Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Infobox Existance Checker & Image Existance Checker

Following a request I made, Jarry1250 has kindly created Infobox Existance Checker which can be used to check whether any articles in Category:Film articles needing an infobox actually have an infobox. Currently there are 1022 mis-tagged articles, so if anyone has any time to kill feel free to get stuck in! PC78 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Now...if I could just figure out how to use AWB :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. On the flip-side, there are tons of film articles that don't have an infobox AND are not tagged on their talkpages. Oh, the humanity! Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We now have Image Existance Checker as well, which has thrown up a further 2778 potentially mis-tagged pages. PC78 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to cautious about "needing" an image in the film infobox for any article. Since we treat film posters as "cover art", WP:NFC says, "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." If we have a film article with two lines of prose, then an image is not immediately warranted. I know that quite a few stub articles with such images already exist, but we should not make it a serious goal to pursue an image for all infoboxes, no matter what the article contains or does not contain.
Otherwise, I like the ability to check for the infobox. I was wondering, can this be tweaked for another function -- to detect articles that use infoboxes and check to see if {{Film}} templates exist on the talk pages and insert them where needed? (I imagine there may be some situations where an infobox is badly used in the section of a broader article, but this should not be too common.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Force (film)

Can someone else cast an eye on this article? I was going to split the stuff on the sequel, until I noticed that Excessive Force II: Force on Force was recently deleted at AfD. The first film seems notable enough, but is there any justification for having what is essentially two articles on one page? PC78 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At the time, it was deleted for failing notability on its own, so someone apparently made an inappropriate merge of the sequel into the main to "save" it.[1] That should be undone (and has been - particularly with it just being an IMDB copy/paste), and a simple paragraph on the sequel added instead, with sources. Unless, of course, it now has significant more coverage than it did before. Meanwhile, I did some clean ups on the current. The plot was copy/pasted from AMG and the cast list copy/pasted from IMDB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Le Peuple Migrateur needs cites

Le Peuple Migrateur (aka Winged Migration and The Travelling Birds) makes the un-cited statements
- "Many critics question if "Winged Migration" is really a documentary at all since there is so much manipulation of the birds and the footage that made it into the final film"
and
- "The film states that no special effects were used. On the contrary, while no computer-generated imagery (CGI) was used in the filming of the birds, several entirely-CGI segments augment the real-life footage."
Does anybody have any cites for these? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Winged Migration a Review by David Loftus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. Says:

"Some question whether "Winged Migration" is even a documentary. Perrin has not been shy in interviews about discussing the film's tricks, and the making-of footage on the DVD is even more honest. Although the film announces there are "no special effects" in the filming of the birds, that does not mean everything you see is on the level. First, there are three or four CGI sequences in which flights of birds are shown crossing continents and oceans above the curved globe as if seen from a satellite. Those are obviously fake and used as transitions."

(1) What interviews where??
(2) Can anyone confirm that this description of the making-of footage on the DVD is accurate, and if it is, we want to cite the DVD itself instead of (or in addition to) this online source, right?
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That particular source seems dubious. For very detailed information about how the documentary was filmed, see the July 2003 American Cinematographer article (v. 84, n. 7) titled "Up, up and away" by Patricia Thomson. It does not mention visual effects at all, so I think that contesting the claim is not a salient point for the film article. Unless there really are "many critics" (which seems like false weasel wording) that dispute the claim. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with linkspam

Today, I have been tracking down linkspam that has proliferated across film articles. As reflected at MOS:FILM#External links, the websites IMDb, Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo are generally accepted in film articles due to serving different purposes that an article even at Featured Article level could not accomplish (full cast and crew information, dense collection of reviews, box office statistics). Articles' "External links" sections should avoid being link farms since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide information directly, not to serve as a directory. I try to keep up with the proliferation of links beyond these websites, and there are a few offending websites that I'd like further feedback about: Yahoo! Movies, MovieTome, and Moviefone. See diff of removal (note: TCMDB was removed because it is a database best for older films; John Tucker Must Die is not one of them). These websites are basically additional overview websites which I do not think we need to include. The websites can be located with the external links tool (check MovieTome). I've avoided removing links where they're actually used in the articles and not the EL sections. How do others feel? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include Yahoo! Movies, MovieTome, and Moviefone. One question - if Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo are cited within the text, thus appearing as References at the end of the article, should they be listed as External links as well? I usually don't because it seems like overkill. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I can't see much value at all in adding any of those additional links, along with some other DBs I've seen get slide into articles, like the Cartoon one, Disney one, etc. I also agree, if BOM is used as a source, it shouldn't need an external link well (I can't picture when RT or MC would be used as neither is, of itself, a reliable source that I can recall, but link off to reviews on their original sites?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Does this article win for most ex-links?! Lugnuts (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, Lugnuts, I went to that article and saw just IMDb and Allmovie. I checked the page history to see if the links were cleaned up (nothing there), then I went back to the article and realized that the section above it was what you meant... good grief! :P I'd probably migrate them to the talk page. To respond to LiteraryMaven and Collectonian, there was discussion about redundancy with references and external links. I suppose my take is that either Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo are perceived in different ways in each category. For Rotten Tomatoes in the article body, we frequently reference the percentage of critics that liked or disliked the film. This information is a small part of what the RT web page about a specific film can offer. My thinking is that if the percentage information and access to multiple reviews for one film were on different sub-pages, there would not be an issue. It is by design that the information we cite from RT and BOM in the article body is on the film's primary web page and not a link to a sub-page. So when it comes to the issue of redundancy, it seems unfair to tuck away major resources like these in the "References" section due to direct citation of information on the primary web page. Is it proper to assume that references should be pretty milked for useful content to use in the article? We're really only citing overview-type information from sites like RT and BM. These websites' usage are perceived differently in the "External links" section than they are in the article body. Rotten Tomatoes, as a reference, gives an aggregate figure. As an external link, it provides a collection of reviews (which helps reduce the need for a link farm). Box Office Mojo, as a reference, gives opening weekend information and gross revenue information. As an external link, it gives a more thorough breakdown of the film's performance, either in the United States and Canada or in other territories. Hence different treatment of these resources are why I feel that the redundancy is okay, especially in larger articles where they may otherwise be buried in "References" sections. With the redundancy in the "External links" section, we're saying, "These were cited briefly before, but they continue to be useful beyond what this article can cover about the topic, so we highlight them here." —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably migrate them to the talk page Good idea! Done. Lugnuts (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comic book characters in films

I saw that Bane (comics) was undergoing Good Article review since its talk page was tagged with the {{Film}} template. Bane appeared in Batman & Robin, but I was not sure if this was a good reason to classify the article within the scope of WikiProject Films. Batman and Superman make sense because they star in feature films. I was just thinking that if the article about Bane became a Good Article, it seems strange to put it in our spotlight because of his small appearance in the 1997 film. Do others think this is okay, or is there a different standard to follow or even set here and now? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, his minor appearance in one film is not enough, IMHO, to warrant inclusion in the Films project. I would say remove the banner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we remove the banner from Reptile as well then? I don't know how important he is to these Mortal Kombat films he's in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That is what I am not sure about. Where should the line be drawn? In the same film as Bane, the villain Mr. Freeze has a larger role, but it is still singular. How about secondary characters like Lt. James Gordon in most Batman films? Maybe the best threshold would be primary protagonists and antagonists but to use editorial discretion with that threshold for characters that may be on the fence. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Need Addtional Opinions at Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

I decided to revisit some of the first film articles I ever worked on to see if I could apply what I've learned in the last two years to making them better. One of those articles is Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (B-movie goodness). Doing some clean ups for it, I removed some unsourced statements and one statement that was "sourced" to a copyvio link. Said statement said "In order to play the role of Diane Agostini, Jennifer Garner had to have her ears pierced especially for the very first time in her life, but then let them heal up again after filming was completed." Another editor, User:Sandi saraya reverted, claiming it was properly sourced. I reverted, pointed to WP:COPYRIGHT. She removed the link and reverted again as she feels its "notability is that it was done SPECIFICALLY for this film." I attempted to discuss with her on her talk page, but she firmly believes it is a notable fact, while I firmly believe its pointless trivia.[2] A discussion is now at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York#Jennifer Garner where she spells out her reasons for feeling its notable, and I spell out mine for it not being. Now need additional views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My comments your page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Box office gross in infoboxes

What is the rule of thumb for including a film's box office gross in its article's infobox? Should it be left blank until the film is out of theatres and the gross is no longer changing? Should it be included in the infobox as soon as numbers are available? If so, then should it be updated on a weekly basis? I've been wondering this for a while and I haven't found any type of guide anywhere, so I was hoping I could get an answer here. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

General practice is to include it as soon as numbers are available and update it at least weekly, though I've seen some people "dedicated" enough to update daily :-P Weekly is more than enough, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason why it is not in any guide is that it is a minor concern; after all, a film's theatrical run is a blip in the entire existence it will have in human society. The numbers are finalized at some point. Like Collectonian said, though, weekly is good enough, especially when weekend numbers are firmed up on Monday and Tuesday. (Sundays have estimates, which are close enough, but it will be clarified by the next day anyway.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Following up on Collectonian's contention, can the film box office totals become so engrossing that there are constant updates? Does that make sense? what if another person buys a ticket? The only significant numbers would be in the final year's totals when the film has run its course in theatres. FWiW, in regards to minute-by-minute adjustments to the box office receipts, just being facetious, as usual... Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
To my understanding, obsession with box office results is a recent phenomenon in terms of generations. (After all, a couple of generations ago, you'd be hard-pressed to find good numbers for most films.) It's possible that in the future, theaters will be wired enough to feed admission information back to studios for live results (and for data mining for future films). If such data is publicized, I'm sure Wikipedia will come up with a template to serve as a direct feed so nobody has to update it in a dedicated manner. :) Man, sounds like this would be a good Wikipedia article to write if original research wasn't forbidden... —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First weekend box-offices are bandied about as "hard" news, and while interesting as a barometer, the reviews would seem to be a better indicator of the impact of a film. Nonetheless, the audience acceptance of a film shown in a concrete fashion by putting their money out is also a good assessment of the film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
Because the punters pay before they've seen the film rather than after, opening weekend gross is really a measure of how good the marketing campaign has been, not how popular the film is. dramatic (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of articles where somebody added the box office gross after the opening weekend and then nobody ever bothered to update it. After the theatrical run ended and the movie was released on DVD the infobox was still showing the opening weekend gross. I think it makes sense to leave that information blank until the movie has left theaters. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Live peer reviews

Everyone, there are quite a few peer reviews for several film articles in place right now! Please take the time to look at the articles and the comments so far in the reviews and share any thoughts you may have. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

On a related note, we also have two articles at A-Class review. It's even more important that these reviews receive attention as there is no-one outside this project looking at them. It's not worth bothering with A-Class reviews if no-one gives them the time of day, so if anyone has time on their hands please take a look and share your thoughts. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, too. More immediate links below. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to revise the requirements for non-free content criteria #10

Something that might be of interest to us, given that many of our images are non-free. Discussion is here for those who are interested. PC78 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed for Cinema of France

I initially visited the article to get some knowledge of French film, but the article is in mess!! The half of contents is just list of movies. History of film started in France, and French film has taken an important role in world cinema. I feel so odd that articles of French films are underdeveloped compared with the reality. However, due to my limited knowledge and language skill, I seek editors who can expand Cinema of France. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly lots of the world cinema sections are underdeveloped on here. However, every edit, no mater how small, helps to improve them. Lugnuts (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I know nothing about this subject, but I corrected a lot of grammatical and spelling errors and incorporated the lists that comprised the sections devoted to latter decades into narrative text. This article desperately is in need of references! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the input and cleanup of the article. True, articles of the world cinema are way to go, but compared to the article of Cinema of the United Kingdom and Germany, I can not help but just draw a long sigh.--Caspian blue 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Change in Film Notability

For those who may not watch the film notability page, there is now a new criteria for film notability: "The film was within the top 10 in terms of box office sales in at least one national market." So any film that can be shown to have been within the top ten box office sales is now accepted for having an article, irregardless of other coverage. Just an FYI when considering prodding/AfDing a film article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - I've opened this up for comments - any editors who are interested in discussing the subject are cordially invited to join in! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Film input requested

