Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 50


Warning, User: Redcoyote18 and his runtime change.

People of the film project,

I have something to alert you. A user called Redcoyote18 has been shortening films' runtime in the info boxes down. From the runtime listed in the references (from the very beginning to the time the credit really ends), he changes it to the runtime from the beginning to the point the story stops (excluding the runtime of the credit).

He has been editing the films' info boxes for months, and has been passing unnoticed, since his edits are small. I've already told him not to shorten the run time, but since he has made so many edits, I have to tell you too.

I've already fixed The Matrix series, Resident Evil series, and Jaws. If you have your film project listed on his contribution list, kindly go check and see if the runtime of the films you're working on matches the reference for it.

Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. He doesn't seem to be blanking anything or put in false contents, though. So I don't think he's vandalizing. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like classic User:Bambifan101. See [1] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#30_April_2011. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I'm going to report him to sock investigation. His vandalism will require cleaning up though. Any help would be awesome. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors by era

Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors are fairly useless. They should be broken down by decade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they're pretty pointless and should be deleted. Breaking them down by decade will only add category clutter. Lillian Gish's article would have Category:1910s actors, Category:1920s actors, Category:1930s actors, Category:1940s actors, Category:1950s actors, Category:1960s actors, Category:1970s actors and Category:1980s actors. How is that helpful? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone from the core crew who got Jurassic Park to FA still here?

Kindly see the topic on the discussion page here [2]. Most of its references are in short citations, with only names and page numbers. But the core general reference they are tied to is now missing, rendering over 30 statements in the article without references. It's an FA, so please do something before it's been re-evaluated and got demoted. No one can find a book out of only the name and page numbers. I need someone who worked on it and knows what book they were talking about. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Or by consulting the page history... this has what you needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
How did you find it through... what? 6 years of history? I'm amazed. I did try. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Replied at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dot the i proposed move

Please see Talk:Dot the i#Move? for a discussion on the proposal to move Dot the i to Dot the I. BOVINEBOY2008 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Brawley Nolte

Brawley Nolte currently redirects to Nick Nolte, and while Brawley is his son, having the link redirect to the top of Nick's article is a bit misleading and has already caused some confusion. I'm not sure that Brawley has enough notability to merit an article of his own, though if anyone wants to set one up I won't stop them. Otherwise, I'm not sure what correct procedure is in this case...can the redirect point to the Personal life section of Nick's article, or should the redirect be removed, or is there a better option? Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria, and they recommend redirecting to the notable person's article. Perhaps what we can do here is redirect to Nick Nolte#Personal life specifically. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done I don't think it's an ideal solution, but it's at least a solution, and certainly less confusing than having a redirect that suggests Brawley and Nick are the same person. Doniago (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge low budget films article

I propose that the low budget film article be merged into the b movie and z movie articles. They both relate enough that I don't think the low budget film article is necessary. I have already proposed this on all of the article's talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Movie review aggregator websites

Previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 31#Movie Review Intelligence and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32#Question from editor of Movie Review Intelligence

Currently, we mainly reference Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles to help report the critical reception. Some less-tended film articles also reference Movie Review Intelligence (MRI) and Movie Review Query Engine (MRQE). (EDIT: When saving this comment, I found that MRI was blacklisted as spam. This may need revisiting depending on this discussion.) I have noticed from time to time that these websites were being referenced. Looking at the websites' Wikipedia articles today, they seem to have some claim to notability. In my research, I also found this which covers MRI with RT and MC. MRQE is also mentioned in passing in that article. I am wondering what other editors think about referencing MRI or MRQE on Wikipedia? It seems like their reputations have steadily grown since their incarnations, so there could be a case now where there was not before. Or if not now, there could be a case in the near future. A couple points to consider: Are these added figures useful where RT and MC figures already exist? Would it help us move away from the existing duopoly (basically, adding variety), or are they not prominent enough at this point?

