too much of a crossover with 'independent' films (a very loosely defined label), and perhaps even amateur filmmaking? If such a task force were to exist would it have to have a broader remit? I'm not sure how these things work.JMalky (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The crossover problem would be significant I agree, the article could turn into a haystack and would probably require budget information. All of my edits and new articles are pretty much of low budget films but they also fall into the b-movie, exploitation, independent, trash, ect...Is there even a category for "low budget films"? I don't see it in the list. If not then it should be made at least, in response to these inquiries.MikP (WHAT?) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess the other problem is that 'low-budget' is a very subjective category. As far as I'm aware, $1 million is considered low-budget in Hollywood. JMalky (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would still like to know about a low budget films category. I asked above if there is one as I don't see one in the cat list, unless I missed it. Shouldn't there be one? I will wait for responses on this. Thanks. MikP (WHAT?) 13:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel like there should be one, why not make one by yourself? Don't be afraid, you're more than welcome to make a category if you find it reasonable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read the page on creating cats and I'm still not clear, can someone give me a little help on this, I'm willing to do it. (create Category: Low budget films)MikP (WHAT?) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
May I refresh my question above regarding creating categories? It seems that a "Low budget films" cat is wanted, by the above statements. Thanks. MikP (WHAT?) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would err on the side of precision. "Category:Low-budget films" is rather amorphous in scope and can lead to large-scale fundamental disagreement about inclusion characteristics. On the other hand, "Category:Films produced for less than X" is more precise. That being said, you're still going to walk into a mess of problems, mainly because of issues of currency conversion, inflation, and relative budgeting (ie - a million-dollar film in some regions and periods is a big budget, in others is measly; so what is the category trying to organize?). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Excorcist-subliminal?

In The Excorcist talk page, one editor has been trying to prove that certain edits in the film are not subliminal. Though one editor who contested him/her didn't bring up great sources proving that the imagery is subliminal, it seems the editor who first posted that the imagery is not subliminal has no real source to prove this. Though the imagery might not be subliminal, a number of wikipolicy's were bought up showing that it was nobody's place to correct it if it wasn't, and that there should be no line saying that the imagery wasn't subliminal. The editor who first posted it didn't seem to listen to that, though. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am just wondering if we really need a section discussing weather or not the images are subliminal. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cats & Dogs

Moved to Talk:Cats & Dogs#Moved discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girolamo Savonarola (talkcontribs) 16:54, May 31, 2008

Need some help on The Flintstones (film) article

Some user IPs and users have been expanding the plot section and has been tagged for being too long. Also, I need some help fixing it up and it needs some sources. Can you come up with any ideas? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Task Force)

I propose a Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force, because I believe the film franchise is significant enough to warrent it. If the task force is made, and grows big enough, it could possibly a future Project. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be more appropriately proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, which was expressly created earlier this year for this purpose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it would become a Project because Projects generally need more than just 6 or 7 articles to work on. They are supposed to deal with dozens of articles. "Taskforce" is more realistic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant proposing this task force at that project. That is exactly what WP Mf is designed for. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I was referring to Eclipse's "If the task force is made, and grows big enough, it could possiblye [be] a future Project." Sorry if I wasn't clear on who I was directing my statement to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I, Claudius (film)

There is an AFD for this film ongoing here [2]. Even though this is also listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film I am posting this here to try and get a wider reaction (at least more than the four or five that seem to be the norm for these items) from any editors that are interested. Thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Got an encyclopedia of exploitation/cult movies?

Then you might look in it for Black Mama, White Mama: This looks to me as if it was lifted from somewhere. Morenoodles (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of that a bit, it truly is a dreadful article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Guatemalan/Haitian films

There seems to be an error with the List of Guatemalan films. The films in this list are Haitian. LeRoc (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

meta:Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film

Hello,

This page, that is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines ([3]), has been proposed for deletion on Meta. Do you think it would be appropriate here? Korg (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It'd be nice to create an essays section, anyway. I'll copy it over to my userspace for now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peeping Tom - Horror Film?

Is Peeping Tom a horror film? SteveCrook, an editor, doesn't think so. So every time some one tries to put a link that suggests it's horror in, he takes it out. All the while, the very simmilar Psycho which has links suggesting it is a horror film, doesn't get the same treatment from him/her. I think that Peeping Tom is certainly a horror film, and that this should be labeled so in the article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the revision history he only edits this article every few months or so. I want to tell you that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, if you want to prove Steve wrong find a reliable source that suggests it's in fact a horror movie. That's the only way to make it stay in the article. If you can't find a reliable source, it can't be part of the article. In fact the last time (according to history) he removed any references to it being a horror movie is in January this year. I fail to see how any of his more recent edits in that aritcle cut out where it says "horror". TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me add a comment here regarding the editor in question. Steve Crook is a historian, archivist and expert in the films of The Archers. He has been a very dedicated Wiki authority "on call" in regards to the works of director Michael Powell and writer Emeric Pressburger. There is considerable controversy over the subject matter of Peeping Tom that has led to its modern re-evaluation as a psychological thriller rather than a "pure" horror film, although I must admit, the distinction is rather nebulous. If it is germane, a note to Steve always produces a full and comprehensive answer to questions. He may not constantly monitor his email or wikisite but when he will respond, I can assure you that a thoughtful and reasoned explanation will result. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
Oh no, I'm not doubting he's a good editor, and I think that the article is pretty good, but I am still wondering how it should exactly be classed. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Production history articles

As part of the ongoing tug of war the people at the GAN page seem to be having over whether or not The Devil Wears Prada has been properly reviewed and listed, someone finally called me out on a tag I placed over a year ago calling for a separate article on the movie's production history, as the article is overly long. That followed this discussion here. I said I'd do it at the time, but I was so burned out after having worked on the article so intensely through December 2006 and January 2007 I just didn't want to go right back and do it anytime soon. So I kept putting it off in favor of other things.

I finally created Production history of The Devil Wears Prada this morning, and Girolamo asked me not to. I did, and after discussing it with him I decided to see if there was still the same consensus for doing that that there had been in March 2007.

I feel that this is justified not only in this particular case, since (unusually) almost everyone involved with the movie has said an awful lot (in interviews and the DVD commentaries) about the creative decisions they made and why they made them, information I believe is relevant and encylopedic; but also for other films with notable production histories (Blade Runner, for one, after the release of the 25th anniversary DVD set, has enough relevant and encyclopedic material in that long documentary about the making of the film).

So, does current WP:FILM consensus still see this as a good idea? Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How much is too much?

I know at one time the plot synopsis sections of film articles included a spoiler alert if key details were revealed, but these no longer are in use. How do editors feel about a plot synopsis that is so detailed it reveals everything about the film? I just saw Derailed and never anticipated a major plot twist which is revealed in the article about the film (which fortunately I read afterwards). Actually, had I known about it in advance there would have been no reason to see the film at all. Aren't there some things that should be kept under wraps for the benefit of those who haven't seen the film? Someone may refer to an article simply to get an idea of whether or not a film appeals to him or her, with no expectation of having the surprise twists or shocking ending revealed. Is there such a thing as going too far in a plot synopsis? Thanks for your feedback. MovieMadness (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. All film plots should include all major plot points/twists, including the ending. No, there are no things that should be kept "under wraps" for those who have never seen the film. If they don't want to know the full, they can get an idea of the film from the lead. The plot section's general link and heading (usually Plot), should be a clear indicator of its contents. See also the film MoS and WP:SPOILER. For a partial quote from the former: "Include plot twists and a description of the ending, content which is often perceived as a "spoiler". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, so spoilers should not be excluded or deleted under any circumstances; this would directly contradict the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Film Set Indices

There are a lot of films that need disambiguating through their own pages: Category:Film disambiguation pages and making them set index articles can help with with resolving the issue. {{SIA}} has been changed and you can now use {{SIA|films}} which will put it in "Category: Set indices on films" (which currently doesn't exist but can be put under Category:Set indices when it is started). Obviously it is down to the project whether you want it or not as they work best when under the supervision of a project. For example, it relaxes WP:MOSDAB so you can tailor the articles to suit your specific needs but it'd be wise to reach a consensus on any MOS changes, which could include:

  • More than one link per list item, but the link should be helpful - which here would probably involve the most notable person attached to this like the director or the star.
  • Redlinks are allowed but they do need to be referenced (using footnotes for neatness) and WP:REDLINKS still applies so someone's home movie can't be included.
  • Templates can be used

Anyway the ball is in your court - it strikes me this would be useful and The War of the Worlds (film) certainly helped with the problems that were occurring with so many films of the same name released in the same year. (Emperor (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Maybe you could elaborate? I was under the impression that most dabs look more or less like the War of the Worlds example you illustrated. (Minus the template, of course.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The WotW example isn't a good one for formatting, it just demonstrates how a focused set index can help disambiguate very similar articles on the same topic (. Better examples I've worked on include Sandman (comics) and Tempest (comics). Different topics have different requirements though, however, I note articles like Hitman (film) are not formatted according to WP:MOSDAB (compare the current version with my edit) but it could be argued that having the extra links for each list item, as well as redlinks actually improve the helpfulness of the page and make it more usable than the more general Hitman (disambiguation). It also makes it a separate and distinct article to the general disambiguation and avoids it being simply turned into a redirect (which happens often). Also note with the WotW example that hatnoting works on the various film pages (because the set index is so specific) where they'd otherwise be removed in accordance with WP:NAMB. So it is about creating an article focused on pages with similar names and similar topics to help differentiate between them and you may require extra formatting tools to help with this (as can be seen with the Hitman article) - the WotW set index is an example of how helpful such articles can be (more useful than a large general disambiguation page, if the project thinks this is helpful they could look into extra formatting that could be used to make the pages more useful - it may be nothing beyond WP:MOSDAB is required (in which case the pages themselves are useful), although the Hitman article suggests ore flexibility is seen as a good thing. (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
You're going to have to forgive me, but those all look to me like dab pages. Having links within the brief phrase descriptor for each item does not - to my mind - create a vastly different beast or require a new name or type to describe it. But that all being said, please do as you like - I just don't understand what it is you are asking of the project. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is the examples I give don't conform to WP:MOSDAB (it is the strictest of the MOS), equally in the usual run of things they'd be converted into redirects to the more general disambiguation page. As I say I have found the WotW article more useful then the general disambiguation page, I thought it would be helpful to have guidelines which allow you to make these pages and have more flexibility in what you can do with them.
I'm not trying to do anything with the disambiguation articles that are specific to films - I've largely been working on the comics-related ones and working with other editors from other topic areas to get a set index system up and running. I was noting that something like this looks like it would be useful for the films project (as it is for others I have contacted or will do). It is up to you all to decide if you want to make use of it. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Superhero films as action films

Hi WP:Films! I was working on the category:2000s action films, to seperate it between decades before the category becomes overcrowded. I've added several Superhero films which have all been edited by a user who is convinved they aren't action films. I've given him sources ranging from Allmovie and Rotten Tomatoes which are websites cited on several FA'd film articles but that still wasn't enough to convince the user.