Input would be appreciated, at Portal talk:Film/Selected biography. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started a request for comment, please see Portal_talk:Film/Selected_biography#RfC:_Ledes_of_biographical_filmographies_of_featured_lists. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the portal based on comments at the Request for Comment, and updated editors with an update comment: [3]. I think at this point the RfC can be closed, but I will defer to another editor to do that. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: RfC has been closed after resolution agreeable to original parties of the dispute. Thanks to those that commented, Cirt (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Announcing the celebrities expected to be photographed at the Tribeca Film Festival

Hey guys - I recently blogged about the celebrities that are expected at the Tribeca Film Festival (opening on April 21), which means we should get some new shots for their articles. A list of names is here. If anyone in New York wants to take over photographing this event from me next year, send me an e-mail. -->David Shankbone 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! I was wondering if you ever take group shots of cast members from the same film playing at the festival? I was thinking that such shots may be nice free additions to "Cast" sections. (I think we have done this to some degree already with group shots of actors and filmmakers on Comic-Con panels.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good, and if you have a chance to take pictures of "foreign actors/actresses/directors", please do....(we don't even have a photo for Sophie Marceau).--Caspian blue 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cast of Killer Movie
I sent requests to three different authors for a Marceau image, hopefully one replies soon. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Caspian Blue, noted about non-U.S. celebrities. Usually what I do is I go to the events where the TFF says the most celebrities will show up. You can also tell the "big events" by where they are held. It's funny, because in 2007 when I first started to try to get us CC-licensed photos at NYC events, I didn't know a lick about photography (and my technical skills are still problematic). I tried to do full-body shots, which for media photographers are the most prized. But then people started to crop them to head shots, and my settings weren't conducive to attractive photos of full-body shots cropped to face shots. So in 2008, when I was given "A-List" access to the celebrities (as opposed to the paparazzi pen) I started to only do head shots, since that's what Wikipedia wants. All that is a way of telling Erik that I take very few cast shots (there's only so much time, often less than a minute or two, to shoot the subject) and concentrate on head shots. The Killer Movie cast shot is one of the few I have done. Whereas The Mariah Carey/Robert De Niro shot on the blog post taken at Tennessee (film) was what I started to do in 2008: focusing on head shots during cast shots. If you want to e-mail me via Wikipedia, I can forward you the PDF of the arrivals (I can't cover them all, and I am probably the hardest working photographer at the event, since the media agencies send multiple photogs) and people can tell me if they see someone that is a *must* have. I can't make promises, but I might be able to accommodate. -->David Shankbone 22:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thorough explanation, David. I understand that such shots are not always feasible. I appreciate all the fantastic photos you have contributed, and I look forward to the fresh batch you bring home from the TFF. ) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on plot summaries

There is currently a discussion on how WP:NOT should handle plot summaries. This has potential ramifications for us, so it may be worth people having a look. PC78 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add my vote to it as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ran

I have nominated Ran for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Other taskforces

Inspired by the above discussion regarding a Christian film-based TF, what about other taskforces to plug the gaps? I noticed that PC78 created this category (and the sub-cats) a few days ago. In the first sub-cat, over 28,000 film articles have no task-force assigned to them. Would it be worth creating over-arching task forces based on geography, for example? I recall a while back the discussion around creating a task force for African films, but that didn't happen for whatever reason. Would African, European, South American task forces, etc, be useful to have when there isn't a specific country-based one? Lugnuts (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The general process is to create the task force when there is interest. We don't need to feel compelled to create the task force for the sake of creating them. Otherwise, we will have too many task forces laying around with nothing going on in them! :) Wikipedia is dynamic, and WikiProject Films vies for that dynamic nature with its task forces. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Those categories were for curiosity value as much as anything else. :) If anyone's interested, the full task force stats are:

WikiProject Films task force usage
No task force 0 (Expression error: Division by zero%)
One task force 0 (Expression error: Division by zero%)
Two task forces 0 (Expression error: Division by zero%)
Three task forces 0 (Expression error: Division by zero%)
Four or more task forces 0 (Expression error: Division by zero%)

I've not looked at all the articles in that last category, but To Each His Own Cinema seems to be the article with the most, having no less than eleven assigned task forces! PC78 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, that makes for a big template. Do we not have a collapsible mode for 2+ or 3+ task forces? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yashveer r

Found out about this from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yashveer_r.

It would be helpful if people could go through the edits of Yashveer_r (talk · contribs) to see if there is anything left that was nonconstructive that should be reverted. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you block him for only 24 hours? As soon as the block expired, he was at it again and vandalized 22 articles. As of this moment all of them have been reverted but surely he will continue. For some bizarre reason, among his other edits he keeps listing filming locations under studio in the infobox. Since he refuses to respond to messages left on his talk page he obviously intends to keep doing this. He should be blocked indefinitely. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the IP above. He seems to be changing lots of info in the infobox (film times +1 minute, different producers, etc). I've reverted a few of these edits. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yashveer_r_blocked. Feel free to comment there. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Movie Mothertrucker

I have noticed what seems to be a SPA adding references to this review aggregate site to a lot of film articles as of late (both to the prose, and the external links). Is this a notable website, or basically just spam? See Special:Contributions/Hou3910 for diffs. 3DES / decltype (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all the links to the site from the articles. I've also pointed the contributor to this discussion. Personally, I don't think that it is a valid or helpful addition. LeaveSleaves 13:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at their user talk, the article about the website got speedily deleted per A7, so it is unlikely to be notable. Thanks for taking the time to do the clean-up. I am assuming it was all in placed in good faith, but any attempt to reinsert the links will result in a stern cease & desist from me. 3DES / decltype (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Movie MotherTrucker is a similar site to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritc, in fact MMT's rating are more accurate than RT or MC. You said "The site isn't considered a valid aggregate link for the film articles." Okay, then why do you have links and the aggregate scores from RT and MC? Please respond. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hou3910 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on that site but pseudoporn and some half-handed review statistics. The site appears to be run by one person, and is flooded with advertisements. It's also been around for about 1 year, which isn't that long to develop any kind of recognition or history of accuracy. RT has been around for 10 years, AND has been recognized by professional news organizations. They also have an FAQ page that explains how they calculate their numbers. This page does not. It's spam, probably from the guy the runs the site and might even warrant being blacklisted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RT and MT are also "flooded with advertisements". What difference does it make if it's run by one person? Do you only link to corporations? As for a FAQ page it located on the "about" page in the Menu at the bottom of the home page and these scores are more accurate than RT. It is mathematically inarguable. RT doesn't take into cosideration Mixed reviews and even if they did, their and for the most part MT's, scoring system is based on the reader's opinion. It's totally subjective. That's why RT has some ridiculously high ratings (Knocked up) and some riduclouly low ratings (Shutter). And yes I do run the site and put about 20 hours a week into getting ratings for all new wide release AND limited releases, box office numbers, new dvds, posting info on upcoming movies and yeah, I'd like to make some money at it at the same time. I guess that's a crime. And as far the Mrskin pseudoporn links I guess that makes Demi moore, Diane Lane and thousands of other actresses who've been naked on film, pseodoporn stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Hou3910 (talk • contribs)

Not a crime, but it is pretty much a conflict of interest. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been evaluated and endorsed by editors who have no such conflict of interest. You are not the first person to want to solicit their website all over Wikipedia; I have reverted many people like you. We are not looking to make link farms out of articles; we want actual contributions to articles. See Wikipedia:Linkspam for more information. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, actually they aren't. I'm looking at RT right now, and it has like a single advertisement. That's probably because RT is owned by IGN, which is an entertainment news organization. RT does do "mixed" reviews they just do not label reviews as "mixed", if you read their FAQ page you'll see that they explain how they calculate their scores and they do calculate a "mixed" value. As for why there is a difference between a site run by one person and a website run by a corporation, it's the conflict of interest that is created when you promote your own site. They also explain how they get numbers for critics that don't have a star rating system (because not all of them do). The fact that the FAQ page for your website spends much of its time bashing RT and Meta creates another conflict of interest. You cannot claim that MotherTrucker is "more accurate" when you even acknowledge the subjective nature of certain reviews on your FAQ page. You have no evidence to actually prove that theory. Wikipedia isn't here to promote your site so you can "make money". If we use RT or Meta critic it's because they have had a long history of use and recognition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're right about RT having minimal ads, but they do have entire page advertisements that pop up frequently when you're browsing the site. This is why my scores are MORE ACCURATE.

I'll start with "Rotten Tomatoes." "RT" breaks all reviews down into 2 categories, "postive" or "negative" or as they call it "fresh" and "rotten." The problem with their reviews is that each individual review is a read by one of their readers and then that reader gives his or her opinion on whether or not the review was postive/fresh or negative/rotten. It's all subjective. I'll bet there are literally hundreds of reviews you could read on "RT" that you thought were mostly positive, but the "RT reader" gave it a negative score. That makes a HUGE difference in deciding what the numerical grade of a film is. Now, onto "Metacritic." "Metacritic" does the same thing I do in relation to assigning numbers to star ratings and using them to create an average score. But, they also give a numerical score to reviews they read from sources that don't supply a rating of their own. For example, NY Times movie reviews don't give any rating. But, Metacritic frequently uses them when creating their aggregate scores. They just have one of their readers give the review a number rating based on the reader's interpretation. Again, that's subjective and open for interpretation. If an "MC" reader gives a review a 60, you may read the same review and think it's more like a 40. And, these "Up for Interpretation" ratings are factored prominently in Metacritic's final score. You should also recognize that "RT" and "MC" don't use the same number of reviews for each film when figuring out their scores. So, while a big budget blockbuster has a rating based on over 300 reviews, a small film has a rating based on around 10 reviews. Again, this is an accuracy problem.

The scores at Movie MotherTrucker are different, and more accurate, because I only use reviews from critic's who provide some type of score of their own and attach my own numerical rating that is mathematically inarguable. IE: A 3/4 star review on a hundred point scale = 75 points. These are the only types of reviews you will find on this site. There is nothing open for interpretation. Just a sound numerical rating based on mathematical invincibility. Also, here at "MMF" I try to get at least 20, but no more than 20 reviews for each movie. This is a way of leveling the "playing field." Imagine, if you will, 2 sports teams going head to head for the title, but one team has played 85 games, while the other team has only played 12 games. Not really fare is it? So, every movie is given "20 games/reviews", no more, no less, to create an average score and then put into the yearly standings. sometimes getting 20 reviews is unattainable for whatever reason. I will still figure out a score for movies with less than 20 reviews, but they will all be placed on a seperate standings scale which you can find under the "20 Review Standings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hou3910 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for copying and pasting what your FAQ page says. I read it there, and still thought it was a bunch of bologna (no offense). I don't think you have a clear understanding of statistics and what it means to generalize a sample (or in your case, make a bold statement about "being more accurate with subjective reviews" when you don't actually have evidence to back it up). Maybe you should read RT's FAQ page to understand why a review with a 2.5/4 rating was given a negative score and a 2.5/5 rating from another critic was given a positive score. A part from that, please don't copy and paste your website here, that's just not cool. I read it there, and don't need it reiterated for me here. You spamming your link everywhere is a conflict of interest, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if you feel that your site is more accurate than RT (doesn't matter if it is or it isn't for that matter), because you're talking about a corporation with a long standing history of collecting reviews and rating films compared to a personal endeavor that's been around for 1 year and has no recognition outside of its owner's self promotion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: IMO, this site does not look acceptable, but rather like conflict of interest spamming edits. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not looking at this the right way. In terms of treating the website as a reference to cite for the article body, the website is not considered a reliable source. When we are discussing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as links in the "External links" section, the aggregate scores do not matter here. The two links are intended to provide readers access to multiple reviews that cannot be included in the article (since we only include a limited set) so we can avoid having link farms of reviews. We are kind of blurring the line here with this discussion, but ultimately, the website is not reliable to cite for aggregate scores in the article body and not necessary to include as an external link since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic already provide enough links to reviews. I think it's great that you are taking initiative with a website like this, but its presence is not appropriate on Wikipedia at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Warren Beatty filmography

I curious . . . given this "article" is nothing but a list of Beatty's films - and not a very long one at that - shouldn't it be merged with the main article about him? Thanks for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and boldly merged. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've come across more than a few spun-off filmographies that were done for no good reason that I could see. These should be merged back - in too many cases, the spin off occurred for no good reason. Thanks for doing this, PC78. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Film actor template for deletion

Discussion around the deletion of the Jackie Chan filmography template can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Something in the Water

Is this film notable or not, and should the article be moved to mainspace? PC78 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain of its notability, but I cleaned up the article, added an infobox with image, and boldly moved it to mainspace. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox release dates (again)

Here's an unusual situation . . . the 2008 American film Vantage Point had its world premiere in Salamanca, Spain on February 13, 2008. The following day, it premiered in Russia, then premiered in the Philippines and New York City on February 20. It went into general theatrical release in Hong Kong and Qatar on February 20 and in the US, Canada, and multiple foreign markets on February 22.