A related thought: While {{Film ratings}} was recently deleted, it seemed mainly due to the individual reviews section. The template did have a section for aggregate scores which I thought could have value. Would it be possible to have an infobox for just the 3-4 aggregator websites? (It may be too soon to suggest that, but I wanted to put that out there.) With the infobox, we could set parameters (including a new aggregator website only when there is consensus) and possibly standardize score descriptions through using {{H}} hover boxes. It would be the website name, the number of reviews (with hover-over description describing the critics), and the website's score (with hover-over description on how it was determined). It could help us worry less about referencing such websites in prose. What do you all think—of referencing MRI and/or MRQE, and of having an infobox that consolidates aggregate scores? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll number my comments to keep it concise.
(1) I've never heard of MRQE before, so I have no opinion about it.
(2) I have looked at MRI regularly for quite some time and find it to be as credible as any other aggregator, so I would think it worth allowing along with RT and MC.
(3) MRI does not just give one aggregate number, but several for each film based on different categories of reviewers (like "Broad National Press", "Local Newspapers", "Alternative/Indie", "High-Brow Press", "Movie Industry", "NY/LA Chicago Toronto", and "Key Cities"). If MRI is to be included it should only be the overall score because. These more specific ones often only cover small numbers of reviews (so is not statistically significant) and the categories are a bit peculiar.
(4) I anticipate someone might say that we should not add more aggregators because two is plenty enough, but unless there is good reason to think that any of them is more/less credible than the others, Wikipedia should not be playing favourites among them.
(5) I like the infobox way of dealing with aggregators with only approved aggrgators being included. Some editors are already trying to add tables with aggregator scores at the head of the "reception" section, but then just repeat the information in the prose of the section (see Source_Code#Critical_reception, for example). They are clunky and redundant. An infobox would be better. (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! :) I hope others can weigh in with their thoughts. Also, I have requested for Movie Review Intelligence to be removed from the spam blacklist; the request can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First of all, I have no objection to adding more aggregator scores: basically these aggregators comprise sample sets, and each 'score' is a single interpretation of that data, and there is a strong statistical argument for increasing the number of sample sets. That raises three issues, however: how do we present the scores? A template would be convenient if we had say 4/5 scores, but would that compromise the context of data? For example, a Metacritic score is quite a different metric to an RT percentage, which isn't a score per se but a frequency. Secondly, if we have more scores we will probably have a greater discord between scores: we already have a problem with those "mixed to positive" summaries, we don't want to end up with "negative to mixed to positive"! Finally, aggregators seem to be proliferating, so it would be important to have a clearly written notability standard for them. I don't suppose there is an aggregator of aggregator scores is there? That would be genius. Maybe I should set it up myself and become a dot com billionaire. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) EDIT, should clarify that isn't a site that meets your demand, just suggesting a name. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    Betty, do you think it would be worth elevating the essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators to a guideline? We could refine it beforehand and make a RfC to gather input about making it a guideline. It would be a subset of the guidelines at MOS:FILM, just with granularity being warranted due to the relative amount of discussion we've had about these websites. The essay does suggest how to report the scores in prose, so what are you looking for? Using overall descriptions from a non-aggregator source reporting on a film's reception? As for the template, I may recover part of the "Film ratings" template code and see if I can put together a mockup. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The essay is useful, but it would be better to cherry-pick what is generally already agreed upon and build a fresh guideline. Text has been inserted into that essay that has not been discussed, and may not have any support (see [3] for example]). It's a good starting point but some care has to be taken to not enshrine the views of just one person. On the issue of the template I am querying how it will be used in conjunction with the prose. Would it just be used to summarise the aggregator stats in the prose, or would it actively replace them? At the moment we try to retain the context of the scores, and prose format helps us to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in the lead and cast list