My sources include:

  • Allmovie's article on superhero films as well as various films and their respected artciles mentioned.
  • Iron Man, Spider-man 2, X2 and Batman Begins make the the top action/adventure list. at rottentomatoes.
  • and I've cited two quotations from a recent book on action films.
  • "As a good number of action and disaster films and superhero films indicate, the action film has long been broadening it's appeal by appealing to younger viewers and family audiences."[1]
  • "particularly the films involving the superhero genre represent the large overlap of the aging down action movie".[1]
  • "many of the films in the last chapter provoke a certain comic book sensibility. Naturally, this will most manifest in the rash of action films based on comic book properties, one that begain in the 1990s."[2]. He goes on to list the superman series, the batman series, I'd go on and list them, but I think the proof is in the pudding. Can someone revert his edits for me? I don't want to be called on WP:3RR, and the opposing user has not provided me proof against my claims or for their claims that they aren't action films either. I know genre arguements are the bain of wikipedia, but can anyone help settle this?  :) Cheers.
  1. ^ a b Lichtenfeld, 2007, pg. 322
  2. ^ Lichtenfeld, 2007, pg. 286

Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All superhero movies have action scenes in them. That's why the category Superhero films is a subcategory of Action films by genre. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of this, but that doesn't change the idea that i'm trying to categorize them by "Category:2000s action films" or "Category:1990s action films" where appropriate. These are being repealed, they should stay! Correct? Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't see why we can't make categories like 1990s superhero films or 2000s superhero films. I believe superhero movies have been since the first movie of Superman was made. Sure, they weren't made as often as they're made today, but my point is category like this would be way more useful than action movies by decade. Think of it, there are plenty of movies involving guns made every year, so I believe that action movies by decades is already overcrowded, I really think superhero movies by decade (like 2000s Superhero films) is way more useful in this case. Of course those categories should also include movies about Superheroes that are made for a particular movie. (My Super Ex-Girlfriend being a good example.) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd support this solution, it's easier to support with extant citations in most articles. ThuranX (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with someone making a superhero films by decade category. But You bring up a good point that not all are action films. The more parody based and comedy based films like your mentioned My Super Ex-girlfriend and films like Superhero Movie are more parody or comedy-esque tribute to the genre rather then being one. Somewhat like how Frenzy is a parody/tribute to thriller films, but who would call it a thriller film? That might be why these deserve the "2000s action" tag more then the superhero one. As I've cited my sources. I think I may go edit the superhero film article right now to add some textual sources to the superhero genre page confirming my point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have to say it shouldn't be a major cause for concern, certainly not a reason for anybody's good faith edits to be blocked. There is a good reason for listing all action films in those lists given that there are other specific subgenres of action too such as buddycop etc which all go in the list. I don't have any objections to seperate lists but what I would suggest is that if the decade pages become "too crowded" with all the films, then you should split by year. This way it shouldn't be a porlbem to list all films e.g like Template:Americanfilmlist but for the later years as of course action didn't exist back in 1896!. I believe both parties involved here mean good faith. Hope this helps ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, but even comedy superhero movies have villains. My Super Ex-Girlfriend has one (though he just wants to be left alone), and Superhero movie, which is a parody has one. Sure they aren't all action but most of them are. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there is no need to manually create intersection categories anymore, now that dynamic category intersection searching has been implemented. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment comparisons

Editors may be interested in viewing Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Comparison to see where WP Films stands in relation to other WikiProjects in size, assessment, and featured articles. In short, it appears that we are doing very well! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nom for Category:Films set in the 1800s

Discussion for the above category, and other decade categories here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nom for Category:Films featuring a Best Actress National Award winning performance

Not a nomination for deletion, as such, more a discussion which can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AFI announces top ten films of ten genres

The American Film Institute has announced the top ten films in ten different genres (animation, fantasy, gangster, sci-fi, westerns, sports, mystery, rom-com, courtroom drama and epics). I offer the ability to copy and paste the cite for use in whatever article you safekeep. Alientraveller (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, super. Thanks for that. I suggest to those looking to add this information to individual articles that a little context is provided alongside. Something along the lines of:

In June 2008, the American Film Institute revealed its "Ten top Ten"—the best ten films in ten "classic" American film genres—after polling over 1,500 people from the creative community. [FILM X] was acknowledged as the [Xth] best film in the [Y] genre.

Steve TC 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was about to start working on adding this, so I'll take advantage of reference and the statement, if that's okay. (Sorry about the accidental erasure that I returned). Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I do have a question on this. Is the ComingSoon.net site stable with its pages? And what about the actual AFI page with the genre listing? Would that be a better source, or perhaps added it in addition to the ComingSoon.net? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
To reference the AFI directly, use something like:

{{cite news | publisher = [[American Film Institute]] | title = AFI's 10 Top 10 | date = [[2008-06-17]] | url = http://www.afi.com/10top10/scifi.html | accessdate=2008-06-18}}

Though that could use some tweaking to your own personal citing preferences, and to reflect the correct genre, which I've just noticed I've messed up on all the ones I've done so far. Gah. Steve TC 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

General ref

Hello. I recently rewrote List of Italian submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and would like to try for featured list status, but I need a general reference that lists the submissions. An example of one is this for List of Japanese submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, which I also wrote and is at WP:FLC right now. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. I posted a similar request at the Italian cinema task force, but it appears to be inactive at the moment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding categories "Films over X hours"

This note is being placed on the talk pages for both the film project and the television project as the discussion will overlap their articles. Also, I am posting this on these projects discussion pages as there are too many articles involved to list these on each separate shows talk page.

Recently User:24.129.100.84 began adding [[Category:Films over xx hours long]] to the pages of various television serials and miniseries. I have removed these based on the fact that these categories have usually been reserved for films that have had a theatrical release. I cannot find this listed as a specific criteria so this is the first point to which I would like both projects to come to a consensus. Should TV programs be considered films for these categories?

Some made for TV films may fit this category as long as it is the official runtime, sans commercials, that we are basing this on. But to list television miniseries and serials as films is a misnomer. They are usually broadcast over multiple nights and have breaks which include closing and opening credits between the episodes.

As one example this editor keeps adding Category:Films over three hours long to the Prime Suspect page. None of the episodes in the nine stories that made up the seven serials was ever more than two hours long. Even if one serial was broadcast on one day (as happened a few times on cable TV in the US) one still saw the closing credits of episode one, then a break which included other programing such as highlights of shows to come, and then the opening credits for episode two.

A look at this users contributions page [4] will show how many TV programs and miniseris have had these categories added to them. Should a consensus be reached that these categories might apply then we will need to set some criteria for what does and what does not fit the wording of the categories. My thanks to you for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the work hasn't been released theatrically and was expressly created for television presentation, then the work should not be in a film category. (Whether or not WP Television wishes to create Category:Television programs over... or the like is their prerogative, of course.) Therefore, Berlin Alexanderplatz is okay, since it's seen theatrical release, but Prime Suspect would not since it hasn't (IIRC). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

According to IMDb, these are all three-hour TV movies. I have not added any "mini-series" to the category.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source for entries on Wikipedia and this is a good example why. For one thing they have their own terminology for things which does not match ours. You have added several miniseries to the categories including Salem's Lot (1979 TV mini-series) and V (The Original Miniseries) which tell you in their titles that they both multinight TV programs. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Today, these "mini-series" are ALWAYS aired as one big film. They are never re-run in different parts.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, if they are created to air on television, they need to fit within the Television category scheme, not Film's. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of these films have been released on video as one big film, and some of them have been released in theaters and/or screened at film festivals.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The video issue is a subjective one, since oftentimes large television series are packaged together in their entirety anyway. If you can reliably source theatrical screenings, however, then those may qualify for the category. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New templates

User:Last Contrarian has recently been created a number of new templates for film awards, including Template:FilmfareCriticsAwardBestMovie, Template:NationalFilmAwardBestFeatureFilm, Template:NationalFilmAwardBestActor, possibly more as well. This could, conceivably, result in some articles getting a possibly excessive number of templates. Has anyone any ideas about these templates, and the possible use of them? John Carter (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, and I do not think that there is a way to implement the templates. All the templates link to decent layouts of the awards, so I think it would be best to point to these articles instead. Perhaps a note can be left with the editor explaining the possibility of excess and linking as a less crowded alternative? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note - I believe the current precedent for the Oscars is that we have a winners template only for Best Picture. It might not be unreasonable to permit equivalent top awards as a sole exception to such a rule. Otherwise, succession boxes should be sufficient for all other awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure if that's the best precedent, either. What seems to work OK is the succession box like at the bottom of Gladiator. Why do we cover the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and the Golden Globes in the succession box, but Oscars are the only one to have a full-blown template. The succession box itself links to the list of winners. Why are we compelled to show all the Oscar winners of a particular decade? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an overwhelming problem with doing it either way, so long as we are consistent. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Those would be very useful for awards sections, but I somehow doubt they will be at the bottom of the page. Why not? We have template for movies like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and No Country for Old Men, so why not? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)There are templates for all the major awards categories for Oscars, and in my opinion, they are bothersome and redundant and only serve to clutter up the bottom of the page. If it were up to me, I'd banish all of these types of templates. The succession boxes fill this need nicely and it's just too much busy-ness at the bottom of the pages for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. But what's the decision? Should these tamplates remain and be used in articles? ShahidTalk2me 10:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Wildhartlivie re: succession boxes. I find them, to pharaphrase "bothersome and redundant". They look messy, unprofesional, and require more maintence than a template IMO (say, on a page move, for example). I recently created a set of templates for Oscar-winning films in some of the minor categories (best short subject and best documentary short), and I think the articles look fine with them. Lugnuts (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Nothing but Trouble films

There are 3 Wikipedia articles on films from different years titled Nothing but Trouble and they are listed on the Nothing but Trouble disambiguation page. I recently added a reciprocal link from each of the 3 articles back to the disambiguation page for, what I thought, was an obvious reason: to let a reader pick on which film they want to read the appropriate article in case they were directed to the wrong one through a Wiki-link from another article. My reciprocal links were removed by another editor who quoted WP:NAMB as the guideline advising against such hatnotes.

I wanted to ask for a second/third opinion from the film community on whether or not such reciprocal links/hatnotes are appropriate or not. I was of the opinion that they are but I just thought I'd ask since there seems to be disagreement.