Now, if we follow the general rule of using the first theatrical release date in the infobox, then it seems February 20 would be accurate. Should it be listed as February 20, 2008 (Hong Kong and Qatar), as both February 20, 2008 (Hong Kong and Qatar) and February 21, 2008 (US), or just February 21, 2008 (US). Please note that within the article I am citing all these opening dates; it's the date in the infobox I'm questioning. Thanks for your input. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless it's a foreign film (which it isn't), then we don't generally include non-English speaking (i.e. primary language) countries. So Hong Kong and Qatar wouldn't be listed. Also, it's usually the widest release that we include. So, if that was Feb. 21, then use that one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Energy films

Currently at TfD. Discussionis at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Energy_films. PC78 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Herzog Kinski

Another template for deletion discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hays Code renaming

An editor has proposed renaming that article Production Code. A discussion is underway at Talk:Hays Code. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New Task Force: Christian Films

Resolved
 – Created. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to formerly propose the creation of the Christian Film Task Force as a part of WikiProject Films. This is a wide-and-growing film genre, which needs coordination and a work group. Some useful links to show the need for this task forces: Christian film, Category:Christian films (and its subcategories), List of Christian film production companies (incomplete list), and relating groups, actors/actresses (for example, Kirk Cameron), festivals, etc. Many of these pages need fully new sourcing, cleanup and re-organization. I would personally volunteer to coordinate the task force, and I know Filmcom is planning on helping. I know of other users who would join, and it is a very wide topic so it can attract more users. With the being said, how would I/we go about founding one? TheAE talk/sign 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

Comments

If you can find a sufficiently large group of editors (say, five) who would be interested in creating a task force for working collectively towards that end, then you can encourage them to make note of that here. A few comments and concerns, though. First of all, we don't cover biographies; second, we don't at the moment have task force coordinators (though of course we encourage participating editors to take the initiative in helping to maintain them), and if we did, they'd simply be liaisons chosen from the currently elected project coordinators. Lastly, how are you defining a Christian film? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As American Eagle has said above, I'm planning on helping (and I'm sure either one of us will be willing to help coordinate the task force). We have one other editor for sure at this moment, very possibly several others. I think a good definition for a Christian film (for the purposes of the task force) is a film with the intention of delivery to a Christian audience, has underlying Christian themes or presuppositions, and/or has been recognized by major Christian sources (i.e., Expelled was chosen as a feature finalist at the SAICFF, though it is not an explicitly Christian film). -- Filmcom (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what Filmcom said above about our definition of 'Christian' films (generally, and that can be a discussion within the task force). I forgot (but knew it once) that WP:FILM doesn't cover biographies, so I'll drop that. About coordinators, I didn't know we didn't use them. But, I was more meaning I'd help out with (and "coordinate") things, regardless of it being an official or a responsibility. I'll look into more active users soon. TheAE talk/sign 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That isn't particularly clear...let me offer four titles and ask: The DaVinci Code, Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Sebastiane. I'm not trying to be litmus-y here, but depending on how you're defining it, all, some, or none of those might meet your definition. And I'm guessing that different editors have different opinions on this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "Christian film" is vague. But that doesn't mean "Christian film", and Category:Christian films should be deleted or anything, and I don't see this as a hindrance to starting a work group. It simply needs discussion by people who are interested in the topic, which only enfources the need for a work group. TheAE talk/sign 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't disagree with you at all in that regard - I'm not opposing the work group, just trying to assay what its first challenges will be. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that'll definitely be one of the first things to be ironed out, for sure. We now have five editors that have said they will help, and we're working on recruiting more. What would you advise our next step being? -- Filmcom (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be willing to help in an articles where ever I can. I can be of good use if you tell me what I can do. Erwin Springer [talk] 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just added a signup section - I only see three editors here, though you may be speaking to more elsewhere. Good luck! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: On Filmcom's userpage, five people have already signed up. But I suppose they can add their name here too, if they truly are interested. I very much am. TheAE talk/sign 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we now have five signed users (and possibly more, contacted). What next? TheAE talk/sign 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm totally in, but I must admit openly that I'm not very knowledgeable about any entertainment topic, including film. On the other hand, I do know a lot about the religious end of it and I strongly support the development of this task force, so I'll do anything I can to help. And, just so you know, my specialty is copy-editing so when it's time for that I'm definitely your girl. :) Also, I think Filmcom's definition of "Christian film" is great though I agree that it does need a bit of sharpening. One step in that direction might be to amend it to say something like, "presents underlying or overt Christian themes and presuppositions in a positive way". Yes? -- edi(talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. -- Filmcom (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any existing lists or categories that match this criteria? Category:Christian films is too broad, apparently. If not, what about off-Wikipedia? Any worthwhile website or print source that lists such films? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) – Not that I know of. This has some films, but it's fairly small and exclusive. There should be some sub-categories for the category, for example, Category:Anti-Christian films, etc. But I believe this type of discussion is one of the main reasons we need such a task force. So, I'll ask again: How would we got about founding one, as we have enough support now? TheAE talk/sign 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on what's needed here, and I'm not sure what's unacceptable about Category:Christian films, but would something like this be more like it? -- edi(talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask for at least one further support signature? Editors with any notable editing history would be preferred. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: two more users invited who may be interested. TheAE talk/sign 04:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On the main Christian film page, the lead states that the genre has been on the rise since the release of Fireproof (2008). I'm assuming that this genre has existed for awhile (a quick look at the Christian films category lists some from the 1950s-1960s), has it really expanded in popularity due to this film? Before starting the task force, I'd recommend redefining the lead (maybe through part of the above definition). If it is a result of Fireproof, then more sources should be added to back that up. With a clear definition on the main page, it would probably increase participation in the task force. Once the task force is assembled, further discussion can elaborate on the definition and expand on the page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been on the rise since before Fireproof, however, that film has been one of the largest releases to date. I would say that the movement towards more Christian films started sometime in the late '90s, early 2000's. I agree with everyone; we will definitely need to discuss this further when the task force is formed. Side note: I have one more editor who is interested for sure (he just needs to add his username to the above support list). --Filmcom (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
So, based on the list on the Christian film page, and that a groundbreaking classic like Judith of Bethulia isn't tagged as a Christian film, it seems like what this is about is films made by specific Christian production companies? Is this correct or is it just because the article is a stub the selection leans towards recent films? Smetanahue (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There are two labels here with the same name. Category:Christian films is the broadest label, encompassing films with major Christian elements. Christian film, at the same time, is the best label for films oriented toward Christian audiences. I am thinking that we could rename the category to something like "Films with Christian elements" or something of the like, and "Christian films" can be an explicit sub-category of that renamed one. From what I can tell with a few quick Google searches, "Christian film" seems to be the proper name to use here. I was wondering, though, what happens if down the road, there is interest in a task force covering Christian subject matter, not just for Christian audiences? Do there need to be separate task forces, or could there be working groups within an overall Christian-type task force since there is some overlap? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, and obviously we have to draw the line somewhere, but I personally have no problem working on movies with Christian subject matter that aren't specifically intended for Christian audiences. I think the idea of nested categories could be good -- one for all films with Christian elements, then within that one for films intended specifically for Christian audiences, called "Christian films". I also think the point about Christian production companies is a good one and might be another possibility. If things were organized in this way, I personally would be likely to work throughout the broader category, but that wouldn't preclude the task force from focusing on the more limited one. I'm open to it either way. -- edi(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) So what is the status on us getting this founded? I won't let this discussion die out and have nothing happen. TheAE talk/sign 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what happens next, as well. We have another editor that's interested for sure, who just needs to add the username to the list above. Filmcom (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Another active user joined, making seven now. I have some ideas about how to organize Christian films in the new task force you guys are going to help us create. :) Firstly, I think it would be good to create something like "Category:Historical Christian films" (or something like that), to movies centered around Christian history (examples, Judith of Bethulia (as Smetanahue mentioned above), Jacob and The Nativity Story). The main category (165+ articles) is large enough to require splitting up. There are other subcategories which would be good to discuss, but we can do that after we get this thing set up. Speaking of which... TheAE talk/sign 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we need to start a picket line to get the help. Whaddaya think, AE?  ;) (That's a joke, of course, but I really am behind you. We'll get it done eventually.) -- edi(talk) 05:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I like your idea, AE! That would probably work really well. And yeah, I'm wanting to see this thing get off the ground, as well. =) -- Filmcom (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: We now have eight users signed up... and still awaiting approval/instruction. TheAE talk/sign 22:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Coming basically from the WikiProject Christianity, I cannot see any problems with such a task force. There might be some banner concerns, but I have no doubt they would be quickly resolved. I have left a message regarding this discussion on the Christianity WikiProject's talk page, which might draw in a few more interested parties. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! I hadn't thought about potential banner conflicts... That'll be something we'll need to take care of, as well. -- Filmcom (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any "conflicts", per se. But we might want to decide which banner to place the information in. My guess is both banners will be one all relevant pages, but we would probably want the task force data included in only one banner, to remove the possibility of contradictory assessments. My guess would be that the film project banner should have the assessments for the Film group, while the Christianity banner just lists the quality rating and the relative "importance" to the parent project. But we do want to make sure that they don't contradict each other. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! It has been created! :) TheAE talk/sign 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! =D -- Filmcom (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just want to be cued in on what's been going on and what I have missed. Thanks! Cheerio!--Ezekiel 7:19 S†rawberry Fields 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of "Lead section" in guidelines

A rewrite of the "Lead section" in the guidelines has been proposed on its talk page. See discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Children's films category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention!

I request the attention of WikiProject Films.

Recently, I have created a Project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bollywood. I request the consent of WikiProject Films to become its parent Project.

Also, I would desire all Bollywood films to be, from now on, taken up solely by my Project.

Comments are welcome on my talk page.

Awaiting your response.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean be "all films taken up solely by [the] Project"? If Project Films is the parent then by default we would be taking them on as well. The only thing the specific project devoted to them would do is organize a group into focusing their attention on that...but anyone, from any project can work on a Bollywood film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Bollywood films are already under the Indian cinema task force here at WikiProject Films. I believe your WikiProject creation was too premature; WP:PROJGUIDE should have been followed in checking whether or not this kind of WikiProject was necessary. Additionally, let's hold discussion on this talk page so all comments are centralized. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force alrwady exists where most of the editor work on Bollywood films anyway. I am seriously opposed to haviong a seperate project as it is very unneccessary to have to tag them for a seperate project other than Wp:Films. Organise a branch of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force for Bollywood if you must but please don't start new wikiprojects withouth approval. This guy intends to make Bollywood films not a part of WP:Films thats what he means. He will be reverted. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with this [4]. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Alien (film)

Comments from members of the Films project are requested at Talk:Alien (film)#First sentence. The issue is the wording of the article's lead sentence. In short, over the last 2 years User:Pedant17 has proposed various changes to the wording of the lead. Opinions vary and consensus has not been reached. Discussion tends to revolve around how to best follow the guidance of Wikipedia:Lead section#First sentence, and whether or not the current wording is the best possible. Past discussions on the same topic can be read here and here. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

29th Golden Raspberry Awards at Peer review

I've done some work improving the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards and started the peer review process for it. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review is now closed after some great feedback. It's now at WP:FLC. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Raduga (film)

I just added this one to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film#Proposed deletions. Does anyone know what the {{prodded}} template is for? Is there some script or bot in operation that uses it? Also, are there any admins who watchlist here who would like to do some speedy deletion work, but don't want to wade through all the non-film articles tagged for speedy deletion to do it? If so, then when feel free to speedy an article after I downgrade it to prod, if you find a valid reason to speedy that I didn't mention on the talk page of the article. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the {{prodded}} template is just for the deletion sorting pages; no need to use it routinely. Also, speedy deletion is different from proposed deletion. If you think that an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion, you can add the appropriate template to it. Proposed deletions are for articles that do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire "article" consists of "1944 Russian Film". Isn't that enough reason for a speedy deletion? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Except in cases of vandalism, attacks, promotionalism or copyright violation, it's always okay to decline a speedy deletion if the admin (in this case, me) makes a judgment call that we might get a worthwhile article (and promotionalism and copyvios aren't black-and-white, either). Wikipedia won't be harmed by having an article for 7 days that correctly tells people that Raduga is a Russian film from 1944 ... but yes, we need something more. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alerts

Ah ... wait a minute, you guys are signed up to get alerted to proposed deletions here. So we don't need a new bot ... but this raises the question, if I downgrade a speedy deletion to either prod or AfD, is it okay if I add {{Film}} to the talk page in all cases where the article is about a film or filmmaker? Obviously it's fine with me if someone reverts, but at least you could find out about the prod or AfD. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would be perfectly fine for the films. We don't handle the filmmakers - they should be tagged for WP Bio with the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup parameter activated. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance...