I have run into a few editors insisting on putting spoilers in beyond the Plot section, such as at Talk:Skyfall#Necessity_of_Spoiler. WP:SPOILERS does not give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at the lead and/or the cast list without having the plot given away. Most people have found ways to discuss the fundamentals of a character without going into their final fate, yet this continuously comes up. Can we get a policy implemented expressing this, here and on the WP:SPOILERS page? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If the spoiler in question is a fundamental aspect of the piece, then it's likely to come up in the lead—I'm thinking more of television here but if a major character dies in an episode of a TV series, it's something that would appear in the lead (spoilers! This, this or this are examples of articles where the lead is likely to contain a justified spoiler). If the spoilers are being discussed in a real-world manner (for example, this article contains a large spoiler for Twin Peaks during discussion of the series' recurring themes) then that would also be justified. I hate to sound cold but I really have to recommend that spoilers not be danced around. I know myself how bad it feels to spoil a piece of fiction by reading something here that I didn't want to—I picked up bits of The X-Files, Fringe and Dexter without meaning to—but I'll also be the first to admit that it was my fault for reading those articles when I knew I hadn't seen the relevant fiction yet. However, to side with you on something at least, cast sections should not be going into in-world detail about what happens to characters—"Ian McCulloch as Peter West. McCulloch did not see the completed film for several years after its production finished, as the video nasty scandal delayed its release in his native United Kingdom" is perfectly fine; ""Ian McCulloch as Peter West. West is an investigative journalist and one of the film's few survivors" is not. GRAPPLE X 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't usually look at an article for a specific TV episode until I had seen it, so I wouldn't complain about spoilers there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what is being asked here - are we to censor our articles because some are not smart enough to not read-up on a film before they watch it?Moxy (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course people should be able to come to WP and get the basics of what a film is before seeing it. I do that all the time. I avoid the plot section. But I should be able to read the lead and look over the cast list without having the plot given away. That is not too much to ask. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OOOOOOO I see that makes sense to me. However we have so many different editors and thus styles of writing this may be hard. So lets break this down - lets make a proposal for formal breakdown of articles - thus have the advice page recommend plot section is were "spoiler" type info should be? But this would be hard because the lead sums up the article and if a main actor dies in that episode - most will want this mentioned in the lead summary. What do others think?Moxy (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we should be sensitive to it, but I think it's virtually impossible to come up with a guideline that mandates where and when you can divulge spoliers. For instance, in the case of Skyfall, there was intense media speculation about Naomie Harris' role, so it's virtually impossible to cover her casting without giving the game away. When I peer review articles I often skip the plots of films I have not seen, and it's annoying when you get caught out, but if there is a real world context for including a spoiler then you can't really compel an editor to remove it on that basis. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of them are unnecessary and easily avoidable. We shouldn't not make a guideline because of possible, unusual exceptions coming up - all guidelines seem to have some exceptions. We even have WP:IAR. So we should have a guideline that keeps spoilers in the plot section. Any valid exceptions can be worked out where applicable. I'm tired of certain people using WP:SPOILERS as an excuse to put them in anywhere. They seem to enjoy using it as a license to get a reaction or something - don't know what constructive reason they would have. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Any ideas of how we can make this clear to our editors if its not a guide? The lead at The Crying Game does a good job or not? - does link and name Jaye Davidson)Moxy (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The Crying Game is good in that it does not give away the surprise in the lead. Of course if one clicks on Jaye Davidson the cat is out of the bag, but that can't be helped. I wouldn't complain about that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I generally avoid spoilers in the lede by just giving a very brief overview of the plot there (as in, one sentence). I consider any more undue weight. The recent TFA Terang Boelan is an example of this approach. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a limit, the openinf of Skyfall says it's Dench's last film; fine. What it does not need is to say that Ralph Feinnes fills that role when that happens in the last 5 minutes of the film and is not an important note, the lede is meant to be a summary of the article not a prospectus for what might be important in a future film. It's like opening the Usual Suspects with "starring Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint and Keyser Soze".