Thanks! SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the hatnotes are completly appropriate in this case. Yes, if I searched for Nothing But Trouble (1918 film), I'd expect to go to the 1918 article, regardless of how many other films share that name. However, if I'm directed to the article by another means, say clicking an incoming link (Snub Pollard, American films of 1918, Harold Lloyd filmography, etc) or via browsing a category (Category:1918 films, Category:Films directed by Hal Roach, etc), I'd be curious to know what other films shared this title. The only way I could do that is by typing Nothing But Trouble into the search box, rather than just clicking on the hatnote. I think the guidance at WP:NAMB is a bit conflicting. Lugnuts (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with both of you here. Per NAMB, However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). Therefore, since the articles are in the same field and are all about films, it is also not unreasonable to expect that one might also be confused as to which year's film they wanted, which would pass the NAMB standard. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Near future in film at AfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Primer (film) Passed as Good Article

Many thanks to JimDunning and Bzuk for their contributions and suggestions. JMalky (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say congratulations - I've seen the film some time ago, I think it's great - not only as a science fiction film but also because it shows how much you can do with a micro-budget if you are creative enough. Definitely something that deserves a Good Article on Wikipedia :-) Keep it up. Timbouctou (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kite Runner

This article is a mess. Maybe someone who has seen it and is a better writer than I am can clean it up. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to have been the subject of a number of editors who have set off in different directions. I will take a more detailed look this week after I clean up some other work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 7782 articles assigned to this project, or 17.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, terrific tool! Shall definitely be signing up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Release date problems

Well, after observing there being only one date on Knocked Up's page, I checked IMDB, and to my surprise, there are many dates. While I think they need to be covered, how? Perhaps they can be put into a reference? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Only the first release in the country of origin, and its first English release dates are generally notable. See WP:FilmRelease. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd list the first release date (premier) and the release date of either the US or UK (depending which country it's from), or release date for the country of origin. I wouldn't want to list them all, even in the body of the article. Look at the mess from the INLAND EMPIRE article from last year [5]! (edit conflict) - oh, and per AnmaFinotera, too! Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally the only notable dates are the initial premiere (if different from the general release), the date in the originating country, and the date in English-speaking countries (since this is the English Wikipedia). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is a little contradiction in how we handle release dates and removing {{Future film}}. From what I've seen, films are no longer considered upcoming when they have experienced some sort of commercial release, either limited or wide. If a film premieres at a film festival, it's still not quite publicly available. For example, Blindness (film) opened at Cannes, but it was not received a great deal of coverage and is not released until September. A more recent example is Hancock (film), which just premiered today at a film festival. However, we still perceive it as a future film. So in the case of listing release dates in the infobox, is it really imperative to list a film festival release date? Yet another example is 300 (film), which is widely acknowledged as a 2007 film, though IMDb marks its release year as 2006 because of its release at a film festival in December 2006. (It was still marked as a future film until its commercial release in 2007.) I don't oppose mentioning a film's premiere at a film festival in the body of the article, but I am not sure if it is compelling enough to be identified as a critical release date in the infobox. Thoughts on that? Should I take this to WT:MOSFILM? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it also depends on the distribution deal - many films just tour the festival circuit for a year or two, and may not go onto general release on film or video for years if not decades; others just use the festival circuit to build up buzz prior to a general release. Therefore, I would have to say that if a general release has already been announced, then the future film tag should drop upon general release. However, if there isn't one upcoming, then the film may only publicly exist within its festival life. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What are some examples of this? I've worked with mostly mainstream films, so I can't think of any that meets this criteria off the top of my head. Since this isn't quite in relation to the initial topic of Knocked Up, I can start a new topic to discuss this at WT:MOSFILM. The Distribution section at MOSFILM has only one sentence, so perhaps we could tweak the criteria for release dates in the film infobox and point to #Distribution for further detail. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
By their nature, they're a fair bit harder to find, since they aren't distributed films. The first film that comes to mind is We Can't Go Home Again, a film directed by Nicholas Ray that has had many festival engagements and regularly tours in retrospectives, but has had no commercial release or video release that I know of. I am sure that with enough time, I could easily surface several dozen other notable films that I am aware of which have similar situations. But my basic point is that many notable films go to festivals, and not all of them get picked up, ergo some will not receive a release until long after the festival dates - if ever. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the release date in the infobox should be the date it first goes into general release, no matter what the movie's country of origin is. I believe Sex and the City opened in the UK before it opened in the US. In that case, I would list both country's opening dates. I don't think film festival showings should be used, since techinally the movie isn't "released" yet. And "premieres" often are held two or three weeks before the movie actually opens to the public. If you're going to call it a "release" date, shouldn't it be the date it's released in theaters to the general public? That's just my opinion. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 in film

2008 in film has been subject to vandalism by IP addresses, the trouble is I do not know enough to judge if it has been fixed by other IP addresses or if it is serial vandalism. Please can someone who knows what the figures should be check and fix the numbers if the need it. If the page is out of kilter because of accumulated vandalism, let me know by leaving a message on my talk page and I'll block IP addresses from editing the page for a wile. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Woman

Hello, I am looking for additional input about handling the different page histories for the animated film in production and the live-action film in development hell. Please see Talk:Wonder Woman (film) and share your thoughts. I've been in touch with Gwen Gale (see discussion), who will make the adjustment if there is consensus for it. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"American films of..." articles

Per naming conventions, list articles need to begin with "list of". There are a very large number (between 70-80, approximately: See List of American films of 2008 for a listing of all articles in infobox) of American film articles beginning with "American films of (year)" that need to be moved accordingly. Are there any suggestions as to how one would do this? While it is always possible to do so manually, it would take a considerable amount of time to, and I could use some assistance in doing this. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

I agree with the renaming standard and would be happy to help. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've started work from the 1900s onwards. Feel free to start from the 2000s and work your way back. You'll need to ensure you fix the redirects on the templates {{Americanfilmlist}} and {{Americanfilms1900s}}. Good luck! Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the assistance! --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Green tickY Done. Boosted up my edit count a bit, also. ;-) --Mizu onna sango15/珊瑚15 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And nobody thought to discuss this between more than just two people? What if the "lists" were developed into detailed articles covering each year in film???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at the current state, they're merely lists, and the titles are incorrect. If someone wants to convert them into full articles, they can be easily moved back, can't they? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about entirety of the Italian, French, Spanish, Mexican, Japanese, Hong Kong, British, Bollywood, Tamil, Telugu, Filipino, Israeli, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Portuguese, Argentine, Brazilian films etc etc are named this way? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Platoon (film) plot

Hi, another editor has requested a second opinion on the subject of the plot length at this article, here. Anyone wanting to pop their heads around the door is more than welcome. Steve TC 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Film director or film crew infobox?

Is there an infobox suitable for using in articles about film directors? It seems like there should be, but I can't find one.

While I was looking, I did find a discussion in the actor infobox talk archive suggesting that a more general film crewmember infobox would be of wider use than a specific film director infobox, but there doesn't seem to be one of those either. —Paul A (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really more of a WP:WPBIO question, really. (Or the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

True. In fact, it turns out that the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup - whose existence I somehow completely failed to notice - have the answer to my question on their main page. Clearly I still have work to do on my leet stuff-finding skillz...

Thank you for your time. —Paul A (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about anthropomorphic category

The category Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters seems a bit odd to me. Some films, obviously, fit... Song of the South, for example, has the animal characters wearing clothing. Winnie the Pooh has characters partaking in human activities, such as gardening or using chairs/tables. How does The Lion King or other movies where the characters merely talk qualify? I think the editors of that article were looking for Personification, which states "gives an inanimate object or abstract idea human traits and qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations, physical gestures and speech". In this case, the statues in Disney's Hunchback would qualify, as would the tree in Pocohantas. Completely different from anthropomorphic. Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there some movies (such as Garfield) that include one or very few animals that act like humans, wait bad example. I got even a better one. How about movies like The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian that are fantasy movies who focus on human characters? Agreed, this could be very crowded. But in my opinion all forms are valid. Yes, I know my two examples suck ass, but you made a damn good example. About Lion King, it COULD be just lions with nothing unordinary and were only dubbed into English from their animal language. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Films that shouldn't qualify, I believe: Bambi; Bolt; Brother Bear; Dinosaur (film); Finding Nemo; Lion King et al; Pocohantas; Princess and the Frog (film not released; status not known); Snow White; etc. If the only issue is animals talking to each other (not to humans), then they should be pulled from the list. Animals going to school is questionable, as animals do go through a learning process of some form or other as they grow up. Animals learning to tie ribbons is something that can be trained and is not anthropomorphic. Should I just go through and pull the category from select films as I see fit (commenting on each one as necessary)? SpikeJones (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I told you my examples sucked, but I'm wondering, can you give any examples of live action movies? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think one should just pull films with which one doesn't agree, not after opening a line of questioning regarding this. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the division of meaning or the logic in this. According to Anthropomorphism: "Subjects for anthropomorphism commonly include animals depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and converse." Anthromorphism is a much broader term than simply engaging in human ascribed tasks, and covers a wide variety of things, "including non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts." (ref [6]). Animals conversing, reasoning, going on a search for lost children, kidnapping, attending classes (different than basic learning ascribed to animals in the real world), depictions of "bad guy animals" vs. "good guy animals" such as in The Lion King, are all valid descriptions under that definition. I agree with TheBlazikenMaster, all forms are valid. As an aside, I believe the Wikipedia article on Personification is in error regarding its description of anthromorphism as "a particular form of personification which gives such traits to tangible objects or natural phenomena" while ignoring the definition given of anthromorphism elsewhere. It isn't in accord with dictionary definitions or other articles on WP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, any movie that shows an animal conversing with another animal (dubbed into English so filmgoers can understand what the animal is saying), would qualify under Anthromorphism if taken literally. Even Lassie, trained to tell humans that "a boy has fallen into a well" via barks, or the movie Bruce Almighty, where God told a dog to use the toilet in a human-fashion, would qualify. There should be a fine dividing line: animals that wear clothing or perform human-like actions (hats or pants, play sports, garden) are anthromorphic. Animals that merely talk to each other... but not to humans... in order to convey some semblance of story for the audience, do not. Animals that are the focus of the story (Lion King) but don't exhibit non-animal behavior other than following a plot, don't. Animals that are self-aware in acting in a human environment (madagascar, happy feet), does. If there isn't some sort of finite definition, then we'll have a list of practically every movie ever made where a dog merely covers its eyes as its owner gets hit in the groin. SpikeJones (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Exactly. Although, personally, I'd disagree with the Lassie example, the Bruce Almighty dog is displaying anthropomorphic characteristics, as the word is defined. The problem is that the determination of what is or isn't anthropomorphic can be quite POV, and determining a dividing line is, too. As TheBlazikenMaster said, it's all valid. Maybe you should open a request for comment on the category? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A question