A user keeps recreating A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), even after I have informed them that it currently fails WP:NFF. Per the future films guideline, the film must be in production and the production itself must be notable. At this time, all of the reliably sourced information about this film is at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Future, and none of that is production info, but casting and the announcement of a future film site. The user is throwing things out like "IMDB talks about it" to justify the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to request page protection? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not being speedied. The redirect is the best option because it keeps people from creating pages that are redlinked. This particular user keeps reverting the redirect, and wants to discuss it on the talk page of the article. I have already discussed it on the user's talk page, but they refuse to acknowledge WP:NFF even exists. P.S. I even responded on the article's talk page. I haven't tried a PP (yet), because I wanted to get this cleared up first. Then again, this user might not be looking for reason, as I've already explained NFF to them twice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:AfD ? Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to future films that are sure to eventually get made, I don't do deletions. Redirecting of all potential titles typically works best, but people tend to come along and find some new variation of the title to create a page for. In this case it was just capitalizing "Film" in the title, then moving that over top of the correct version ("film").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one source that mentions this film has begun shooting[5], and multiple published sources that it was scheduled to begin filming the week of May 5.[6][7][8] dissolvetalk 04:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That helps us adjust for the day it supposedly started, but that's about it. We already have the two schools mentioned, though I think I'm going to use that one article about the apprehension of filming murder in the schools.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a question about using a film as a source, posted to WP:RSN. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Film_affiliated_with_subject_appropriate_as_source.3F. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Template for deletion: Template:Sellers movies

I've nominated Template:Sellers movies for deletion here, based on the previous deletion of the other actor-only templates in the past as being redundant and consensus against them. Please post any comments you might have regarding this. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic (film)

The Skeptic (film) needs major expansion. It's a one-line microstub about an irrefutably notable film, and nobody's been arsed to expand it yet. Could someone who's good at writing film articles help me please? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Never seen it, never will, but have expanded it with production info, reception, distribution, added an infobox, etc. Should be good to go now. Will add a bit more, though, since I'm bored anyway LOL-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Collectonian, your additions included misinformation, unnecessary red links, and spelling and grammatical errors. I cleaned up the article and I don't understand why you reverted my edit. In the opening, why did you delink the year the film was made and the country of origin? Why are you mentioning the film was produced by the director's wife (whose name you have wrong) when there were four producers in all? Why did you remove two of those producer names from the infobox? Why are you redlinking her name and deleting valid blue links? Could somebody please compare these versions [9] and tell me why Collectonian's is better? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd ask you to AGF and stop making incorrect allegations. My additions do NOT include misinformation. Just because IMDB lists people does NOT make them producers of the film. Find a reliable source that actually lists any other producer besides her. Every one I added to the article said she produced, period, not she was "a producer" with X, Y, & Z. Nor does my version include spelling and grammar errors beyond one or two typos. Year and country should not be linked in the infobox (go read up on current guidelines), they are common links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, why are you listing a gross in the infobox when the film has played only one week in one theater so far? And why do you think "The film was heavily panned for lacking in suspense, being reminiscent of 1970s television horror films, and poor acting and dialog" (your version) gramatically is better than "The film was panned for its lack in suspense, poor acting and dialog, and being reminiscent of 1970s television horror films" (my version). When people make changes like that it suggests to me that they feel like they own the article and nobody else is allowed to touch (or in this case improve) it. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Because it is still gross earnings, and its been standard practice in any article with such information. All your version of that sentence does is reoder, which is not significantly better, though it was really only reverted because you did so many edits all at once rather than one section at a time. And, again, go WP:AGF and quite with the BS about ownership and crap. I just helped out on the article because of the request for help above. I'm simply trying to also make sure it stays compliant with appropriate guidelines during its still on-going AfD.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In your edit summary you said I added "excessive irrelevant links". The only links I added were 2009 (year of release), American (country of origin), and Rorschach test (since many readers might not know what this is). Why are these "excessive" and "irrelevant"? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The first two are both. They add no value and are technically going against the wikilinking guidelines. There is an RfA going on on that, if it hasn't closed yet. And note the link to Rorschach test is still sitting right there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which source says Tennyson Bardwell and Mary-Beth Taylor were the film's only producers? Who decide IMDb is not an accurate source for production credits? Since when is the year of issue and country of origin not linked? What is ridiculous is that you keep adding unneccesary red links - for example, for Mary-Beth Taylor Bardwell (which isn't even her professional name) and Batcheller Mansion Inn. Also, you have no consistency in your linking. You link Sarasota Springs and Beverly Hills but keep removing mine for Albany, New York. Why link some cities but not others? And why can't you accept the fact that some of your wording is clumsy and punctuation is incorrect? Prime example: You insist on saying "In its opening weekend, to a single theater, The Skeptic earned a domestic gross of $1,553" instead of "In its opening weekend in a single theater, The Skeptic earned $1,553." A film opens in a theater, not to a theater, the comma after weekend doesn't belong there, and there's no need to specify "domestic" gross if the single theater was in upstate New York. I really wish a project coordinator would weigh in here. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of your grammatical changes look good to me, but your comments here are getting increasingly personal, so I would ask you to assume good faith and remain civil. Collectonian is a project coordinator, as am I. This is already a fairly trivial dispute, and unless you are reverted wholesale again I consider the matter closed. PC78 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think civility - especially from a project coordinator - includes accepting the fact another editor's writing might be an improvement and responding to pertinent questions instead of ignoring them and reverting changes without justifying why. Collectonian claims my changes were reverted because I did so many edits all at once rather than one section at a time. Since when is only one section at a time allowed to be edited? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Civility starts with one's self, and your comments in this thread have been confrontational from the start. Instead of reverting the changes that were undone and kicking up a fuss here, is there any reason why you couldn't approach Collectonian directly at her talk page? Criticising others for their perceived mistakes and insisting that you know best is hardly likely to lead to a productive discussion. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You continue claiming I put in "misinformation" without providing a single reliable source to back up your claim. You also continue inappropriately removing the AfD notification which is extremely inappropriate, removing valid categories, and misnaming sections. Sorry, but if you make edits like that, it will be reverted as a whole. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I never have removed the AfD notification. I suggest you look at the history more carefully before making accusations. The only category I have removed is English-language films because that automatically is added when a film is listed as such in the infobox. As a film project coordinator you should know that. Reverting as a whole makes no sense because by doing so you revert some poor writing and all the grammatical and punctuation errors. As for the misinformation you keep posting, there are FOUR producers clearly listed on the film poster [10] - what better proof do you need? Please accept the fact this article is open to everyone for editing and stop abusing your position as a coordinator by reverting other people's work indiscriminately. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
So then, I guess this was someone else using your computer?[11] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I appear to be confrontational because Collectonian keeps reverting poor grammar, incorrect punctuation, and unnecessary links (such as Tennyson Bardwell 'three times in the infobox). Furthermore, even after being directed to the film's poster, which lists four producers, she removed this information from the infobox. What's more important - accuracy or a bruised ego? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian now claims a film's poster is not proof of its credits! Does anyone else see there's something wrong with this logic? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, an online version of the film poster is not a valid source for the credits, and that image you linked to is completely unreadable. Again, if the poster is correct, an actual reliable source should state the four producers. That is all you have ever been asked to do, produce a REAL source instead of continuing to edit a statement that directly conflicts with the reliable source for it. NONE of the ten reliable sources on the article mention four directors, none. Again, provide a reliable source. Your edits keep getting reverted because YOU keep introducing unsourced claims to the article trying to cough them in "grammar" corrections (which really are not) and other minor edits. I see you note are ignoring that yes, you did remove the AfD notice.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The image of the poster I provided is quite legible. And the fact your souirces - which appear to focus on the filmmaker and his wife, not the entire creative team - failed to mention all four producers by name doesn't mean they don't exist. The poster proves they do. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The text at the bottom is completely illegible. Again, if there are four producers, find a reliable source that says so. "My sources" focus on the film, not just the filmmaker and his wife. Several of the reviews given list the creative team, but none list four producers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Even Helen Keller could read the credits on this [12]. This film has FOUR producers. Do any of your sources say it doesn't? While inclusion might make something true, omission doesn't prove it false. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though I have provided Collectonian with a legible image of the poster, she has reverted the article once again with the edit summary "restore actual sourced data rather than presumptions based on an image - find an RS". How can you "presume" a film's credits based on the image of its poster? Why isn't the film's poster the most reliable source of all? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The file you linked to produces a 403 error. That is also still not a usable source. Please read WP:RS. Film posters can have errors, and that is not the poster, its someone's image of a poster. Images are not reliable sources. Again, all that is asked for is a legitimate reliable source, yet you seem unable to find one beyond images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How odd that you couldn't read the first image I provided and when you try to access the second one you get a 403 error. Maybe you're having computer problems. The image I provided isn't just "someone's image of a poster", it's the same image you can find at [13], the website for IFC, the film's distributor. Are you going to claim they have incorrect information on their own poster? As I said, if a so-called reliable source includes information, that might make it true, but if it fails to mention it, that doesn't prove it false. Seeing is believing and the poster says it all. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not having computer problems, thanks. And WP:V ~= true. It is on the onus of the person claiming information to prove it is verifiable from a reliable source, not just because they believe it is true. A poster is not a citeable source. Ironically, you could have just said "the official website lists four producers" and added that citation and that would have been that, instead of wasting two days on a bunch of drama because you felt an image was enough despite being told repeatedly that it was not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone an image isn't sufficient proof repeatedly is worthless without a valid explanation why, and just because you say so doesn't make it so. Ironically, the article now includes all the correct information and grammar and punctuation changes I added in my first edit.You should have left it that way from the very start, instead of wasting two days on a bunch of drama because you felt your version was better than anyone else's. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (film)

Article on this film does not establish notability according to the guidelines. I know the subject of the film is Fringe... but I don't know if that applies to the film itself. If it has won awards, or has met any of the other criteria for notability, that needs to be mentioned in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any new films meet the guidelines you listed on the article's talk page but that doesn't mean they're not notable. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's actually pretty easy for most new films to meet the notability requirements. You know those "5 stars, says Boston Herald" or "I'd see this movie, says New York Times" that you see on virtually every movie box/advertisement? Those are reviews from a credible source. If nobody has really seen this movie and those that have seen it aren't willing to publicly comment on it, then it's not really notable. Perhaps you could try entering some film festivals if you can't find anyone who's reviewed it. Banaticus (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You are harping on only one requirement, the one that refers to reviews from a credible source. In reality, it's impossible for a new film to meet any of the rest of the notability requirements:
  1. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles at least five years after the film's initial release
  2. Deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals in a poll conducted at least five years after the film's release
  3. The film was given a commercial re-release or screened in a festival at least five years after initial release
  4. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking
  5. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive
  6. The film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program
It's obvious these so-called guidelines for notability can't apply to films until at least five years after the film's initial release, so maybe the guidelines need to be rewritten. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree... five years does seem a bit long... but even if we remove the time requirement completely, I am not sure that the NWO film passes muster. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Max Payne mistakes section

A user recently added a mistakes section to the Max Payne page and there is a bit of a disagreement on if it should be there. I believe it falls into WP:OR and WP:TRIV but FlieGerFaUstMe262 believes that it is needed to let people know about the mistakes and the film is the reference. You can see our discussion on his talk page. I think we both have valid points but are behind our decisions. If you could help us resolve this and since I couldn't find a policy or guideline it would help avoid future disagreements. --Peppagetlk 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Numerous films have been identified as having historical inaccuracies especially if they are dealing with biographical stories or historical events. In these cases, a section is applicable to address these inconsistencies. It is the same as a film "flubs" section. FWiW, see the notorious Pearl Harbor (film). A caution, however, that all statements in regards to identifying inaccuracies should be verifiable from authoritative sources. Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Per my recollection of recent project discussion regarding standard ELs in film articles, such as IMDB, AllMovie, etc, these links should not be added purely on an automatic basic, but because they actually follow EL and add additional information to the reader. In working on The Skeptic (film) (per above), I specifically declined to add links to Allmovie and TCM Movie Database as they had nothing but a plot summary and the cast/crew list, thereby failing EL. User:Ed Fitzgerald came through and added those two links, and I removed explaining why. However he disagrees and has restored them (twice)[14][15] and requested they not be removed again, on the premise that they are dynamic and there fore may be useful in the future. To me, this goes against the idea of WP:CRYSTAL and does not adequately support adding these links to the articles. As we are unable to agree, additional views at Talk:The Skeptic (film)#Discussion moved from user talk page would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are both right (bettcha thought you'd never see that statement from me), although I don't see a problem in adding the sources especially since both sites are dynamic and subject to change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

copyvio?