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with keeping "spoilers" out of the lead, but to keep them out of the cast list or other sections is asking too much. The page for Witness for the Prosecution is a good example. The cast list and production sections both mention and discuss Marlene Dietrich's double role. Expecting the article to exclude such information from these sections would go too far. Also, the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father is all over the articles for the final two movies of the original Star Wars trilogy, not merely confined to the plot section. People should just learn to accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this means providing information, not obscuring it. Read beyond the lead at your own risk. (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Except we have people who insist on putting spoilers in the lead, such as at Skyfall - a new release that got lots of attention. No doubt many people looked at the lead before they saw the film - and they got punished for it. Readers should be able to look at the lead without having the plot given away. At minimum we need a policy reflecting that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. I think you and I do agree that (pardon my French) there are assholes out there who get their jollies from telling people what happens in a film before they have seen it, and I hate to sound like I am defending their antics, but a policy against "spoilers" in leads would be a bad idea. People just have to understand that for an encyclopedia, providing information takes priority over hiding it. Like I said before, it would seem to me that most of the time there is no good (encyclopedic) reason to put "spoilers" in the lead (and Skyfall is a good example of that), but I can imagine cases where there would be good reason.
Take the already mentioned example of The Crying Game. It is typical to list Academy Award wins in the lead of film articles, so if Jay Davidson had won for Best Supporting Actor, I would argue that it ought to be included in the lead, as usual. People just need to learn that Wikipedia does not cater to people who want to be protected from information. It is a mistake an intelligent person will make at most one time. If they get "spoiled" once and then read other articles expecting not to be "spoiled" again, they have no one to blame but themselves. (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=
As said above, we shouldn't not make a guideline because of possible, unusual exceptions coming up - all guidelines seem to have some exceptions. We even have WP:IAR. So we should have a guideline that keeps spoilers at least out of the lead. Any valid exceptions can be worked out where applicable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to define spoiler here. There is saying that the film is Dench's last role, that's not a spoiler its a factual statement. Saying say who replaces her in the last 2 minutes of the film is bordering on deliberate malice, he has no relevance until a future film, certainly no relevance to that specific film that requires it to be mentioned in the lede. I wouldn't find it acceptable say to list the identities of the killers in a Scream film or that Liam Neeson is playing Ra's al Ghul, neither are required for the lede to make sense, both would be considered unnecessary and dickish. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I know a spoiler when I see one - it's something that was supposed to be unknown - though some are more blatant then others. There's no need to say Skyfall is Dench's last Bond film in the lead. That's not even a known fact. She could be in a flashback later. Who knows? It's the most recent film, so right now it's everybody's last Bond film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Darkwarriorblake, you raise an issue I almost commented on with my last post: the question of how one defines "spoiler". People have very different ideas about what is and is not a "spoiler". I, for example, have not yet seen Skyfall and intend to do so, but I don't consider knowing what happens to Dench's character a "spoiler". I would even argue that I enjoyed The Sixth Sense more than I would have otherwise because I guessed the "plot twist" when I first saw that film. Knowing did not spoil anything for me. But I am very glad I did not know who Keyser Söze was before seeing The Usual Suspects. A rule against "spoilers" would just open the door to debates about what is or is not one. (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a real world reason for having in Skyfall the information that is contained in the lead: the return of two high-profile and popular characters who have been absent from the series, and that it is Dench's last film. Both of these are significant in a wider context of the film series. Again, the "spoiler" of having a returning Moneypenny is utterly unavoidable in the cast list ("Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny" is how we have it, and that's about as unavoidable as it comes). The return of the Moneypenny character is again discussed in the Casting section (identifying that it was Mendes who suggested it, the media speculation and Harris' denial of playing Moneypenny), which is entirely appropriate and germane. There are times when "spoilers" are unavoidable outside a plot section and unless we return to a position of having spoiler warnings then I would be uncomfortable in having a policy that forbids us from only having the information within the plot: too much valid information will have to be removed from articles in order to comply. - SchroCat (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to have all that in the lead. There's a big difference between saying a Bond film from 10 or 20 years ago was an actor's last, and one that was just released. Especially, as with Dench, when it gives something away that was supposed to be unknown. You didn't see critics rushing out to put that info in their reviews. It did not need to be in the lead here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there were a number of reviews who talked about Fiennes replacing Dench and the re-introduction of Moneypenny - is one quick-to-find example. - SchroCat (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There's always exceptions, aren't there? And that has a spoiler alert! One answer for the question of is this a spoiler. But most reviews avoided that, and the BFI is a film site, not a mainstream newspaper critic. And you didn't answer my other points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