Please refer to the discussion at User talk:Ed Fitzgerald. Does anyone else agree with this editor's claim that his version of an article is superior should be considered a fact, rather than an opinion? I am not asking if you agree that his version of the article in question is superior, only if an editor can claim that his contribution is better than another's is a fact rather than a POV. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A better question to ask is for other editors to weigh in on the different revisions to see which one is most appropriate and establish a consensus. Your question is indicative of a discussion that is not too amicable, so feel free to outline the situation without involving any vitriol toward one another. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the issue I raised. I'm not interested in a general consensus about the quality of the different revisions. I'm interested in knowing if others feel an editor can claim it's a fact, instead of a POV, that his writing is better than someone else's without being a little bit of an egomaniac. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue needs to be changed. You are both having a disagreement that is unpleasant, and your request will only aggravate the exchange further. The answer to your question is obvious, and I highly suggest that if you want a civil resolution, to ask a more useful questions which other editors at WP:FILM can answer based on their editing experience. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for everyone's information, I've conceded the point to the anonymous editor, or, rather, I've run out of energy I don't have the information needed to pursue the argument. If he or she is willing to let things lie on the article as they are now, I'm willing to as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates in film articles

Hello, I've started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Templates regarding the usage of actor templates and other templates. Please share your thoughts! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Indian actors at AfD

The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fires on the Plain peer review?

Could somebody submit Fires on the Plain for a peer review, as I'm not quite sure how to. Do I just put the name of the film on the peer review section? any help would be appreciated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMR#PEER has step by step instructions. Just follow each step one at a time, and you'll be fine. Let me know when you've done it and I can double check it for you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I did everything properly, so I'll be back soon to see what's happened. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all looks good :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is it isn't appearing on my screen... I'll log out and then go back on. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about including movie ratings

If there's a standard policy about including movie ratings in articles, I can't seem to find it, or I'm not looking in the right place. Alternatively, is there a standard practice? I looked at a few movie articles. Some include the information, some do not. It seems to me the movie infobox should have a line for this, but I didn't see one there anyway. Any thoughts? NMS Bill (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, we do not include movie ratings, as including one would be biased to one country, yet including many would be indiscriminate. Rather, it is preferrable to discuss censorship where ever it may occur, such as Hancock receiving a PG-13 after it twice received an R, or Live Free or Die Hard being a PG-13 unlike the other films. Alientraveller (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, that definitely makes sense to me. I thought there might be an international-based reason for non-inclusion. Thanks NMS Bill (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It is sort of related to internationality. There are many film articles that only have a MPAA rating, which establishes a sort of systemic bias favoring the United States. On the other hand, listing all the ratings does not really provide any context for the film. Any rating information that has been significantly covered by reliable sources is worth noting, but it may be that the template for movie certificates would warrant a discussion for deletion. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is {{Infobox movie certificates}} which can be used for this information. PC78 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie Tab

I've been seeing the emergence of a new review aggregate website called Movie Tab. It's been added onto Critical reaction sections with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, two websites I think we have established community consensus for inclusion. However, unlike RT (published by IGN Entertainment, Inc) and MC (CNET Networks, Inc), Movie Tab appears self-published. Unlike the two published websites, Movie Tab does not seem to have any press coverage in Google News Search. Despite this, it has been implemented in nearly 30 articles, based on this. I don't feel that it has any credentials and repute to include in Wikipedia film articles, so unless evidenced otherwise, it should be fully excluded. Thoughts? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; to my eternal shame I was just too lazy/busy to bring this up myself. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are enough without Movie Tab's redundancy. Steve TC 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've been bold and killed it. It's merely duplicating information contained in the others, and it's not a proven reliable source. RT and Metacritic aren't perfect, but at least they've some little transparency. Steve TC 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Hopefully the removal isn't too much of an issue for other editors. I would like to hear other editors' thoughts on the inclusion of Movie Tab so we can point to this particular discussion in the future if the website is re-added. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that should a consensus form that Movie Tab ratings are OK for inclusion alongside RT and Metacritic, I will of course be happy to carry out the leg-work of reverting my own removal of said entries from those articles. Steve TC 22:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Movie Tab should be included. The site offers a wider selection of critics when compared to Metacritic, often twice as many. The scores are often different enough on the two sites that I think this should warrant inclusion of Movie Tab. Dorkside TC 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This still does not address the fact it does not have a publisher (self-published, essentially) and lacks news coverage, where Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have both. I request for other editors to weigh in about this, as I messaged Dorkside about this discussion after I found that he was adding Movie Tab content after the mass removal. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Films by loction at CfD

The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Western film task force

I'm considering settnig up a western film task force. This would include both films and Category:Western film actors and related articles. If anybody is interested please put your name down. Any comments Giro or Nehrams? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I have an issue with that category. Most actors are in movies from all categories. My question is how is that category useful? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is sufficient support, I'd be more than happy to create the task force. Not so certain about including actors, though - for one, we don't cover them in our scope, and secondly, many if not most of them also have notable roles outside of the genre. Including every actor involved in a genre would undoubtedly lead to overwhelming numbers of actors being so tagged, and I'm dubious that this will be of much use. How are we defining Western film, btw? (This will become an issue at some point, so might as well decide now.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
One way to determine if a film is part of a Western genre is to check notable websites how they categorize a film. For example, The New York Times shows The Missing as a Western in its overview. What are some films that may not be so clear? Perhaps we could compare them. If a Western film task force was created, it would be terrific to see The Searchers as a Featured Article. I recall placing a lot of journal detail on its talk page some time ago. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
To name a few, No Country for Old Men, Brokeback Mountain, Hud, Sholay, Die Hard, Yojimbo, Tampopo, etc... If you read the Western film article, especially as it gets to genre studies, there are several fundamental questions raised about what a western is - does it matter when/where it is set, or is it just a type of plot structure? Perhaps more pertinently for us, if it is mentioned as a western or western-type plot in one or two critical studies, is that enough, or are we plasticizing the definitions too much? (Much as how noir has now diffused out widely.) (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So long as there are enough people interested in starting it, I don't see why not. However, I don't think it should include the film actors (perhaps a task force can be created at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that can collaborate with the Western films one from this project). Would this project be developing a category listing of the known Western films (based on outside sources)? If it doesn't already exist, this would be a good place to start to determine the size of the task force. Obviously it's known there are numerous Western films, but it would be a good idea to know which ones they are. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi people. thanks for the quick response. Yes I know there are some dubious western films. Wow Back to the Future III now theres a classic western LOL. Most of the time though there are elements to a western film that can distinguish it as of that genre. The reason I mentioned actors also was because some of the characters in the film or actors are repeatedly used in many of the films, particularly in the SPaghetti westerns and they play an important part in the genre. I know there are many websites dedicated to the actors and spotting the actors in each film as a bandit or hotelier etc. Other than this I know Giro wanted to increase collaboration between film and actor projects which I full agree with as they are so closely tied. If there is enough interest I just think it would be a good idea to have a focus on westerns as a genre, given that we have thing slike James Bond etc, a project which covers the entire western genre from the Great Train Robbery to The Wild West. My personal focus would be on westerns of the classic Hollywood era, particularly John Wayne, and Spaghetti westerns of the 1960s and 1970s which needs an enormous amount of devleopment on actors and films and would tie in with my work on Italian and Spanish cinema also. Adding to what Erik said about the Searchers above, it would be great to have collaboration on articles specific to the western film genre and get articles like The Searchers, Magnificent Seven, the Dollars trilogy etc up to FA status and have a way we can improve the content within its own sub department. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Echoing some of the comments above, I think that Western Films can be a specific genre to develop although some of the actors who have appeared in westerns, Tommy Lee Jones, Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis, Julie Christie and other contemporary actors, would probably stretch credibility a bit. Jimmy Cagney and Humphrey Bogart took turns at the oaters as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

If we included actors, I;d recommend we set a guideline for an actors inclusion. E.g at least four films or something or five films of the wetsern genre ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

Please sign here if you would like to become a participant in the proposed Western films task force.

TfD nomination of Template:Steve Martin

Template:Steve Martin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also some more templates in Category:Film actor templates that should be deleted per the precendent too. I nominated the Eleanor Powell one a while back, and the result was keep! Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Should I add these templates to the TFD? Or do you think it's too late to do so? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be added as a group nomination, like an earlier purge. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
For info, User:Cobaltbluetony has gone and deleted the Chaplin and Keaton templates, claiming they were re-created after a delete vote on this discussion. Neither of those templates had the conclusion of delete, infact they both got the keep vote, based on them being films they directed. I've left a note on his/her talk page, asking for the situation to be reviewed. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I tagged these two; I did not see any specification toward directorship with either template. The TFD seems to be all-encompassing in regard to the templates; the closing admin did not seem to highlight what was supposed to be kept or not. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There were a handful of films in each of their templates that they acted in, but did not direct, but the bulk of the films were the ones they directed. I've asked for the two templates to be restored (the actual TfD result for those two was no-consensus), and I'll remove the films they acted in and didn't direct. I support the deletion of any actor-only templates. Lugnuts (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:MOSFILM

Hi. Comments and suggestions are welcome over at WT:MOSFILM on a proposed amendment to the style guideline which will hopefully make MOSFILM a more useful tool to those crafting critical reception and release sections of articles. Thanks, Steve TC 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force

I've been trying to propose a Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force, which would improve Wikipedia's articles on all the films and the characters in this series, because it is a significant film franchise, in terms of the horror genre. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the small number of articles in its scope, I can't help but think that this would be a huge waste of resources spent handling the organizational overhead required to create and maintain a task force structure for a handful of articles. Nonetheless, this would not be the place to make such a proposal - Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series already exists for the purpose of integrating such task forces. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you do create one, let me know. I'd love to help.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be discouraging, by the way - I'm simply trying to show that adding on the workload of maintaining a task force is so disproportional to what (by my count) are currently 9 articles, that it makes no sense and has no efficiency. If you look at our task force statistics, even the smallest task forces have 150-200 articles, while the vast majority have well upwards of several hundreds (or even thousands) of articles. What you may want to look at is the WikiProject Council's guide to topic coordination, which is more appropriate for this scale of articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
What about WikiProject Saw? It doesn't exactly have 100 articles, but it is a fully fledged project, and didn't exactly have the same influence on the horror genre as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And if you look at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre template, there is more than 9 articles on the entire franchise.--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that no examples are allowed? I disagree with you that's the case. But I agree that the existence of Saw doesn't mean TCM will be automaticlly accepted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest reading the link, because that is not my point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
These things need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, not based on if something else exists then this thing should. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And if one wants to get into particulars, the opposite proposition also exists (which is really my point) - that WP Saw probably should be moved to a task force of WP Fictional series, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A fairly germane point would be that WP:WikiProject Saw doesn't appear to be very active at all. In fact, it seems to border on complete inactivity, which is a risk one runs with such a small single-purpose project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Expert Needed for Cinema of France