List of films shot in Sonora, California appears to have been pasted from IMDb. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, lists of items are not copyrightable. However, it seems like a pretty useless list, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis (Resident Evil)

Does this article fall under the scope of this project? Is a single film appearance really sufficient? There was a similar discussion regarding Bane (comics) the other week which resulted in the article being removed from this project. I ask because the article is currenlty nominated for A-Class review, but I don't want to waste my time with it if it doesn't fall within our purview. PC78 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, being as its about the character rather than any major discussion on the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Unsure, to be honest. I don't see how this precludes the ACR, however - we'd only be vetting the film-related content, which may be minimal, but still has standards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely you wouldn't review the article on the basis of a single section? PC78 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not? The ACR is designed to advise in as much as we can within our areas of expertise and scope. I can't speak to the game, but surely we can provide input as far as the film-related content is concerned? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how we could reasonably pass or fail an article on the basis of a mere two paragraphs at the exclusion of all else. Should I choose to review the article then I would need to look at the entire thing, checking for prose, referencing, supporting materials etc. If you wanted to assess the article solely on its film-related content, then wouldn't it be Stub (or at best Start) class? PC78 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the article should have an A-Class Review under WikiProject Films. Articles should be directly related to film, and I don't see this character as being particularly cinematic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is potentially a problem, then, if we allow the article to retain the Film banner, but remain inadmissible for an ACR. And I don't really see a way that it can be justifiably outside of our scope without that opening up a whole larger can of worms down the road. Are we really going to take a pass on this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who saw the Chinese movies?

I'd like getting some input on these two movies entitled "Fo tiao qiang (1977)" and "Meng gui fo tiao qiang" (1988) because if the movies are related to the Chinese dish, Fotiaoqiang (Buddha Jumps Over the Wall), I want to mention them on the food article under the subsection like "The dish in popular culture" The 1988 move is a horror film but I wonder why its name is "Fierce Ghost, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall" that includes the dish name. Any comment is appreciated.--Caspian blue 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen them, but I've had a look for info online. Couldn't find anything for the 1977 film; the 1988 film is also known as Bless This House, but the few websites I found ([16], [17], [18]) don't seem to refer to the dish you mention. Hope that helps! PC78 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I guess my plan goes moot.--Caspian blue 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror Inside

Notable? - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the involvement of Corey Feldman, I'd be surprised that this film didn't receive enough coverage to be notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be borderline, but I'm inclined to say now I found a 2-3 news articles talking about the film with Feldman, but not seeing many reviews or the like. It doesn't even have a listing on Rotten Tomatoes, which seems pretty telling to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The film wasn't released theatrically, which explains why it's not listed on Rotten Tomatoes. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
RT has other straight to DVD releases, and made for TV films, though? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The film hasn't been released in theaters or on DVD. I have no idea how RT decides which films to list or omit, but the fact this one was shown only once at a minor film festival might have affected their decision not to include it on the site. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A print source that has significant coverage: Myers, Rachel (May 11, 2007). "Terror Inside: Local media maven fulfills lifelong dream by writing, directing and producing". The News-Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Film series style guideline

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_series. Шизомби (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Film and movie

Are the two words used as equivalent on Wikipedia? Technically a film is a movie shot on filmstrip. Something shot on analog or digital video and never transferred to film isn't accurately termed a "film," is it? Шизомби (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that "movie" is deprecated as a word to use. I believe it may be too casual of a word? "Film" can be defined as what you say but also interchangeably with "movie" and "motion picture". So even works produced on digital video are considered films, they are not explicitly bound by the format used. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My dictionary defines both film and movie as "a motion picture," so I think the terms are interchangeable. It really has nothing to do with the technical processes you described. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Film festivals categories

Should film festivals by year, like the 2009 Cannes Film Festival be categorized as Film awards by year, for example Category:2009 film awards, or should there be a Film festivals by year category? Also, should they also be categorized in the "year in film" categories, like Category:2009 in film?--Cattus talk 11:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, festivals are about more than just awards given (though that is obviously important). So it might indeed be necessary to create Category:Film festivals by year. And yes as well for categorizing by Category:2009 in film and the like. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:English-language films

Discussion at CfD can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And Bearcat has proposed some ideas on how this category might be retained but redefined as a largely depopulated top-level category, addressing the very real usability issues raised by the deletion nominator.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess my first question is: what would the process be for "turning off" the function whereby English-language films in the infobox are automatically listed in this category? I think that would have to be a first step in recreating (and largely depopulating) Category:English-language films as a top-level category for English language films by country subcats and the like, as has been suggested at this AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be a fairly easy fix if that's the way the discussion goes. PC78 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Shawn invited me to participate in this discussion and I appreciate the offer, but given:

  • the project members here know a lot more than me about how the project's infoboxes work, the subcats, etc., and
  • the CfD discussion is going almost 100% against deletion,

I will bow out of this process and trust the group to do what's best. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was among those opposed to deletion, but would very much support redefining the role of this cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue at No Country for Old Men (film)

No Country for Old Men is currently a good article, having passed on April 1, 2008. In March of this year, a relatively new and inexperienced editor Ring Cinema began redoing the plot summary, eventually replacing it completely with what I feel is a fairly inferior summary. The one from the GA review was fairly well written, but Ring Cinema claims it is inaccurate and has speculations. The version he replaced it with is too long, very poorly written, and I do not see any "corrections". I restored the GA version of the plot summary,[19] and he reverted stating "'restoration' included many inaccuracies, speculation, and lack of clarity".[20] I've asked him to point out actual, specific inaccuracies and speculations from the original, but he thus far has refused, instead continuing to revert to his preferred version and claiming that I'm being disruptive[21]. Additional views would be greatly appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The first problem I saw was that there was NO talk page discussion that accompanied the revert-edit war that was taking place. The article's talk page is the appropriate place to center the discussion on a content or stylistic issue. Edit comments notwithstanding, I have invoked the allmighty WP:BRD to put a stop to the nonsense. ...and speaking of nonsense, what's the deal with the  %&**&& ISO dating in the references. If you must use the confounded templates, at least keep the date format consistent. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
Agreed, and I tried encouraging him (repeatedly) to discuss. Even now he hasn't responded to the new discussion. For the ISO dates...uh, blame the half-assed conversions of the citation templates. Some have been modified, others haven't. Its such a mess :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There is now a No Country for Old Men talk page "string" discussing the style and format issues of the article. FWiW, I'll keep my specific comments as to the direction of the article limited to this forum. Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Just a quick FYI... an editor who started a new account today has been making (presumably gf) edits to infoboxes by listing numerous cities/states/countries (from what I'm guessing, generally any location which he/she notices is portrayed in the film) in the "studio" field, adding one minute to the length of a film in the "running time" field, and erroneously changing the release dates. Editor is also adding random foreign countries to the "country" field while accompanying them with flag icons. I've left two messages on the editor's talk page, but have not gotten an acknowledgment or response, nor has the editor ceased with the edits. I've reverted all the edits as of 08:27, 19 May 2009, but can't keep going on (some edits may not appear as (top) edits because some have been quickly followed up by minor tweaking by RussBot). Anyway, just thought anyone else reading this, or an RCP'er, might want to keep an eye out. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the same person who was doing the same thing with just an IP address a few weeks ago. The IP address was blocked indefinitely which explains why he created an account. These are NOT "good faith" edits because this person was told that filming locations did not belong in the studio category and flag icons did not belong in the infobox by several different editors but never responded then either. If Yashmanthegreat is not stopped there will be dozens of articles that will need correcting, just like last time. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pardon the intrusion, but who the ? is the above editor? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
Pardon the intrusion, but who are you to ask such a question? FWiW, anyone is entitled to make a comment on Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with IP here. Who cares whether an IP or a registered user comments. Regarding the vandal, I am pretty sure it's User:Yashveer r who also used User talk:Yashman18. Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur, but my question was not frivolous. IPs have been known to take on identities and this last note had information that seemed to be very detailed, leading me to ask if this was the troll himself inserting a comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

No, it was not the "troll," it was someone who keeps up with film articles and remembers the vandalizing IP user and User:Yashveer r, whose editing patterns were very similar. No doubt Yashveer r, Yashman18, and Yashmanthegreat are the same person, who obviously isn't creative enough to hide his identity a little better! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe anons can make valuable contributions and do! From your IP's history which includes many film article edits which I assume belong to you; I see you have a strong interest in this area. Have you considered establishing a userid? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Far

I have nominated Gremlins at WP:FAR because I feel it's no longer featured article quality. You can give your opinion Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gremlins/archive1. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fish out of water film

I noticed there is a women in prison film page yet no fish out of water film page. I didn't know the first existed but the second is my favorite kind of film - am I fabricating this terminology? I wanted to read more about it and especially find a list of examples. I want you brave people to create it. NorrYtt (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of covered at Comedy film#Types in the second paragraph. Not quite sure if an individual film article is needed for two reasons: "fish out of water" is a term not limited to film, and search engine tests don't show a lot of specific coverage. I did find this, though: "fish+out+of+water"+film The fish-out-of-water comedies. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There used to be a category and an article for it but they were both deleted. See their respective deletion page, here and here, for reasons why they were deleted. - kollision (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

Article has just been re-created after speedy deletion with no independent sources; see User_talk:Dank/Archive_7#John Ng for previous discussion. I'll leave it up to you guys and WP:WikiProject Martial arts whether it should go to WP:AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ng. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Weddings and Babies image issue

I removed File:Myhers and lindfors in weddings and babies.jpg from this article, as it appears to be purely illustrative and to fail WP:NONFREE as it does not involve critical commentary of the film. Per the uploader and main article contributer, he thinks it is a "nice" image, and it is basically just a scene from the start of the film. Another editor has reverted my removal, claiming that the justification is fine to him[22]. Additional views at Talk:Weddings and Babies#WP:NONFREE compliance would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that the image is "nice," but I also feel that it complies with policy, and I also see that the administrator who reinstated this image felt the same way. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Being an administrator does not mean he is either perfect nor infallible. Its more useful if all discussion stays at one place, preferably the article's talk page.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you could have been more neutral in soliciting discussion, and I am not at all happy seeing you quote from a private email. Please don't do that again, to me or anyone. Thank you. Stetsonharry (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Hey. Recently, Rotten Tomatoes gave a bad score to Terminator Salvation based on the 162 reviews. However, an IP first tried to add how that another film from rotten tomatoes has a 100% (out of 9 reviews, only 1 being from a top critic) even though it's about a man eating crocodile (Rogue). Besides that being useless to Terminator Salvation, his reasoning was to show the readers that they should take these reviews with a grain of salt. Other users besides me have already undid his edits and said that the comparison is not needed, and doesn't really add anything. The IP is now trying to say that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used as it's owned by the same company that owns Fox. Besides that means it might be like Fox News, being biased and all that. And Night of the Museum is owned by Fox, so Rotten tomatoes is going to give it a bad review to try and let people go to that movie instead of T4 (Both Night of the Museums got a negative review by Rotten Tomatoes, and IGN). I tried to explain this too him, but lost my temper and personally attacked him.