And we're not newspaper critics either, mainstream or otherwise: we're an encyclopaedia and deal with information in a very different way. I could give you other reviews which also mention it, both in the balanced manner we do, and also in more detail, but the BFI is a good source and the easiest to hand. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact is WP:SPOILERS is very clear on this: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. No project guideline is going to trump a site-wide guideline in an RfC challenge. You can challenge the Dench/Fiennes point on the grounds it is not pertinent enough to be in the lede, you can challenge it on the grounds that the amount of coverage given to it in the article is not substantial enough to merit a mention in the lede, but if you challenge it on the grounds it is a spoiler editors will just fall back on WP:SPOILERS which is unequivocal in the matter! Basically, if you want to abolish spoilers from ledes then the core guideline is going to have to explicitly state that. I don't fancy your chances of getting it added, but if it were me I would start the discussion at the guideline page and my line of attack would be that removing spoilers from the lede wouldn't technically violate the guideline since ledes should only summarise what already exists in the article i.e. make the location of the information the issue, rather than its inclusion. But discussing it here is all a bit academic, because even if every single project member agrees, a local consensus can't override a main site guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I was making the location the issue from the beginning, as can be seen by the name I gave this section. I asked that this be addressed here and on the WP:SPOILERS page. It is WP:UNDUE putting spoilers in the lead, including with Skyfall. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree Goth. I don't think you can have a blanket ruling which won't unbalance a number of articles. The lead of Skyfall mentions the return of two long-established characters to the series. Obviously we deal with that appropriately in the plot section, but we also identify Moneypenny in the cast section. How can we not? Then in the Casting section we highlight that it was Sam Mendes' desire to see them return and the subsequent media brouhaha over Harris' is-she-isn't-she—including Harris' denial. Combined together, there's enough reason to include it in the lead. I think that if it wasn't covered in the lead we'd be unnecessarily pulling our punches. I do take your point over UNDUE, which is why I'm happy with the Skyfall set up: there is nothing undue about the info in the article as it isn't reliant entirely on events in the film, but has a real world background to it that is appropriately covered in the rest of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
if it wasn't covered in the lead we'd be unnecessarily pulling our punches? To me, it's clearly unneeded in the lead. The very example of an outside source you gave above had a spoiler warning. Readers should not be left wishing they had one for the lead of a WP article, especially for a film that was just released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I just gave you one that easily came to the front of my mind and I can always dig out others as well. We're an encyclopaedia and I think that in some circumstances having a "spoiler" in the lead is entirely acceptable. WP:UNDUE is one great way to ensure that it's not just in there to shock or spoil, but to ensure that there is a valid reason for having it. In some cases there are valid reasons - and Skyfall, with all the real world background to the re-introduction of the Moneypenny character, is a case in point. The point on the spoiler warning is well made, but we have a policy of not having one and I do not think the lack of one means that we should hide away information on that basis alone
Just keep it out of the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not if there is a valid reason for having it there, in line with WP:LEAD. If it fails WP:LEAD, then yes, keep it out, but all information should pass that particular barrier, not just anything we may consider to be a "spoiler". - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I clearly don't see your reasons for inclusion in the Skyfall lead as being valid. You can't even be certain Dench won't act in a flashback in a future film, as said above. You also insisted on reinserting that Live and Let Die (film) had its world premiere after it was released in the U.S., as can be seen here. I chose not to get in a debate with you over that, even though it struck me as non-encyclopedic. Your idea of how to present info in an encyclopedia sometimes differs from mine. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Um... I'm really not sure about need for the tangential point, but the world premiere is an event, rather than just a release date, and the information is based on what the sources say. Back to the main point, it matters not one jot what a project think if it goes against the site-wide consensus, which is quite clear. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and just accept that there is inherent flexibility built into the guidelines which can be read to support the inclusion of spoilers outside the plot section in certain circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Gothic, you just have to accept the fact that people do not have the right to expect Wikipedia to protect them from knowing things they don't want to know. Such a policy would be anti-encyclopedic. If it matters that much to people to avoid "spoliers", they shouldn't be reading the Wikipedia page. It's as simple as that. (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (=