I need an expert to look at and add information to the Cinema of France article. I'm interested in this topic and have tried to improve it as much as I can without having too much knowledge on the history of the subject. Especially from the 70s on, the article is just a few notable moments in French cinematic history, I'd love if someone who knows about the topic can go and give a good history of French cinema. Thanks for any help. - Dalta (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Little Miss Sunshine now open

The A-Class review for Little Miss Sunshine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Catdiffuse on Category:Science fiction films

This category has grown sufficiently large to earn a catdiffuse template. A logical approach would be to sub-divide the list by time periods. As this is a much smaller list than Category:Films, however, it might make sense to sub-divide by decade rather than year. Any thoughts? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Horror films already does this by decade, so this sounds like the right approach. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if a split is warranted. 500 or so articles doesn't seem like such a huge amount. By comparison, Category:2000s horror films alone has more than 700. PC78 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, it was tagged with {{catdiffuse}} almost two years ago. :) PC78 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Good gravy! Well, I'm looking at WP:CATEGORY#Organizing categories, and it recommends {{catdiffuse}} "...For large categories that will require continual diffusion into sub-categories (such as categories of people)." Not working with categories too often, I don't know what a "large" category means. Has this been defined elsewhere? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. I've asked over at the page you linked to, so we shall see. PC78 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
...and the reply I got strongly suggests that we need not bother. Personally I think splitting the category up would be a lot of effort for minimal gain. I shall therefore remove the tag instead. PC78 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That works. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Building better plot summaries

I've worked up a potential guideline on how to write plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I welcome input from members of this project as I try to move the page to guideline status. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of filming terms

I've noticed a few articles on filming terms that use (film) to disambiguate the specific term, and I think this is an inappropriate disambiguation for articles not about individual films. I think we should expand WP:NCF to set a standard for disambiguating the terms. Here are the various formats I've found:

I think that "film term" seems to be a fair enough catch-all, but I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of these should be moved to more properly reflect naming conventions, for example, "shot" which should be disambiguated with "(filmmaking)" rather than "(film)", which implies that the article is about a film entitled Shot rather than a technique used in filmmaking. There are many others like this one on the list. I'll wait until more feedback first, but I'll likely move these if there's no objection. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So are you advocating "filmmaking" as the disambiguation term? I'm just trying to sidestep any fallacies in using a term, since "filmmaking" may not be accurate. For example, a certain way of marketing a film that needs to be disambiguated would not technically be filmmaking. Hence why I'm considering "film term" to be the catch-all. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the above that "film" is an unacceptable disambiguator which could lead to confusion with actual film articles. I have no strong feelings over a preffered disambiguator, though I was leaning towards "filmmaking". I do think "terminology" would be better than "term", though. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistake Erik, PC is right; it should be "film terminology", because of accuracy and simplicity. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "film terminology" works well, too. Let's hear from more editors to establish a solid consensus so we don't deal with a shuffling nightmare over a disagreement. Two more issues related to this that I'd like to bring up, though... one is, what if the terminology applies to television as well as film? I just came across Split screen (film), which occurs in both media. Secondly, would it be a good idea to pursue a category called Category:Film terminology? Looking at the current categories for the various terminologies, it seems to be a bit of a mess. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes to the category. :) Regarding terminology usage in television, perhaps it might be as well to raise the issue with the TV Project? PC78 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:Film and video terminology, by the way. I'll see what the TV WikiProject does for such terminology. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Articles about television, "Articles which relate to general concepts related to television technology, terminology, and industry (but not programming) should use (television)." That might be why articles related to filmmaking get disambiguated with (film). I'll initiate a discussion over there and see what could work out best, since there may be overlap in terms of film and television production. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well since television shows have "TV series" in the brackets there is no wonder terms have "television" in bracket. But with movies, I agree that it should be film term, film terminology or whatever eliminates the confusion of people thinking the article is about a movie. "Shot" could very well be a crime movie with guns used a lot, when "Shot (film)" comes to my mind, I don't see a movie term in my mind, what I see is an R-rated movie with a lot of swearing and violence. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that kind of confusion can be avoided with a proper move. Also, digging in further, I've found the article Motion picture terminology, which lists technologies and terminologies. This could be moved to Film terminology and be used as a guide for our little renaming task. :) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'd wait for more input, however. We need more than just a couple of people for this to work. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Film terminology" largely works for me too, both as an article title for "Movie terminology" and as the bracketed disambiguator. Though some might be more appropriate as "Film and TV terminology". I'll help with the moves & category additions should it be decided this is the way to go (and provided it hasn't all been done by the time I'm back on in 8-9 hours or so). We should also strike out the articles named above as a batch is done, in order to prevent overlap. Steve TC 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Movies have more than television shows. I mean movies are limited by ratings while television shows have more limit, there is a small limit how how much bleeding can be in a television show and what words can be used. So no, I don't think "Film and TV terminology" would be such a good idea.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain that I'm game for "film terminology", because for the vast preponderance of these articles, they are about concepts and things, not terms. In other words, were the article about a slangy phrase for something like the "martini shot" or whatnot, then certainly the terminology parenthetical might make sense. But the supposed gaffer (film terminology) is not about the term gaffer (although doubtless the term will be explained); it's about what a gaffer is and how this came about. In theory, every thing is a term for something, but the question is whether it's primary just a bit of terminology or something of further substance. Therefore, from the current options, I'd be most disposed towards (filmmaking). Filmmaking itself is a catch-all term for any sort of motion-picture production work, regardless of format or medium, so all the handwringing about television isn't really appropriate - we're not calling it feature-film-making, after all. Anyways, that's my spare change. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, Girolamo; the disambiguation term {filmmaking) does seem more substantial. Does that mean, though, it would be appropriate to have Trailer (filmmaking)? It doesn't quite seem to mesh... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It only should work where it makes sense. In that case, is there a reason why film trailer is insufficient? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Movie trailer is a common term, so yeah there is no reason the article can't be called film trailer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How about Private screening (filmmaking), then? What I'm trying to get at is that there are topics in the film industry that are not directly pertinent to filmmaking, but marketing instead. I'm just not sure if "filmmaking" is quite the catch-all. It seems to come close, but not entirely. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree. My point is that not everything needs a parenthetical to begin with. So, why not private screening? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even check to see what else was called "private screening". We can definitely move that one with ease. Still, though, we won't have simple solutions like that for "trailer" or "private screening". I don't know if any other examples apply, but what if with new topics, we have to disambiguate the film-related topics and (filmmaking) does not fit? I'm just trying to iron out all possible fallacies... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(outdent) I'm just saying let's see where the specific issues are and deal with them on a case-by-case as they arise. Just because this doesn't fit every situation doesn't mean that it can't handle most of them well. I am dubious that there is any solution that will handle everything and be satisfactory to most of us. But I think we can all agree that where there is not need for dabbing, or where the term can be slightly and uncontroversially renamed (e.g. trailer to film trailer), we can avoid the question entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I am getting ahead of myself in wanting to establish a universal standard for such topics from hereon. I think for the most part, (filmmaking) will work as the disambiguation term, but I think that there may be marketing-related terms that are better suited with other terms down the road. To inquire the editors who have been following this and any others, would (filmmaking) be an acceptable term instead of (film terminology), per Girolamo's reasoning above? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Let's do it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Trailer (film) was moved to Film trailer. Can we get further input from other editors to move articles that need disambiguation to (filmmaking)? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's get to it. "Filmmaking" won't be the best fit for all of them, so let's just take those as they come up, using our best judgement. Steve TC 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
EDITCONFLICT (bah!): I'm happy with "filmmaking" in general, though as said above it won't be a perfect fit for all. Snipe (theatrical) seems to be more about advertising than actual filmmaking, and Cue (theatrical) covers theatre as well. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Weird, I was just about to mention Snipe. I'll keep that where it is barring a better available term. Steve TC 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Film snipe, perhaps? Acting cue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds good to me. We could also just diambiguate Snipe with Snipe (film terminology) as originally planned, though. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already discussed above why that may not be a good option. Anyway, IMHO, parentheticals are far uglier than regular titles, assuming all else is equal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... just gone and moved Pick-up (film), but when I went to fix the incoming links it was commonly piped as "pick up filming" or "pick up shoot" etc. Perhaps something like this would have been more appropriate? PC78 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You can move that page to more appropriate spots, but I try to avoid moving pages, because it can be a pain in the ass to fix 1,000+ incoming links. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. Thankfully I had to deal with a far more managable number of links (about ten or so). :) PC78 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Why bother? The only important thing is changing the redirects, unless the old name is going to be taken over by a different article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions on subtitles

We're having a discussion on naming conventions regarding subtitles, where editors have differing viewpoints. It's at WT:RFC#Subtitles in naming, if anyone is interested. kelvSYC (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To make a correction, the discussion is at WT:NC#RFC: Subtitles in naming. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of filming terms

I've noticed a few articles on filming terms that use (film) to disambiguate the specific term, and I think this is an inappropriate disambiguation for articles not about individual films. I think we should expand WP:NCF to set a standard for disambiguating the terms. Here are the various formats I've found:

I think that "film term" seems to be a fair enough catch-all, but I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of these should be moved to more properly reflect naming conventions, for example, "shot" which should be disambiguated with "(filmmaking)" rather than "(film)", which implies that the article is about a film entitled Shot rather than a technique used in filmmaking. There are many others like this one on the list. I'll wait until more feedback first, but I'll likely move these if there's no objection. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So are you advocating "filmmaking" as the disambiguation term? I'm just trying to sidestep any fallacies in using a term, since "filmmaking" may not be accurate. For example, a certain way of marketing a film that needs to be disambiguated would not technically be filmmaking. Hence why I'm considering "film term" to be the catch-all. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the above that "film" is an unacceptable disambiguator which could lead to confusion with actual film articles. I have no strong feelings over a preffered disambiguator, though I was leaning towards "filmmaking". I do think "terminology" would be better than "term", though. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistake Erik, PC is right; it should be "film terminology", because of accuracy and simplicity. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "film terminology" works well, too. Let's hear from more editors to establish a solid consensus so we don't deal with a shuffling nightmare over a disagreement. Two more issues related to this that I'd like to bring up, though... one is, what if the terminology applies to television as well as film? I just came across Split screen (film), which occurs in both media. Secondly, would it be a good idea to pursue a category called Category:Film terminology? Looking at the current categories for the various terminologies, it seems to be a bit of a mess. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes to the category. :) Regarding terminology usage in television, perhaps it might be as well to raise the issue with the TV Project? PC78 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:Film and video terminology, by the way. I'll see what the TV WikiProject does for such terminology. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Articles about television, "Articles which relate to general concepts related to television technology, terminology, and industry (but not programming) should use (television)." That might be why articles related to filmmaking get disambiguated with (film). I'll initiate a discussion over there and see what could work out best, since there may be overlap in terms of film and television production. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well since television shows have "TV series" in the brackets there is no wonder terms have "television" in bracket. But with movies, I agree that it should be film term, film terminology or whatever eliminates the confusion of people thinking the article is about a movie. "Shot" could very well be a crime movie with guns used a lot, when "Shot (film)" comes to my mind, I don't see a movie term in my mind, what I see is an R-rated movie with a lot of swearing and violence. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that kind of confusion can be avoided with a proper move. Also, digging in further, I've found the article Motion picture terminology, which lists technologies and terminologies. This could be moved to Film terminology and be used as a guide for our little renaming task. :) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'd wait for more input, however. We need more than just a couple of people for this to work. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Film terminology" largely works for me too, both as an article title for "Movie terminology" and as the bracketed disambiguator. Though some might be more appropriate as "Film and TV terminology". I'll help with the moves & category additions should it be decided this is the way to go (and provided it hasn't all been done by the time I'm back on in 8-9 hours or so). We should also strike out the articles named above as a batch is done, in order to prevent overlap. Steve TC 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Movies have more than television shows. I mean movies are limited by ratings while television shows have more limit, there is a small limit how how much bleeding can be in a television show and what words can be used. So no, I don't think "Film and TV terminology" would be such a good idea.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain that I'm game for "film terminology", because for the vast preponderance of these articles, they are about concepts and things, not terms. In other words, were the article about a slangy phrase for something like the "martini shot" or whatnot, then certainly the terminology parenthetical might make sense. But the supposed gaffer (film terminology) is not about the term gaffer (although doubtless the term will be explained); it's about what a gaffer is and how this came about. In theory, every thing is a term for something, but the question is whether it's primary just a bit of terminology or something of further substance. Therefore, from the current options, I'd be most disposed towards (filmmaking). Filmmaking itself is a catch-all term for any sort of motion-picture production work, regardless of format or medium, so all the handwringing about television isn't really appropriate - we're not calling it feature-film-making, after all. Anyways, that's my spare change. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, Girolamo; the disambiguation term {filmmaking) does seem more substantial. Does that mean, though, it would be appropriate to have Trailer (filmmaking)? It doesn't quite seem to mesh... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It only should work where it makes sense. In that case, is there a reason why film trailer is insufficient? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Movie trailer is a common term, so yeah there is no reason the article can't be called film trailer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How about Private screening (filmmaking), then? What I'm trying to get at is that there are topics in the film industry that are not directly pertinent to filmmaking, but marketing instead. I'm just not sure if "filmmaking" is quite the catch-all. It seems to come close, but not entirely. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree. My point is that not everything needs a parenthetical to begin with. So, why not private screening? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even check to see what else was called "private screening". We can definitely move that one with ease. Still, though, we won't have simple solutions like that for "trailer" or "private screening". I don't know if any other examples apply, but what if with new topics, we have to disambiguate the film-related topics and (filmmaking) does not fit? I'm just trying to iron out all possible fallacies... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(outdent) I'm just saying let's see where the specific issues are and deal with them on a case-by-case as they arise. Just because this doesn't fit every situation doesn't mean that it can't handle most of them well. I am dubious that there is any solution that will handle everything and be satisfactory to most of us. But I think we can all agree that where there is not need for dabbing, or where the term can be slightly and uncontroversially renamed (e.g. trailer to film trailer), we can avoid the question entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I am getting ahead of myself in wanting to establish a universal standard for such topics from hereon. I think for the most part, (filmmaking) will work as the disambiguation term, but I think that there may be marketing-related terms that are better suited with other terms down the road. To inquire the editors who have been following this and any others, would (filmmaking) be an acceptable term instead of (film terminology), per Girolamo's reasoning above? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Let's do it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Trailer (film) was moved to Film trailer. Can we get further input from other editors to move articles that need disambiguation to (filmmaking)? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's get to it. "Filmmaking" won't be the best fit for all of them, so let's just take those as they come up, using our best judgement. Steve TC 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
EDITCONFLICT (bah!): I'm happy with "filmmaking" in general, though as said above it won't be a perfect fit for all. Snipe (theatrical) seems to be more about advertising than actual filmmaking, and Cue (theatrical) covers theatre as well. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Weird, I was just about to mention Snipe. I'll keep that where it is barring a better available term. Steve TC 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Film snipe, perhaps? Acting cue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds good to me. We could also just diambiguate Snipe with Snipe (film terminology) as originally planned, though. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already discussed above why that may not be a good option. Anyway, IMHO, parentheticals are far uglier than regular titles, assuming all else is equal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... just gone and moved Pick-up (film), but when I went to fix the incoming links it was commonly piped as "pick up filming" or "pick up shoot" etc. Perhaps something like this would have been more appropriate? PC78 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You can move that page to more appropriate spots, but I try to avoid moving pages, because it can be a pain in the ass to fix 1,000+ incoming links. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. Thankfully I had to deal with a far more managable number of links (about ten or so). :) PC78 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Why bother? The only important thing is changing the redirects, unless the old name is going to be taken over by a different article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions on subtitles

We're having a discussion on naming conventions regarding subtitles, where editors have differing viewpoints. It's at WT:RFC#Subtitles in naming, if anyone is interested. kelvSYC (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To make a correction, the discussion is at WT:NC#RFC: Subtitles in naming. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When is too little too little?

An interesting point that came up on the talk page at MOS:FILM. It seems to be accepted as the standard that a film article have an infobox, and that the infobox display a film poster. Which is fine. However, fair use images are supposed to provide "critical commentary", and not be used "solely for illustration". Take an article such as My Teacher, Mr. Kim: does a stub of this length provide enough cricical commentary to justify the inclusion of a fair use image? And if not, what is the minimum standard we should be aiming for? PC78 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We use the poster image in the infobox for identification purposes; I don't see how the length of the article would affect the fair-use intent in that regard. (Obviously a more substantial article is more desirable, but if it is decided that images need more text to justify themselves, then the solution is to add more text, not delete the image until more text arrives in order to re-add the image.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that's the problem: the very license that we use for these images explicity states "not solely for illustration". That may of course be a rather stringent interpretation of fair use requirements; I don't have any strong feelings on the issue, it's just something that came up over a larger discussion of image use in film articles. You're quite right in saying that such articles require expansion, not having their images removed (I'm not suggesting we do so). I guess the question I'm really asking is this: Should the image have been added to the article in the first place? PC78 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that there may be images in long-standing stubs, and there may be images in stubs about upcoming films. A potentially important difference is that an upcoming film's stub may have further expansion, since I know an editor who keeps up with new poster image releases and uploads them, creating new stubs to add them if necessary. Long-standing stubs, though, are likely to be challenged. Justification could be easily established with a few new sections and a few new references. Unlike some other instances on Wikipedia, I don't think poster images are viewed as quite as gratuitous. Ultimately, I think we work with the assumption, "It will be a full article someday." —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason Beghe up for Peer review

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jason Beghe/archive1. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut (film)

I noticed that this article talks about the technique, the action, "Cut". However, as an IMDb search reveals, there are nine films also titled Cut. Should Cut be moved to Cut (filmmaking technique or something like that? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We've actually been discussing this in one of the threads above; I would anticipate that this will not remain the article's title much longer. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved Cut (film) to Cut (filmmaking). At the present, there is Cut (2000 film). Should I file a move request to move to Cut (film) in the meantime? In the future, if other articles are created for the films called Cut, we can create and move where necessary. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought on this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film lists a lot of AFDs. Wouldn't we bombarded with such notifications uselessly when we can just point people to the aforementioned article? I do think notifications would not be a bad idea for Featured Article nominations since it warrants large-scale involvement; same for FAR and FARC. On that note, I'm not sure if it is worth it on the Good Article level since it's more one-on-one. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to MOSFILM regarding non-free images

Hello, I've proposed a component to be added to WP:MOSFILM regarding non-free images. Please see the discussion here. Thank you! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled out a draft addressing non-free images at WT:MOSFILM#Draft. Please take the time to review it and provide constructive criticism! This will provide more structure and less confusion about implementing non-free images. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)

A note to the members of the filmproject. Today User:XxJoshuaxX performed a series of moves and redirects to move the page for this film so that there would be a small "o" rather than a capital "O" for the word "over". Now I know that this is grammatically correct but I was under the impression that when it comes to film titles that we followed what was seen onscreen and/or what is used most often in referring to the film. Of the dozen or so websites that I have gone to they capital "O" for the word over. So many edits were made that I am not sure what to do to restore the page if that is what we want done. On the other hand if the members of the project are OK with this move then so be it. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation. The pages for the book and play have been moved also. Thanks for your time and efforts for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be something worth bringing up at WT:NC, since they may be more experienced in such matters. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it grammatically correct? I was under the impression that "over" should always be capitalized in titles, while "with" shouldn't be. Any case, s

ome reference to grammar material would be handy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:CAPS may be a better option, focusing on capitalization. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the person who did the move cited WP:NC as the reason for the move, however, the section on that page that directs "over" to be a lowercase word is only in the section Wikipedia:NC#Album and song titles and band names. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:NC#Books - literary works states Use the title of the work as the article's title, following all applicable general conventions. WP:NC-BK#Capitalization says that Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from "lowercase second and subsequent words". The actual title of this book, and the resulting film, is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I believe this move was unwarranted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on Wildhartlivie's information, I think we need to undo the moves made with the book article, the film article, and the play article. We should contact the editor and file a request at WP:RM since the moves cannot be reverted. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that whatever the grammatical version, the "actual" screen title should prevail. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
Be aware that at [7], the decision for a move is being discussed and at this point, other voices are in favour. If you are not in favour of this controversial move, please make your comment there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
We generally do not go with the "actual" screen title because oftentimes graphic designers will use odd orthography for presentation purposes. The naming conventions exist for a reason - standardization. There is leeway for notable exceptions, but they should be exceptions which have specific reasons. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Seth Rogen