However, should we do what he says and not use Rotten tomatoes on movies not made by Fox to keep it neutral? Because I personally don't see any reason that we should do that, as both Rotten tomatoes and IGN, despite being owned by the same company that owns Fox, still seem to be neutral. Anyone else got an opinion? Deavenger (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion should be centralized at Talk:Terminator Salvation#Rotten Tomatoes is Owned by "Night @ Museum" 's Fox. Will leave my thoughts there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

public domain films - not

I have added large notices to Category:Public domain films, suggesting it be renamed to Category:Public domain films in the United States and asking that films be removed unless their respective article includes a reliable source that they are in the public domain in the USA. At present many of the films are not public domain outside the USA, and several may not be public domain inside the USA. I have removed a few films already from the category, but some kind of organised method may be needed to remove and re-include the correct films. See also a first attempt at listing public domain films (with cites) at List of films in the public domain. 84user (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not create two different categories? public domain films and public domain films in the United States? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
I've also removed your comments from both the article and the category. If you want to discuss changes to either, please use their respective talk pages or appropriate forums such as WP:RM or WP:CfD. PC78 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox for Thor (film)

This is just a notice that I have created a sandbox for the planned Thor film to be used as the actual article once the has entered principle photography. Please feel free to comment and contribute. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This might peak your interest. Wildroot (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, thats much better - TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Also feel free to pull any information from User:TriiipleThreat/Thor (film) to help with this. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for Shirley Temple

There's a request here to move "Shirley Temple" to "Shirley Temple Black". Folks might like to weigh in with their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Naalaya Theerpu - Indian flick in need of TLC

The India Cinema task force seems a little devoid of activity, so I am crossposting here. The Indian (or more specifcally Tamil) film Naalaya Theerpu is in serious need of some improvement (the plot is told using the actors names not character names for one thing). Any film buffs up to the challenge? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In need of TLC: Jasper, Texas (film)

Jasper, Texas (film) is in need some TLC, lacks almost everything execpt a one line over view of the film. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The one line view was taken from IMDB, so I rewrote that, noted some award nominations, added some ELs. Tons of sources appear to be available in news articles from around 2003-2004 from a quick Google News source, so should be easily expandable. Slightly more respectable stub now anyway. If no one else gets to it, I may try to work it more this weekend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have expanded it from stub to start class by adding an image, plot synopsis, cast list, critical reception, DVD details, and categories. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with a film ref at La Peau de chagrin

In the article La Peau de chagrin, somebody added the statement "In 1960 Croatian animator Vladimir Kristl made an animated short entitled Šagrenska koža (The Piece of Shagreen Leather) inspired by Balzac's novel" to the "Influence" section. This seems noteworthy in the sense that Kristl was a noted animator, and this is the only point in the article where there is a suggestion of a filmed (even if short) adaptation of the novel. A link to IMDB was later given as a reference, but it didn't quite cover all the information it needed to - and to really confuse things, it seems this is one of those occasions when IMDB is rather unreliable and there was in fact a duplicate entry for the film, under a different title, and with slightly different information. Is it possible for somebody with a better understanding of how to reference films to take a look here to comment? 78.32.103.197 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Battleground

User:Ed Fitzgerald and I disagree (surprise!) on whether Battleground (film)#Cadence should remain. The discussion is here. I at least would like others' opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

TCM.com

Say, I was wondering what the general rule/practice is concerning use of content from TCM.com. While it has user-contributed data, there is also a good amount of proprietary content, such as bylined articles, and I had understood that to be usable. I looked around and couldn't find a recent discussion on the subject, but perhaps I was looking in the wrong place. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a primary resource but if it is used judiciously, TCM has some value as a source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
You should search for the actual articles that they are publishing, as it's still hard to determine where they are getting the info from. Is someone submitting a transript from the article, or is TCM finding it and posting it. Since we cannot see the actual article, just a transcript, it creates the question of "did they transcribe is accurately"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In a cursory examination, I looked up The Russia House on TCM.com, and found user reviews (so-so and questionable as a source) but also a comprehensive review that has three alternative references cited: Russia House. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
All of their articles seem to involve original research, and I have found them to track closely with primary source materials. This discussion confirms my impression that TCM proprietary content is perfectly reliable and usable, much as any Internet or print publication that appears to utilize proper standards. Bignole, on your previous point, TCM is the owner of the content and is not publishing transcripts but actual articles. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
TCM is, in fact, probably the most consistent of the three major websites in having specific background information (production, casting, etc.) on films, although they are best for older films. The "Notes" section is obviously compiled by TCM staff from research in old periodicals, which are usually listed, albeit informally, and from the specialized collections at UCLA. The "Article" section is an original signed article written for TCM.com, presumably by a staffer. Other sections are usually less useful, and generally duplicative of information in IMDB and AMG, but "Notes" and "Articles" usually come through. The top "Overview" page also frequently has production dates that the other sites don't have. As far as I can tell, the sections that readers can contribute to are limited. In my view, TCM is a very valid and reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Presumably? As in, there is no actual information on who writes it, and most of it is not reliable if it scoming from IMDB and AMG. Partially reliable doesn't seem to meet RS to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who it is that writes the articles, they are signed, and are under the imprimateur of a major media outlet -- Turner Classic Movies, a part of Time-Warmer. It's not someone's pet blog, it's not a fly-by-night operation, it's as reliable as Time or People or Fortune or CNN. (Whether that's saying a lot depends on your view of the state of the media these days.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but where does it come from? Is it a news organization? Is it a secondary source or a tertiary source? I think it is clearly the later: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources." As such, "Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources" and "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.". In many cases, TCM is being used for the later, rather than purely for overview/summation material. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just over a month ago, I created my 6000th article. The film has just won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. I've been working hard on both articles, and would appreicate any help expanding the film article. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm also glad that Thirst (2009 film) directed by Park Chan-wook won the Jury Prize at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. (that was updated by you as well. :)[23] --Caspian blue 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Really pleased to see one of my favourite directors winning at Cannes. For the Cannes article itself, I've been working on the layout, etc, to hopefully bring it up to the criteria for a Featured List. I think it's nearly there, but the lead is bothering me. The text about the US not winning anything since 2006 seems really trivial, IMO. Any pointers to promote this article will be most welcome. Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your amazing output. Re: the Cannes article, what bothers me are the number of red links that appear throughout it. Is it common to redlink the names of so many individuals and films when it's highly unlikely articles about them ever will be written about them? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks (again)! Re: redlinks - I'm working through the majority of them to create articles. They certainly meet the criteria for notable films (screened at a festival), and hopefully some of them will have articles on other Wikis too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it enough for a film to be shown at a film festival to be considered notable? It looks like what you're really doing is creating stubs that probably won't ever be expanded by anyone. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it is one of the main criteria for notability. Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about the criteria for notability here [24]. Most of the existing criteria apply to films that are at least five years old. I think they need to be rewritten so they apply to new releases. I don't think one showing at a film festival (even if it's Cannes) makes a film notable enough for an article. 67.79.157.50 is right, most of the links at 2009 Cannes Film Festival lead to stubs, and most of them have very few blue links in them, which means the cast and crew aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I don't see any point in creating an article for The X Movie if all it consists of is two sentences and an infobox and cast list with no links to other articles. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Cannes festival is the most prominent film event in the world. If the stubs weren't created, someone might hesitate from adding notable information, especially if it is an unregistered user. It is also very unlikely that a film selected for the festival doesn't qualify for at least half of the other criteria. The same could be said about Venice, Berlin and Toronto Film Festival. The main reason for most of the Cannes 2009 films being stubs is probably that they haven't been released anywhere else yet, so noone has been able to write a plot summary, and there haven't been many interviews with production info because the marketing hasn't got that far. If you look at the list from 2008 there are only a few stubs. Smetanahue (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the 2008 list and actually 25 are stubs which is 67.5% of the films. That seems like a lot more then a few. Although the ones that are stubs are mostly foreign films which could possibly be much harder to get information on. They could be very notable but the lack of information is going to lead to a very sparse article. They are mostly a tiny summary and cast. --Peppagetlk 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"I looked over the 2008 list and actually 25 are stubs which is 67.5% of the films." So what? Looking at the stats from the project in total shows 38,479 stubs vs. a total of 55,968 articles. I make that to be 68.7% of all our articles to be stubs. The bottom line is these films are notable, fullstop. Just like the films nominated (and winners in) the lesser Oscar categories are too. I've mentioned before that I think there's alot of editors who don't know how to/are unwilling to start new articles, but once they've been created, additions are made. Would either of the two Anon IPs be willing to expand any one of the 2009 Cannes articles beyond stub? No, thought not. It's much easier to moan about it than to to put any effort in trying to make things better. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How can anyone expand any one of the 2009 Cannes articles beyond a stub when there is no way to research them or nothing to say about them? Articles about obscure foreign films shouldn't be written until they're released somewhere. At least then they could have a plot and some reviews in them. It's not that there are a lot of editors who don't know how to/are unwilling to start new articles, it's that they're not going to write two sentences and call it an article and then watch it rightfully get nominated for deletion or just sit there forever and be useless because they don't have any information in them. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why create any article then? There are thousands of stubs (outside of this project) that will probably fall into the same boat as you've described. Why have an article on an "obscure" village on the other side of the planet? Why have an article on a "obscure" South-American politican? Why have an article on a "obscure" Bulgarian painter? Etc. With the foreign films, lots of them have corresponding articles on their own languages' Wiki. It's not just "obscure foreign films" that don't get expanded - take a look at some of the English language films that are stubs (again, Oscar winning films, films with very notable stars/directors, etc). Lugnuts (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact there are thousands of stubs doesn't justify creating more. If lots of foreign films have corresponding articles on their own languages' Wiki, that's where they should be. And articles about "obscure" villages on the other side of the planet, "obscure" South-American politicans, and "obscure" Bulgarian painters usually get deleted, and rightly so. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But they don't. You clearly don't have a clue. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And you simply create stubs to add to your total of original "articles", many of which are useless to readers. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Then get busy expanding them, instead of bitching! Lugnuts (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as the subject is notable, then we're better off for having something rather than nothing. Films aren't "obscure" just because they're foreign. If you bother to research some of them you might be surprised by what you find. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that having a stub for a film is better than having nothing at all, and I empathize with the problem that for certain films, there's just very little out there on the web - suprisingly so - making it hard to write anything but a stub for them. I think we all have a tendency at times to assume that pretty much any information we're ever going to need is easily available online, but it just ain't so. For one thing, the web has biases, not in terms of skewed information, but in terms of the volume of available data: things American, things in English, things recent, things popular, are all easier to locate material about.

Perhaps we'd all be better off carrying our laptops to the local library and editing from there, so we can pull material from a wider variety of sources. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's funny is that Lugnuts said, "Would either of the two Anon IPs be willing to expand any one of the 2009 Cannes articles beyond stub? No, thought not. It's much easier to moan about it than to to put any effort in trying to make things better." What I'd like to know is, if there's so much material available to expand these stubs, why didn't you include it in them in the first place? It's ridiculous to suggest other people should do what you couldn't do yourself because there just aren't any resources or references for these obscure films. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that each new article should be more than a stub, too. I'm not asking (apart from you - as per the above) /expecting anyone to expand these stubs, in the same way that I'm not asking/expecting other people to go out of their way and start them in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Hey all, I'm visiting from WP:OBJECTIVISM and was wondering if anyone here could help with fleshing out this article. The movie was nominated for an Academy Award, so it seems like a bit of a shame the article on it is so short. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the article by adding a brief summary of the film's content, critical reception, awards, and DVD details. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It's looking much better now. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks LM for expanding this article! Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil films...are GA? o_O

There's really not a provision to tackle three related articles at once, so this seemed a better forum.