Annie Hall production credits edit war

Please see this discussion on the article's talk page, and this related discussion on the infobox talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra peer review

Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey There

There is currently a discussion regarding the lead paragraph on the talk page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. As it according to it's talk page banner falls under this project, some input from participants of this project would be appreciated. Regards. MisterShiney 08:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oscar nominations announced later

Just a heads up that today is when the Oscar noms are announced. Usually there's a spate of unsourced additions on the related film articles, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The text of "current holder" for Academy Awards, etc. doesn't make sense

Hi everyone: right now the pages for Academy Award categories (like this one) use the default {{Infobox award}} template, which has a "current holder" field. This doesn't feel right for stuff like the Academy Awards, because there is only a "most recent winner", not a "current holder"— all the past awards don't go away just because there's a new winner. I have never heard in either written or spoken English a phrase like "Jean Dujardin, current holder of the Best Actor award..." (or even its corollary, "Fredric Marsh, previous holder of the Best Actor award..."). Looking through the infobox parameters I can see that "current holder" is really the only place to put this info, but the wording is problematic. Any thoughts or history I should be aware of? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Most recent winner" would be more appropriate for the oscars, but it's probably because the infobox is a generic award box. It's not exclusively for the oscars, nor does it fall under the jurisdiction of the Film project. The only solution would be to make our own, and it probably isn't worth it for one poorly named field. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Two comments: (1) Actually, what you note is true of pretty much all prizes. Winners of Grammy Awards and Nobel Prizes or any other awards are just like Academy Award winners in being the "most recent" rather than the "current" ones. Even in sports, winners of the World Series don't cease to be World Series champions when the next team wins the same way that the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion ceases to be champion when a new one takes over. But in sports they do tend to talk of "current" and "past" winners. So it is really more of a small language nuance issue not worth bothering about.
(2) If you check pages like Grammy Award for Album of the Year and Nobel Prize in Chemistry you will see that they have infoboxes that do not mention the most recent winners of the award/prize. With Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor the "current" winner could be removed from the box altogether without any real loss, especially since the most recent winner (and all the others) are listed further down the same page. (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the "current winner" should be removed (because the info is available down within the text of the article). It's valuable information, available to the reader at a quick glance, in the Info Box. I do agree that the wording could be improved. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not the WWE championship, when does anyone ever refer to someone as the current academy award winner? You're either an award winner or you're not, there's no "holding" or "current".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Classic Movie Hub links: spam or valuable addition?

I removed a bunch of links to the Classic Movie Hub website, mostly because one user—Amgcatz—seemed to be spamming the links for promotion, and because the links did not seem to add much to the articles.

Various blogs report that Annmarie Gatti started working on the Classic Movie Hub website in 2009 then went live with it in February 2012. It looks like it invites user information but I don't think it is an open wiki; at any rate the user blogs are not being linked. I don't know the copyright status of its film and actor images, but this page at least appears to ignore the US laws against images of sculptures (freedom of panorama.)

Here are some examples of how the website was brought to various Wikipedia articles:

To be fair, the images and data appear to conform to Wikipedia:External links such that they are "accurate and on-topic, [containing] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". The images are generally very small and so are not valuable commercially, and they are not able to be downloaded—you cannot "right-click" on them to download.

So what is the thinking of Film project members? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that film articles get enough external links as it is. If one editor is soliciting a given link across articles, then it should be considered linkspam and removed. There are a great deal of movie websites that I am sure would love to be linked in Wikipedia's film articles (and a few have tried to do it in the same manner as this editor with this website). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed them from articles on my Watchlist because I tend to do that when one user suddenly adds external links to outside sites on multiple WP pages with no explanation or valid reason. I was less certain this one should be removed then others I've deleted, but it didn't look to me like Classic Movie Hub really gave any useful film data not already available on WP and other sites already linked, like TCM. It also put me off how he added his preferred site to the top of WP EL lists. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(I've never used this wiki before so I hope that I'm doing this correctly.) First of all, thank you for opening this up for discussion. It is much appreciated, and actually very helpful to me in understanding what happened. I respect your insight, and no matter the outcome, I just want to explain a little bit... I had mentioned in my email to Binksternet, that my intent was not to spam; I just thought that I was adding valuable information. I know that I added the links in some spurts, but it was because one idea led to another. I added links about the Clark Gable Museum and the Jimmy Steward Museum, choosing the Classic Movie Hub Page over 1) the Clark Gable Foundation because that site is somewhat convoluted (i.e. not the clearest website to navigate) and 2) the Page because that page was taking too long to load and was timing out. I added the various lists because I thought that classic movie fans would like to see lists of the iconic/older classic movies (like Pride of the Yankees) vs every sports movie ever made, etc. I similarly added the other lists. Regarding putting the Classic Movie Hub link in the top portion of the link lists (and in hindsight I can see why that would put you off) - I just thought that since the site was specifically related to Classic Era Hollywood Stars (and both Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart are considered movie stars from that era), that it was okay. I can't recall 100%, but I don't think I put either link above the 'king' of movie sites, imdb. I had also fully intended to add other useful links, i.e. Find a Grave biographies, etc. but hadn't done it yet. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and please know that I would love to maintain the privilege of adding content to wikipedia, so any helpful guidelines/parameters/advice on how to approach adding information or links in the future would be greatly appreciated. --Amgcatz (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Links, links, and more links. How about some proper edits to articles if you want to contribute? --SubSeven (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was hesitant to do that before (seemed a little overwhelming), but I see your point. Might take a while for me to navigate (i.e. determine what content I can contribute), but let me see what I can do. Thanks! --Amgcatz (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about foreign films