Template:Seth Rogen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Consensus was not to adopt C-Class in the project assessment scheme. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:

Arguments for C-Class
  • More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
  • It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
  • For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).
Arguments against C-Class
  • The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
  • Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
  • The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
  • This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
  • There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
  • More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So we can determine consensus in WP Films, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Films assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on July 25, 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. I do support adopting this change. Yes, it might take a bit of sorting before the criteria is completely clear, but then the line between some of these classes has always been a bit tenuous. There is a huge difference between Start and B-Class, and I've hestitated in the past to assess some article as a B-Class based on just a bit more information and some subheadings. It takes everyone a little time to learn the difference between any given pair of classes, this will be no different, and it is a welcome step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I support this. (though I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote, I'm not a member of the project, though I am interested in editing film articles. If I'm not, go ahead and delete this.) I think the gap between Start and B is too big, this will make things clearer and easier to edit, as well as giving more concrete things for editors to aim for. - Dalta (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. As a substantial WikiProject well-equipped to enforce its own standards, I don't think we need concern ourselves with C-Class. Article assessment can be subjective at the best of times, and throwing another grade into the mix can only make this more so without offering any real benefit. A mass reassessment of Start-Class and B-Class articles would be a monumental waste of time and effort. We should be less concerned with assessing articles, and more concerned with improving them. PC78 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure that anyone is proposing a massive reassessment of articles, but that the class be incorporated from ratification onward. I agree that a mass effort would be a waste of time, but there is a huge gap in quality of articles from start to B.
    Of course there is a big gap, and so there should be. But if you close that gap and blur the lines between grades, how does that help? In what way will it be easier to determine whether an article is C-Class or B-Class than under the current system? PC78 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I opposed the initial C class addition to the V1.0 Assessment scale itself, and still don't believe it to be necessary. I've seen many large projects rejecting C class, while some smaller projects that have the resources and limited articles, adopting the class. For our project, I think that the differences between Start and B class are sufficient enough, and adding this additional class will result in a large reassessment campaign when we should be shifting our focus on improving the articles. I'm not stressing that this is just an increase in workload, but am also thinking of the long-term effects, including the possibility of further additions/removals of classes in the future. We need to concentrate our efforts on working to properly tag/review the B class articles, and improve the number of GA/A/FAs within the project rather than reclassifying our Start class articles. (And don't worry, this isn't an oppose vote just because I recently created the Start to B Class template! We can modify this if consensus supports the class.) --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. I oppose C-Class since it strikes me as additional red tape. I'm not sure if the implementation of this class would be a boon to WP:FILM, and I agree with PC78, we should instead use the effort to focus on improving articles. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. I just recently converted my vote. I believe it wont actually help us so much as just wasting time by forcing a huge reassesment of articles. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. I have to agree with Nehrams and PC78 above. I really don't think it is necessary and makes assessment more complicated than necessary. I also believe the distinction between a start and B-class is enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  1. -The line between "Start" class and "B" class has always been thin. Though I propose that we don't go into support of this (immediatly, that doesn't mean don't vote) until we see an example of a C-class article. I run the risk of sounding like a hippocrite, considering I asked if an article I've worked on quite a bit has met criteria, before being told we haven't gone into much of a discussion regarding our support of it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not certain that we can determine standards until we decide if we need a new class. The current classes already have standardized criteria, so presumably a C-Class article would fall somewhere in-between. The question at the moment is whether or not there is a need for another classification in between our current standards for Start and B. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    One assumes that if we decide to adopt C-Class, we will also be adopting the same (or similar) standards specified in {{Grading scheme}}, so it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a few examples. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) perhaps, as opposed to Alien 3 which is more what I'd expect from a B-Class article. On a related note, and irrespective of how this debate turns out, will we be adopting the more stringent criteria for B-Class? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    That would seem to be a given, with C-Class somewhere less so and B-Class incorporating, perhaps, more film specifics. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    We actually already have stringent criteria for B-class articles (see the project banner for anything rated B-class or below), but unfortunately I've been too distracted with task force tagging for some time now to have given much priority to the massive backlog of articles requiring a B-Class review. The coordinators have started discussing doing a general Tag and Assess Drive in the coming months, and I've broached the idea of first running a pilot drive to handle this backlog (with the side-benefit of testing out in practice what does and doesn't work well with drives by targeting a thousand articles before blindly starting a 45k-article re-evaluation of all of our articles). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, OK. I was looking at the assessment scale, which has no mention of this. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if Giro has the correct link above, but the actual proposals and subsequent ratification vote for C-Class is here. PC78 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    The proposals and vote are also linked, IIRC, from the link I provided. The results of the vote and implementations, however, might be of more interest with regards to this discussion, which is not about the larger issues of general Wikipedia-wide assessment and the 1.0 project. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Can someone explain what "A-Class", "B-Class" and "C-Class" is? I would read about it on the Wikipedia space, but I don't know where to start looking for that type of information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades should tell you what you want to know. Steve TC 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. I've added a note about C-Class to the {{Film grading scheme}}, kinda like what they've got over at WP:MHA. Might prevent any unnecessary questions about why we don't (yet?) have it, and perhaps even draw a few more people to this discussion. I do hope we won't be stuck at 3-3 on the 25th! :) PC78 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Can I change my mind now and put my vote for support? Upon inspection of the Wikiproject: Military History criteria, I decided that I think it would be best to adopt a more strict criteria for B-class and (though mass reassignment would be a waste) get some articles reassesed on any editors own time. In short, I think the classes we currently have are quite fitting. Yojimbo501 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    You can of course always change your mind, but I'm confused if you support the new class or think that our current scheme is fine - it reads like you're saying both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Does it really? Not intentional. Well, I'll breifly repeat what I mean. I support having a stricter B-class criteria, gradually reassesing some articles, but I've decided C-class is a waste of time and doesn't really improve an article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. I shall stand by what I've said above, at least for now. However, I admit that I'm warming a little to the idea of C-Class. Consider these points: 1) If the criteria for B-Class has already been tightened, then the inevitable downgrading of some articles widens the gap between Start-Class, allowing for the inclusion of an intermediate C-Class. 2) Over at WikiProject Biography, someone requested an assessment for an article. I gave it a Start-Class rating, and left a note that if it offered a little more depth and coverage then it might be eligable for C-Class. Within 24 hours, the user who made the request had gone back and expanded the article, then resubmitted the request, and I promptly increased the assessment to C-Class. If the inclusion of another grade promps such behaviour from some users, then isn't that a good thing? PC78 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think that is one of the more salient points in adopting the C-Class. I think editors sometimes balk at trying to raise an article from Start, which is sometimes only different from Stub by a few minor points, to a B-Class. This provides another level of improvement. Meanwhile, I note that of the four who registered an opposition, three of them have cited a need for a massive reassessment, which isn't at all what is being proposed in adding in a new level of quality assessment. There is a huge leap between instituting a class from ratification and a massive effort to reassess all the articles at its inception. Nowhere have I seen this in the proposal and I honestly don't think it is a valid reason to avoid the change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    "Arguments against C-Class" above suggests such a mass reassessment. Of course it wouldn't be necessary, though some users might be tempted to take it upon themselves. It isn't my sole reason for opposition, though. PC78 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I guess if it makes people want to work a little harder, it's good, but I'd hoped editors would work as hard as they can anyways. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


What constitutes a series?

Talk:Batman_Begins#The_Preceding_Movie for relevant troubles. Because Christopher Nolan's two films have no relation to the prior four, and those four none to the 1966 Adam West movie, these would appear to be different series about the same character. However, the discussion is whether or not all should be seen as one series. There seems to be concern that if we say all related films constitute a single series, then editors on some 'series' could argue for 'in-universe chronology' order, as opposed to production order. I think it can be established easily that related films constitute a series, reboots constitute a new series especially when reliable sources support that there is a reboot occurring, without opening the door to In-universe ordering ,which was already present as a 'non-problem'. For example ,Star Wars pages don't' order it by chapter but by production. Given the number of reboots currently occurring, esp. in sci-fi and superhero films, a policy needs be established. Otherwise, we open the door to a major issue, in that every making of pride and prejudice should be considered part of a 'pride and prejudice' series. Instead, I propose that where we have clear citation of a related set of movies, we consider it a series, and where we have citation that a new film of the same (or similar) title and characters represents a clean break and new set of stories, we consider that a second, third or whatever series. This would not interfere with Examples in the linked thread like the Halloween series, as those films have citation about the 'different scare every October' concept originally conceived of, while allowing stand-alone reboots like Hulk/The Incredible Hulk; The Punisher/The Punisher/Punisher:War Zone; Batman (Burton/Schumacher)/Batman (Nolan) and so on to be managed in a way which does not include internal contradictions. Thus a rule might be:

A Film Series constitutes those films for which citation and references demonstrate a clear intended connection on the part of the producers and writers, and should be ordered according to the production dates for purposes of determining preceding and following films in the infobox. Rely upon good prose writing in the body to clarify as needed, and to make clear the breaks between a given series and a later reboot.

thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A film series is a film series, no matter who reboots the continuity. The James Bond films have almost zero continuity with each other, does that mean that there should be no "preceded by" and "followed by" sections? Why are we giving preference to those people that reboot a series? The fact that they chose to ignore previous continuity is irrelevant to the fact that it is still film #X in that list of films from that series. If you look at Batman, who ever said that Batman Forever was in continuity with Batman Returns? There is no mentioning of the previous events in those Shumacher films, does that mean his two films are their own series? Halloween III has nothing to do with any of the other Halloween films, not a single thing, should we remove it from the "preceded by" and "followed by" sections simply because the "real" series is Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI? What about Halloween H20, which retcons everything after Halloween II? A "reboot" is the same thing as a "retcon", the only difference is that it's ignoring everything instead of specific details. It seems that limiting the definition of "series" to "clearly intended connections" (regardless of sources) is nothing but providing a way for "fans" (and I don't use that term as an insult) to determine what films should be present. Maybe Shumacher felt Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were part of Burton's films, but Burton hated those films so much that he didn't consider them part of his series (<--This is hypothetical, so don't tear my head of with "he's never said that"). There are plenty of people that hate Shumacher and his Bat-nipples, and probably don't consider his films to be related to Burton's films. If Burton says they aren't, does that mean we should separate them? I think not. I think that we shouldn't be playing "favorites" here, and have one set standard. The Pride & Prejudice example doesn't float because there isn't a "series" of Pride & Prejudice films, there are constant remakes of the same film over and over again. Should we link them in the infobox (preceded by 1967 - followed by 1977), maybe so just to keep the standard, but it's a little different when you have a "series" of films with new stories based on the same characters and a "series" of films that remake the exact same story over and over again. Technially, Batman Begins is part of the Warner Bros. Batman film series, because THEY own the films, not Burton, Shumacher, or Nolan. Even if they were to change hands, it's still all part of a set series of theatrical releases about a particular comic book character. That is what makes it a "series". It is a series of Batman films, not "Nolan's personal series" or "Burton's personal series".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see it that way. I'm not giving preference to fans, I'm deferring to the reliable sources who say 'this film is unrelated to those old films'. It's using RS like it's supposed to. As for Halloween, we know that #3 is a part of that series because there had been an intent to do a different story each time, not all michael myers. As for H20 and such, they're all the same production company, and meant to build upon the same basic story. If production company and ownership is a part of things, then Hulk and Incredible Hulk are clearly unrelated, because not only do we have RS, but we have different production companies. Same for the Punisher films. but in cases where we do have the same production company, we need to figure things out more. James Bond apparently rebooted with Casino Royale, but it's owned by the same company. That, like Batman, provides us with problems. And frankly, as companies merge and conglomerate, this problem will probably get worse. We need to determine what's what. Perhaps we can consider all films attached to a character fro ma given company (or the new comapny, if acquisition is involved) as a 'Franchise', and the related films as series, meaning batman would have one franchise, two series, and a one-off film. WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into this. Films that we have multiple sources saying 'not connected' shouldn't be connected by an ephemeral perceived fungibility based on 'the character's still owned by the same company, so it's all the same'. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated in continuity, but not unrelated when it comes to what they are, which is another film in the series of films about said character. First, Dimension Films made H20, they did not make Halloween I and Halloween II....or IV and V for that matter. They didn't acquire the rights till VI. You are making this all about continuity, and YOU'RE choosing what continuity is relevant based on who says it is? You're not being objective, you're looking of people that say, "this film is not connected to the previous films because it starts the story over". Does that really mean that is isn't part of the same film series? No. It means that it's part of a new continuity. You're trying to attach this fannish "canon" aspect to the film's when it isn't relevant. Who cares that Batman & Robin isn't connected to Batman Begins, it's still part of the giant film series on the character of Batman. If you want to use commonsense, then use it to realize that "followed by" is not necessarily (nor has it every truly been established as such) about what film follows one in continuity, but merely what film was released after this one. Hell, how would you handle Superman Returns? Technically, it's a reboot of the franchise, but it also kind of follows after Superman II. It negates Superman III and IV, but at the same time does not officially declare continuity with Superman I or II. It falls into this loop hole of in AND out of continuity, reboot/retcon. Is it part of the Salkind film series, or is it its own film? If we chose your method, we'd have a mighty large dilemma on our hands. If it's part of the Salkind films then it goes at the end, but since the Salkinds didn't make this film and it effectively ignores two of the Salkind films, does that mean it's its own new series that just uses previous films as backstory? Now, with my method, we have an objective, standard operation. It's all part of the series of films released about Superman, thus it goes at the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Superman's not a hard example, we have Singer's direct comments that he built upon those two, and not hte other two. It's part of the same series, but needs some explanation int he prose, like I proposed. Same for Halloween. There's nothing 'fannish' about making clear to readers which films constitute a continuity. Finally, that's exactly the question I'm as king here. What should we use to define a "series"? You are saying well ,we have a series here and here, thus we know what a 'series' is, and this is a series. I'm saying ,should a series be all movies about a character, in which case from 1943 to 2008 is one batman series, and 1940 to 2005 is one pride and prejudice series, and 1930something to 1990's is one romeo and juliet series. Further, under your assertion, all three Casino Royales are all part ofthe 'James Bond series'. We need a clear definition of how Wikipedia will define a Series, and a Film franchise, and are they the same, or one a subset of the other? if subsets, then which it the larger and which the smaller? Please do not define the series by extant definitions of the series already on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are including serials, which are not feature films. The series of feature films on Batman spans 1966 to 2008, and that is how it should read. You are trying to give preference to these select groups that follow the same "continuity". This is an encyclopedia, we should treat it as such. Batman Begins clearly states in the lead that it reboots the continuity of the film series (notice how the lead actually refers to the film series as a whole and doesn't say "starts its own new series"). What you are trying to do is say that we need to segregate the films into who is directly connected to who, while I'm opting for a more objective approach that lists them ALL in the order of their release. It doesn't take precedent over which films are part of the same continuity, which hardly matters (except to fans). We can cover continuity changes in the prose of the article. Your rebuttle argument for Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice is based around using examples that are ALL exact replicas of each other, only released at different years. There is no "series" there. The Batman film series is a series of films on Batman. The same goes for Superman, Friday the 13th, James Bond, so forth and so on. There is no series of films about Pride & Prejudice, there is a "set" of Pride & Prejudice remakes, which is completely different. There is no change to the film itself, it's an exact replica using different actors every few years. It's not a series of films, it's a set of the same film refilmed over and over again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to take the time just yet to get caught up in this, but The Dark Knight is recognized as the sixth Batman film, in line with what Bignole was saying about companies' franchises. The 1966 Batman isn't a part of it since it was a spin-off of the TV show. Just wanted to throw that in. (By the way, it may be worth taking a break and seeing if other editors will pitch in with their perspectives, so don't get too long in the tooth with this back-and-forth banter.) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(EC)No, it's not different, per your argument that movies about the same characters constitutes a series. Let's hold off on this and wait for more input. and "Batman film series" is not the same as "a series of films on Batman." Consider that I point to the superhero shelf in a big box store and say sir, here are all our superhero films. There's a series of Punisher films, a series of batman films and so on". ALternately, I go to a film class, and hear 'Today we'll be discussing pop cultural trend reflections in mainstream film. Consider, for example the Batman film series you all saw as kids in the 1990's.' In the first, you're being told here's all our films in a messy pile. In the second, you're being specifically referred to a set of related films all of which reflect the teacher's topic. (Industrial, Goth, Techno and Rave, by the way). The aisle jockey sees the label 'superhero' and lumps it all together. The professor sees a group of closely related films supervised by the same guys at the same time with citation that they're related. That professor, looking at the same citation we use, would suggest that the Nolan films are a different series. You keep insisting I'm talking about in-universe, while I keep explicitly talking about real world stuff.
I think the best think now is to let others reply, we've both given quite a bit of fat to chew. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a way to mask an insult by referring to me as an aisle jockey and you as a professor. Nice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Woah, totally not. Trying to show that two different perspectives exist on it, but the question is which way is right for wikipedia. No insult intended. After a couple years of working well together, I think you'd know better, and I hope you'll understand that's not my intent here. ThuranX (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I think both of you make good arguments, but we should remember that we are not limited to filling out the preceded_by= and followed_by= fields. We have ample space in film articles' lead sections (and the relevant sections) to explain the development history and the changes in continuity. I think that there are imperfections with both parties' arguments, considering the messiness of how storylines will reboot, will be reinserted, or will convene (think The Avengers). My impression is that it would be best to follow a chronological production order and use the article to explain what is new and different about the film. The film infobox should contain simple, out-of-universe information... if there are discrepancies with directing credits or writing credits, we elaborate on that within the article. Another possible solution is to identify films as "(reboot)" in the field... for example, at Batman & Robin, we'd have the link: Batman Begins (reboot). Although I don't know what the inverse of a reboot is. :) I think that even if we look to reliable sources, we're going to have different perspectives anyway. For example, in the business of making money, it would be focused on the franchise. In the business of academic criticism, I think it could actually go two ways: the overall cinematic role of a superhero (or superheroes) or a director's interpretation of the superhero(es). Just my thoughts so far. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one myself. I think that for the purposes of the film infobox, however, it was meant to connect films that were explicitly part of the same storyline, so I would lean against including every film in the franchise in a connected fashion. (In any case, it would be expected that the lead would mention connections between prior serieses within the franchise, as well as whatever footer template for the franchise would occupy the bottom of the article.) These have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, so simply saying, "but James Bond" isn't really a worthy comparison until we look at the Bond series as well and decide how to handle that against the intended parameter function. (And deciding whether Superman Returns follows Superman 2 or Superman 4 is going to be a whole 'nother can of worms no matter what...) In other words, let's hammer out how we want this to function in the abstract first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion either way. Both sets of information could be entered in the "followed by" field (eg. Batman and Robin could have "End (series)" and "Batman Begins (franchise)" separated by a line break). Succession boxes in the footer are easier to implement with additional information to specify the franchise/series or series/sub-series continuity. It's more complicated but another field could possibly be added to the infobox as "franchise" (separate articles already exist for Batman (film series) and James Bond (film series) for this field to link to).
As an added complication, how do you intend to include the animated films, which intercut the production runs of the live action series? The serials have been mentioned but feature film versions were often created from them (although I don't know if this was the case with the Batman serials). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Blimey, if the infobox fields are causing this much bother, why not just get rid of them? PC78 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Cutting the Gordian Knot, are we? :) I would not mind doing this, since we can use the lead section to point out a film's predecessor and successor, as well as explain the connection between them. It's a big step, though... do others see problems with this? Obviously, we'd need to go through Category:Sequel films and ensure mention of the predecessor/successor in absence of these fields (if it is decided to remove them). It does make it so much easier for straightforward sequels, though... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so in favor of cutting the infoboxes. The above about listing with tagging notes MIGHT work, but I'd really prefer that instead we use Franchise for all character related movies, and Series for each continuity. Most of these changes could be handled with a bot and a few page moves. As to the animated movies, since most have zero bearing on the live action films (I can think of a single case where it bounced back and forth, TMNT), and thus shouldn't affect things. All the comics related animations are already separated, so that presents no problem. ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Me either - were we to get rid of everything which presented a small fraction of cases where there was disagreement, we'd have no tools or templates at all. The solution is to discuss this and figure out what guidelines to implement. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but being on the ouside of this discussion looking in, it does appear to be a matter of extreme triviality. Of all the things we could be noting in the infobox, do we really need to be saying whether or not a film is a "reboot" of a franchise? As Erik says, there is ample space within the article itself to discuss such things. To pick two such "reboots" off the top of my head: Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond series, and yet is still regarded as the 21st Bond film; the new Star Trek film is a reboot/prequel, but it's still the 11th Trek film. And again, as Erik says above, there are plenty of sources that refer to The Dark Knight as the "sixth" Batman film. The infobox is supposed to provide a snapshot of cold, hard facts, and the fact is that Batman & Robin is the "preceeding" film to Batman Begins. Any talk of a reboot and its significance should be discussed and cited in the actual article. But as a solution to the problem, I would much rather lose the two infobox fields than have the infobox littered with notes about "reboots" and such. PC78 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)