Two of these have notes on things to fix in the articles from last year, and none of them even look like they GA worthy. Can we go ahead and just downgrade them on the grounds they've obviously Start-class or does anyone object?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I know they have some notes that are over a year, but (and I didn't check their talk pages to see if this is on there) I would leave a detailed message on each's talk page explaining all of the things that are in violation of the GA criteria (which is mainly issues with WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:MOSFILMS) and let them know that they have X-amount of days to correct these issues or the pages will be demoted. In my assessment, none of these pages are GA quality, BUT, they all could easily regain that quality with some minor effort doing some simple clean up. I didn't see any major issue that would take more than maybe a week to correct and since this is GA and not FA, they don't have to be perfect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) They have to be delisted properly through a GAR, so yes, I would object to just downgrading to Start as it could be argued against. I do agree, that currently none of them meet the GA criteria. They are not ones in the GA Sweeps list, as they were passed after its currently cut off point, so I can go ahead and start GARs on them, unless you'd like to (and if no one objects - I've been trying to keep to having just 2-3 GARs going in any one project at a time). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

The Lover (film)

Some assistance/additional views are needed regarding this article. User:Ed Fitzgerald is continuing to modify the infobox against the preferred format, removing fact tags (and claiming they were "abusive" because someone wanted a cite on two bits of info), and is continuing to try to stack non-RS sources, including IMDB, and other databases.[25] I have reverted him twice now, noting that his format changes go against the infobox usage instructions and preferred dealings with multi-country releases and that most of the sources he are throwing in are not-RS (nor even very good references for what's being sourced). He also apparently started to post a message here complaining about my reverting his removal, then changed his mind and removed it.[26] For now, I've attempted a compromise by removing the individual fact tags with just a plain unsourced one, as it has none without those unreliable ones being shoved in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the specific issues, but all this time spent arguing over the sources could have been spent finding some that are better than the IMDb. Indeed, I've found some straight away that can be used to support most of the contested material. Sometimes it's better, and a lot quicker, in these circumstances to disengage from tagging and simply find some good cites so the information can remain. Steve T • C 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In general, I agree, though makes me wonder why Ed couldn't do the same instead of trying to shove in so many bad sources. I figured some existed since I kept hitting them while working on its source novels article, just had no time to deal with really working on it at the moment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I might have succeeded in adding the references needed... Although I'm not 100% sure. Smetanahue (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Alas, not quite. The way that was done implies WP:OR and extrapolation as none of the sources explicitly state she turned 18 during the filming. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
A strict reading of WP:SYNTH would agree with you. However, that she happened to turn 18 during filming is a minor point, and can be eliminated; the fact that she was 17 when filming started and that Annaud took flak for her casting is the fact that needs citing, and now has been. Steve T • C 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history I think a 3rr warning may give you some respite and maybe Ed should read brd? Where is the discussion? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, its not the first time its occurred. For now, discussion is here, though a note is also on the talk page with the sources noted above (which are now in use). If nothing else, all this reminds me I need to rewatch that film as it was a good one :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me there are times when people get so involved arguing about minor issues they overlook the fact an article desperately needs major expansion and improvement. This one, for example, has an infobox that's nearly as long as the article (why are four studios, none of which is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, listed?) but lacks a plot synopsis and critical reviews. It also includes the somewhat irrelevant statement "Jane March, born on 20 march 1973, was spotted at 16 by the director and cast for the role of "The Young Girl" shortly after she turned 17." When I read trivia like this I feel it was added simply to stretch a short article as much as possible. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree there! It actually did have a plot synopsis at once point, but it was removed as it was copyvio. That article really does need work. I tend to agree on the "irrelevant" statement, but it was a work around for trying to note that she was underage at the time of the filming during which she has several explicit scenes with an middle aged man. Hopefully I can give it some love this evening if no one else gets going on it. Finished redoing The Fox and the Hound (novel) this weekend, so have time to do source hunting.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Collectonian for not bothering to inform me of this discussion. Best of luck to you all at expanding film articles since you insist on eliminating the most reliable and convenient sources of hard information about them one by one.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're calling imdb RS? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering your edit not long before mine, I figured you had the page on your watch list and didn't need a specific note. As for the rest, expanding film articles is very easy with actual reliable sources, and without having to use IMDB and TCM as a crutch, when one is willing to do the work to find the original information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not entirely fair; the response here to the minor edit war was to bypass it entirely by replacing the IMDb cites with ones considered more obviously reliable—and which offered much more context to the information presented. This is a solution that either of you could have come up with at the start to avoid this back and forth. Steve T • C 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I streamlined some of the infobox data and added an image, a plot synopsis, critical reception, and DVD details. I also removed two references to French websites, one because it merely reiterated the cast and crew easily found elsewhere and the other because it is in French and not very useful for many readers of English Wikipedia. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the removed references. Just because it isn't in English doesn't make it an invalid reference. Many articles on foreign topics use foreign references. Indeed, as this is a French film, it needs more french references, not less. Also did some MoS fixes.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You also converted the critical reception section into one jumbled paragraph that makes it difficult to read, and you moved the awards data into this section from the separate awards and nominations section I had created (which seems to be fairly common in film articles). Critical reception and awards are two totally different subjects and should be listed in separate sections. You also delinked some of the awards and removed information I had added. I'm not getting into an edit war over this, but I am going to restore some of the improvements I had made to the article. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless its a very large article, awards and critical reception are kept together in a single reception section, with awards first, critical reception section. They are not two totally different subjects. Both speak to the overall view of how the film was received. While the other way may be "common" in film articles, that doesn't always make it correct. I edit based on the WP:MOSFILM and my experiences in GA/FA, not based on the many rampant errors found in most start class articles. That is why I made the changes I made. I also combined the reviews into a single paragraph because having just one paragraph per critic was too broken up. It needs wording tweaks for readability, but an appropriate summary of the critical reception is not just a list of quotes one after the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOSFILM was developed by many people over a long period of time and is always subject to change as new ideas and concepts emerge and evolve. I edit as a Wikipedia reader, and therefore I prefer to keep things in chronological order (critical reviews precede award ceremonies in real life, and DVD releases come last in the filmmaking process), and I prefer to keep critics' comments separate from each other for easier reading. Having one paragraph per critic might be "too broken up" if only one sentence per critic is quoted, but if the quote is lengthy, lumping everything into one long paragraph is unsightly. You may feel an appropriate summary of the critical reception is not just a list of quotes one after the other, but I respectfully disagree. I don't believe style guidelines are to be considered rules and regulations etched in stone that must be obeyed. The important things to consider are accuracy (with appropriate references); correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling; and a smooth flow so the article is easy to read and understand. Even as I am writing this, you have reverted my changes, added release dates to the infobox, delinked countries of origin, delinked awards, and on and on. From past discussions on these pages, it is clear you need to have things your way and your way alone. Unfortunately, such an attitude eventually drives away good writers. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Lest this descend into edit warring, the version Collectian has done is better, in terms of layout. For one thing cast lists should never have Actor......Character. The reception is always last, LM what you prefer is not the MOS, which has been reached by consensus. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with your remarks are its all about your preferences, your beliefs. That is not how Wikipedia works. This is a community, not a silo, and all editors must follow consensus, even if it disagrees with their own personal preferences. The MOS is the consensus backed guideline of the format and content that an ideal film article should follow. Yes, it is "subject to change as new ideas and concepts emerge and evolve" but not a change by one. New ideas and concepts must be vetted by the community before being implemented as part of the MoS as it affects many many articles. And while you may not believe they are "are to be considered rules and regulations etched in stone that must be obeyed", when articles are evaluated for quality, it is the style guidelines governing them that they are compared against. When they undergo a GA or FA review, one of the first criteria is adherence to its style guideline. While there is some flexibility in them, changing them purely because of personal preferences is not a valid reason to disregard it. yes, I reverted many of your changes because they went against both the Manual of Style and the appropriate method of using the Films infoxbox. Counties are generally not linked as they are common terms. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, consensus is subject to change as new ideas and concepts emerge and evolve. The current MOS wasn't the first to be created, and it won't be the last. I thought the consensus re: release dates in the infobox was to limit them to country of origin, yet dates for the UK and US releases have been added. (Why the US when this film isn't an American release?) Also, countries or origin have been delinked (the link leads not to the country itself, but to the cinema of that country) and one country of origin (UK) has been removed. Academy Award for Best Cinematography has been changed to Academy Award for "Best Cinematography" . . . where is the logic in that? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Country of origin and major English language releases (for foreign language films).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox film, "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Link each country to its appropriate article if possible. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of its production companies, not setting. So should just be France.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Vietnam was already there before I edited the article. I assume it originally was included not as a "setting," but as a country of origin per IBDb. Which leads to the question, what exactly determines the country of origin? The studio that made Vicky Cristina Barcelona was Wild Bunch, which is a French company, but the infobox lists United States and Spain under country. Shouldn't France be there? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That's another start class article. But per the infobox, the country is supposed to be the county(ies) of the company(ies) that produced the film, not the country it was released in nor the country it was set in. So yes, for that film, it looks like it should be France and Spain. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can discussion please be continued at Talk:The Lover (film)? Since the issue is not systemic, it's best to start a discussion at the specific article's talk page and leave a notification here to guide editors to the discussion. I will be making my comments there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but more eyes are certainly needed as there is still edit warring going on as LiteraryMaven is disagreeing with my redoing some of the reception information to more fully summarize the source. As I intend to fix this on all of the currently sourced critical commentary before adding in additional sources, it would be useful to not edit war every last time over it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cinema to film CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also posted this at the /Categorization subproject.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of websites considered reliable by this project

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't yet a list of websites which this project considers to meet WP:RS standards. Given that a lot of the articles related to this project fall in parts of the world which may not get extensive coverage in the English speaking world, this could be seen as being a bit of a problem for those articles. Would the members of the project have any interest in developing a list of website, primarily relating to the developing world, which could be considered reliable for use as sources? John Carter (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We could fine-tune Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources to accommodate these kinds of websites. Websites that have some kind of established publisher are ideal. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good discussion for expanding Resources, as Erik notes. :) I know the Anime/Manga project has been doing something similar, particularly regarding foreign-language sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Marshals (film)‎ inaccuracies section

Back in February, User:Tony Sidaway removed an unsourced "inaccuracies" section from the U.S. Marshals film article. User:Mmyers1976 restored the section in March claiming there was no policy or guideline forbidding it. The second was removed again May 31 by User:Cton85. Mmyers1976 reverted, and posted a note to the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#U.S. Marshals (film) today about the issue. I have again removed the section after explaining why it is inappropriate at the notice board. He restored with a non-reliable reference that sources itself back to Wikipedia[27] so I removed again. Additional views there would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Nelvana

I have done a GA Reassessment of the article, Nelvana as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet the GA Criteria and as such I have put it on hold pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors that the article may be delisted from GA status if it is not improved. My review is here. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GARs

Aladdin (film) and Aguirre, the Wrath of God are currently undergoing Good Article Reviews and are slated for delisting on June 1st if their issues can not be addressed. If anyone wants to tackle these, please see their respective GAR pages for details on their current problems. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost saving Aladdin, but I need a copyedit. Anyone can help? igordebraga ≠ 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic headers?

I just noticed that articles using scientific names for genera and species have their main headers in italics (e.g. Paracerceis sculpta). I'm not sure how it's done, but I found it interesting. Should perhaps film articles follow a similar example? It's unprecedented for articles on works of art, but changes have to start somewhere. The only real concern I can see is that it might not be possible to put only part of an articlespace in italics, so you might have "Gone with the Wind (film)" instead of "Gone with the Wind (film)".--Remurmur (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this topic came up fairly recently...trying to remember if it was here or at the Infobox page. Short answer, I believe, was that it couldn't be done because of the disambigs. Let me see if I can find...found it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 24#Film article titles in Italics. Due to the wider sweeping issues and the need for consistency among the media types, the conversation then moved to the technical Village Pump where consensus seemed to agree that it wasn't a desirable thing, particularly with the issues of disambigs that would require manual implementation. The issue was raised again last month at The policy Village Pump, where the same basic conclusion was reached. Interestingly, despite both, tax has not been required to stop using that method in those specific articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, in reading through the discussions, it doesn't really seem like a very broad communal agreement is ever reached. People seem to be more for the change after CharlotteWebb and Ckatz explain how it would be possible to code it for the "(film)" issue to not be a problem, but the discussions lose steam too quickly for anything to be implemented.--Remurmur (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do it using javascript it would be easy. You'd just have to make one template that contains something like this: 

<div id="italictitle">{{{1|}}}</div>

Then something in MediaWiki:Common.css like this: 

#italictitle {display:none;}

(so the empty div doesn't create a blank line in the article). Then something in MediaWiki:Common.js like this: 

if(it = document.getElementById("italictitle"))
  t = it.innerHTML, fh = document.getElementById("firstHeading");
  fh.innerHTML =
    (t.replace(/(?:^\s+|<[^>]+>|\s+$)/g, "") == wgTitle) ?
      fh.innerHTML.replace(wgTitle, t) :
      fh.innerHTML.replace(wgTitle, wgTitle.replace(/^([^\(\)]*[^\(\) ])/, "<i>$1</i>"));
  }

The default is to italicize everything before the parentheses, as this is the most common place for a film/book title. Sometimes you'll want the opposite, like for Boxer (Animal Farm), but this will accept anything that differs only by format from the real title. I know there are other possibilities I haven't explored. — CharlotteWebb 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention needed at Three's a Crowd (1969 film) please.