I have a question about foreign films (specifically, their titles). Is this the correct place to ask? If not, please redirect me to the proper place. Here is my question. When an American film has several words in the title, they are all capitalized (except for minor prepositions). I have noticed that the foreign counterparts only capitalize the first word and not the subsequent words. Is this the correct format? Or not? Here is a quick example, off the top of my head. The American title of this film is Life Is Beautiful, with all three words capitalized. The Italian title is La vita è bella, with no words capitalized beyond the first. So, what exactly is the correct format? Also, does this apply to book titles as well? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Different languages have different capitalization rules; see La vita è bella on the Italian Wikipedia for confirmation. The Italian name is capitalized correctly according to Italian rules. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, title case works differently in different languages (you might have already seen that German capitalises all nouns in all usages, not just proper ones); French I'm not sure abot, but Italian I know doesn't have a title case and treats titles as normal sentences—so only the first word and proper nouns will be capitalised. For a few examples, see Nude per l'assassino, Una farfalla con le ali insanguinate or Sette note in nero, all of which use their original Italian title complete with its grammar. GRAPPLE X 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As others have explained, for English language titles and translations we use title case, but for foreign language titles we generally use the native case. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for Wikipedia's capitalization guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Crime drama page missing = links go to the wrong page

I almost posted this on a talk page somewhere, but I think this is a general problem. I think deletopedia hit and there is no longer a relevant page called "Crime drama". It is, however, a category commonly used in US television. The page for Crime film is defined as "Crime films are films which focus on the lives of criminals." is not the same as a "Crime drama". There's a redirect set from "Crime drama" to the Crime film page. All Crime drama links for detective TV series that aren't "Police procedural" now go to that page. See Rizzoli & Isles, Elementary (TV series), Perception (U.S. TV series) . BTW: I've never even heard of "police procedural." I assume it's either a British expression or literature term. The shows that link there are also called "crime drama" on the respective show's page, e.g. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation But there are crime dramas that don't match the description for police procedural and links for the genre there now go entirely into the wrong direction. Kindly fix this. Should your portal not be the correct audience, kindly repost this where there are competent contributors who can alleviate the issue. THANKS -- (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I found the Project Television. Will try there. (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment question

I recently attempted to change[4] the importance of the article Ugetsu on WikiProject Japan's importance scale from "High" to "Mid" to match its source material, but was immediately reverted without explanation[5]. I was motivated by the fact that within the scope of Japanese society and (pop) culture, the film is significantly less important than the book, and seems to have only attained its "High" rank based on its importance in world cinema outside Japan. Within Japan, the film is relatively obscure, while the book is a universally known classic. If this is the case then the film should be ranked highly in WikiProject Film, and not in WikiProject Japan. In order to clear up the relative discrepancy between the book and film, I then changed the ranking of the book[6] (not a sockpuppet -- I don't know how to log in on my phone), but now this book ranks above the probably more important The Love Suicides at Sonezaki and Chūshingura, and the definitely more important Ogura Hyakunin Isshu. Can someone with experience in this area help clear up the problem? Thanks! elvenscout742 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Each project is entitled to rate the relative importance of the article to the project, and there is no requirement for them to be consistent. Therefore we have no say in what Wikiproject Japan do, but if you think the article needs reassessing on the Wikiproject Film importance and quality scales post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment. Betty Logan (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Just read up on WP:FILM's standards, which apparently are quite different from ours, and the film in question is already considered "Core" here. I also posted the same comment as above on WikiProject Japan so hopefully I can get some input on this. Thanks for the info, though! :D elvenscout742 (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(Oh and for the record I meant that since this topic is important to Film, but not to Japan, then it should be rate differently by the different projects. Cheers! elvenscout742 (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

Wizard of Oz (1939 film) move discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion about moving the article title. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict between guidelines on the romanized titles for foreign films?