Relatively new article found during NPP; I am too unfamiliar with film article styles to fix it up much. Perhaps someone here could? //roux   21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure it doesn't meet the GNG. I won't prod it after only 10–15 minutes' searching for sources, but what I've found so far is minimal enough that I think it's unlikely to match even what imdb entry can provide. The best bet seems to be Larry Hagman's autobiography, if anyone happens to have a copy (page 151; the other sources listed there seem to be mostly directories, rather than anything that might prove notability). Steve T • C 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, The Hollywood Reporter reviewed the film. The citation: "Three's a Crowd". The Hollywood Reporter. 208 (44): 8. December 3, 1969. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Oh, and I found something else! There is a book called The ABC Movie of the Week Companion, and it has a paragraph about this film: "Three's a Crowd, December 2, 1969: This cute comedy takes the oft-used plot of a man, in this case an airline pilot, juggling two wives, in different cities. Larry Hagman portrays the charming bigamist. Jessica Walter and E.J. Peaker are his two very different wives. With Harvey Korman and Norman Fell giving an early audition for Three's Company as a lecherous elevator operator who knows the truth. Farrah Fawcett has a small role as a hitchhiker." Here's the citation with the page number: Karol, Michael (2008). The ABC Movie of the Week Companion: A Loving Tribute to the Classic Series. IUniverse. p. 16.
Not sure what else is out there, but there's precedent for a stub at least. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: Since there is an infobox for made-for-television movies, which project has "jurisdiction" over these - film or television?

Comment: Re: Three's a Crowd, which consists solely of two paragraphs (one of which simply reiterates the credits of Boyce and Hart) and a lengthy cast list lacking a lot of Wikilinks, my concern with allowing these stubs to exist is that 1) they never will be expanded, either because there really isn't anything to say about them or nobody really cares; and 2) their existence will encourage a proliferation of stubs about women-in-distress or disease-of-the-week films with titles like Her Worst Nightmare or Deadly DNA that networks like Lifetime churn out on a regular basis.

At [28], it states:

As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:

  • Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film.
  • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database.

Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:

  • The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema.
  • The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

- An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

  • The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio."

Applying these guidelines to Three's a Crowd, I feel 1) it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; 2) its mention in the book The ABC Movie of the Week Companion constitutes both a plot summary without critical commentary and a listing in a comprehensive film guide; 3) it most definitely is not a unique accomplishment in cinema; 4) even Larry Hagman probably would agree this was not a major part of his career; and 5) there is no indication the film was distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country.

I'm raising these issues not to be contrary but hopefully to spark a discussion and perhaps stem a future flow of unnecessary stubs about TV films (usually created by non-film project contributors) that clearly do not meet the notability guidelines outlined above. I may be wrong, but I think the film project tends to be more permissive about letting articles like Three's a Crowd remain in Wikipedia. I suspect if it was nominated for deletion, the consensus among non-film project editors would be it fails to meet notability requirements.

I look forward to feedback from other editors who contribute to film articles on a regular basis. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For made-for-television movies, and most miniseries, Films has traditionally been the project with "jurisdiction" with little from the Television side. There are, unfortunately, a ton of stubs of such film and there really is no way to stem the tide. Someone sees it on TV, and makes a stub. For the most part, they are not the product of experienced Film editors, but newer ones who figure all films should have an article. Nothing can really be done unless there was a serious paradigm shift in Wiki editing where one had to have X number of vetted edits before being allowed to create articles (highly unlikely to happen). I must disagree with your statement that the film project is too permissive. Most of the project members are quite good about dealing with unnotable films where found (indeed, I'd suspect if you checked the numbers, a good 50% of film AfDs, if not more, come from active film project members than not). There are, however, tens of thousands of film articles and maybe 1-2 dozen really active film project editors. Of course, you may ask why this article wasn't immediately sent to AfD, but the answer there is simple. A lot of people consider it biting to AfD a new article that isn't clearly a hoax, and a reasonable effort to confirm it is not notable before its sent up for deletion is required. That said, I do believe this film fails both WP:N and WP:NF and should be prodded at the least.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Do you feel it's appropriate to nominate articles about obviously non-notable films for deletion if they have existed for a considerable length of time and haven't been edited since they were created? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, so long as the nominator has done some basic checks, then I'd say after a month or so, its fair to send it up for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire

There's a large degree of article splitting happening, particularly at the Reception section. This may in fact constitute content-forking, particularly as at least one of them is essentially a quote-farm, when it could easily be condensed, as many of the opinions expressed are largely similar. I don't see a good argument, at least on the basis of article size, for not merging these back into the film's article. Controversies and ill-reception are common for larger films which touch on cultural issues; to create a new article or series of articles for each one strikes me as rather poor form and yet another bias towards recentism where older movies which were far more controversial are easily able to summarize their disputes in the film article itself. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Those are extremely bad splits, and more NPOV forks than anything else. Only the list of awards is a valid reception split. The other two should be merged back post-haste and cleaned up rather than removed from the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur with merging part of the content back. At Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire (whew, what a mouthful), we can remove non-Indian reviews that do not belong in "Response from film critics". We can also remove actors' thoughts because I'm not convinced they're in the most authoritative position to comment on a film, especially when they are part of it. Filmmakers' quotes are fine but could be more concise. Not so sure what I'd touch in "Response from scholars and authors". That whole article needs to be stripped of weasel wording, though. At Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire, the "Amitabh Bachchan" section should be only a few sentences and not so detailed. Same with the "Loveleen Tandan" section. "Protests and lawsuits" seems viable. "Child actors still living in slums" is tricky to handle. On one hand, I see how it relates, but on the other hand, it's going beyond the film or any kind of encyclopedic topic, being one news headline after another. I suggest starting discussion at Talk:Slumdog Millionaire with our thoughts reiterated there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I had tried to protest the proposal for creation of the said article, but unfortunately could not gather any support. I would definitely support merging content back into the article, with further trimming the commentary to a more economic size. LeaveSleaves 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Genre in the infobox

Discussion about this can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Film navboxes

There is a discussion (or rather a monologue) at Template talk:Wolfgang Petersen on whether film director templates should include only those films that have an article, or should include all films by the director even if some of the films have no article and are thus a redlink or black. Any input is appreciated. Stepopen (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that all films should appear in the template, barring exceptional circumstances (such as extremely large filmographies) which are usually not applicable to modern filmmakers. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Multiple red links at Template:George Cukor Films prompted me to create articles for all the films that lacked them, so by all means they should be included in templates. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Auteurs (Website)

Could somebody please give me some advice on how I might go about getting consensus/verification for The Auteurs website? I would like to add links to certain Wikipedia film pages that lead directly to reviews and online screenings of arthouse films, many of which are only available online via The Auteurs (for example the recent World Cinema Foundation restorations). I recently began to edit, and being a total noob at this was overzealous- and have now been warned against spam (see my Talk page). None of my actions were intended as such, but simply to add information of relevance to a wiki user looking to learn more about the films, and potentially watch them.--Elijahtmorgan (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant excerpts from reviews should be integrated into the article texts as quotes and/or references, not as external links. As for links the films themselves, this would be inadvisable as most require payment and thus fail WP:EL, while the free ones are only temporarily on offer and contingent upon the user's locale. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Egyptian films task force

The Egyptian cinema is one of the most notable cinemas in the world. It began in 1930 and has since produced more than 2,000 films. Would someone be interested in working on creating all the missing articles? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the FilmProject! I believe someone mentioned starting an African cinema task force a while back, but it didn't get too much support. I'd like to re-raise that proposal to include Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, etc in their own taskforce. Or if there is enough support, to have an Egyptian TF in its own right. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The general advice for a proposed new task force is that you need a sufficiently large group of editors (usually around five) who are interested in actively participating. First encourage them to make note of that here, and we'll see how it goes from there. See here for how the last one got set up and you'll have a rough idea of how to proceed. Steve T • C 18:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd also concur with Lugnuts that it may be more advisable to pursue this as a regional taskforce instead - covering either Africa, North Africa, or the Middle East. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Video Game Based Movie Concern

I little like the Resident Evil movies a few threads above, Silent Hill (film) doesn't look like a GA. And since this Wikiproject has to be asked so that it gets reassesed, please do somthing about it. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, GAs are not just "reassessed" but must go through a GAR, either individual or group. That said, Silent Hill (film) is already on the list of ones to be swept in the GAR sweeps mentioned further above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Film series

On the film series page there are a number of lists, each for series of films of the appropriate number. I can't remember how but I came across one list and went through and removed any OR (including the additions to the lists of many films which had yet to be made, let alone released). As it stands there are a few films which editors keep adding (Jurassic Park 4, Men in Black 3, Ghostbusters 3, Little Fockers, Predators, Conan, future Narnia films), and I keep removing until there are release dates or shooting dates, however I'm finding the whole thing tedious, so I am minded to propose the deletion of al the lists connected to the film series page. Most films which have more than one film have a navbox (and even some navboxes have future films listed) and so these lists (which will never be complete) serve little purpose, some of the films listed don't even have articles, meaning they are just a blank list (for example the series "Curse" on List of film tetralogies, which has no series article, nor any individual film articles). As we are talking about 18 list pages I figured it was worth seeing if there was consensus either way before taking it to a mass AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC):

I personally don't see the purpose of or necessity for "articles" like List of film trilogies and List of film pentalogies and wouldn't mind seeing them deleted. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Film series? That seems like nothing more than a dictionary definition. Why on earth does that need an article? For the larger question, I also agree, I see no purpose in having 18 film lists articles based on the number of films. Maybe one, cleaned up list, of lengthy film series, but certainly nothing like the current deca list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The AfD is now located here. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why the list of remake articles (A-M and N-Z) have been included in this group nomination. I've added my comments to the AfD! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
They are just bare list which could be covered in navboxes and categories, and any new film usually links back to the original, meaning a list gives no extra information. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorised films

The Uncategorised films is getting full with at least 70 articles. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for that is because you keep adding to the list by placing Uncategorised films on articles instead of just adding an appropriate category! I reduced the list to less than 20 and now it's getting longer again because you're still doing it. Please add a category like year of release, country of release, genre, language, anything except "uncategorised films" so you don't add to the problem instead of helping to fix it. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Uncategorised films is empty now. LargoLarry (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! Nice work, LL. Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I proposed a while ago to add some color at the top of the film infobox where there is the title. What would somebody say to a similar design as on French wikipedia at the top here? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the design but the color is dreadful. LargoLarry (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd oppose. I think that design is ugly and bloated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Color and bold title is too dark. Agreed. I was more referring to the film shade which I thought looked pretty cool. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

A relatively new template, {{italictitle}} is currently being used to change the article titles on various pages that have the scientific name of an organism. There is currently a bot request to mass-update these articles. I just wanted to bring up a discussion here regarding the use of this template in other article titles where it may be useful.

Throughout many articles, including Dracula, the title is italicized when used within the article, but not in the actual title. All input is welcome to decide whether or not to implement this new feature in films, video games, and book titles.

Discussions on the use of this italicized title feature for use in organism articles can be seen here and here. --Spotty 11222 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

General RFC on use of italic titles

I've started on RFC on whether or not this template should be used here. All comments are welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart

There is currently a discussion at Talk:James Stewart (actor)#James? and Talk:James Stewart (actor)#Requested_move that may be of interest to members of WP:ACTOR or others here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Connor t2.jpg

file:Connor t2.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There is a discussion going on about succession boxes here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film) under GA reassessment

Rocky Balboa (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_25&oldid=1077609376"