I noticed a number of articles on Japanese films given the names of the films in the format "English Title (日本語表記のタイトル, Rōmaji Hyōki no Taitoru)". This appears in accordance with WP:NCF's guideline for naming foreign films, but the only example given is a Spanish film, where the foreign title in Roman lettering is actually an official name of the film. However, this is not the case with Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. films, where the official title is in a different writing system and romanized title is something Wikipedians have added.

It is actually convention on Chinese topics never to italicize or bolden Chinese text, and I'm pretty sure Japanese topics work the same way. With regard to the romanized titles, MOS:J encourages giving the Japanese for the article title, but hardly any articles give these "Japanese titles" in bold. I was wondering why should film articles be any different?

(I'm posting this both here and on WikiProject Japan to see if I can get some clarification, or if this actually is a real problem maybe we can work out how to fix it.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dredd#Poll: value of crediting unnamed characters

Can people give their input here because I am seriously about to lose my temper with this idiot and I can't deal with him anymore. He removed two characters because he doesn't believe they are important, I put them back because I believe they are and now he's being a petty child over it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Variant titles of foreign films?

I was reading a couple of the articles on early Kurosawa films just now, and I noticed most of them have "aka XYZ" in the opening sentence. Given the situation in Japan in the 1940s, I doubt many of them were actually released outside Japan until much later. I removed the one at The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and replaced it with a different one, since the only instance I could find of the previous one being used in a reliable source was a book by Donald Richie, where it was given in a long list of variant titles. (I replaced it with the variant title he gave as his title.)

However, I'm not sure we should include "aka" in the opening sentence unless it is actually a title under which the film saw significant distribution in an English-speaking country. Film scholars and Japan scholars seem to make up their own translations of the titles of Japanese films all the time, so we should have redirects, but the current state of affairs in No Regrets for Our Youth, The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail and The Most Beautiful seems a bit silly. (I don't mention Sanshiro Sugata Parts I and II, aka Judo Saga I and II, because they were actually released under those titles.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally pretty opposed to this kind of thing. It places an undue importance on what is essentially a marketing decision. If a film has several titles in other languages, I've tended to cover it in the same prose section as its release history (Sette note in nero#Release, Nude per l'assassino#Release, Una sull'altra#Release are all examples). Multiple titles in the lead gives the impression that these alternate names are on a par with the work's actual title, and needlessly clutter the prose by inserting a lengthy aside in the opening sentence. Push it out of the lead and into the article body, appropriately cited (BFI's database is good at listing alternate release titles so it's useful as a source). GRAPPLE X 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I know that, and I am actually inclined to agree with you. (If I was supreme ultimate god of Wikipedia I would change the rules thus.) But WP:UE and WP:NCF say we have to name the film by its generally known English title, and we are allowed to include more accurate translations of the originals as well. My concern is that if we are going to do the latter (and we should!), then we shouldn't give the impression that the film was ever actually released under that title. (Also, bear in mind that a lot of the time the original titles are just marketing decisions too! :P ) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, but there's a world of difference between the title a film studio gives to its output and what some home media distributor titles the foreign films it's picked up the rights to, which is often where these issues stem from. To be honest, I wouldn't object to a discussion on changing WP:NCF (been meaning to do it myself for some time now) to lessen its anglocentrism. WP:UE seems a little different as, in the cases you're referring to, you have two different alphabets to work with (my own experience is entirely Latin). I'm not familiar enough with Japanese to offer any advice on transliteration and the use of non-English Latin characters (if any) but I would offer a vague note of support for sticking as close to the home country's titling as possible (if that helps at all). GRAPPLE X 01:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, are you responding to my post above about the use of boldface for the titles? Because this query was about "variant English titles" that only exist in one or two books, but were never the actual release titles of the film. I would certainly have your back in any move to amend NCF in this area though. (You may also be interested in the articles Sansho the Bailiff and Ugetsu (film), where the official release title in several English territories is actually the same as the Japanese title, but some "English-only" editors have been stubbornly refusing to allow this fact to even be mentioned in the article intros.)
Anyway, the above question about boldface in the titles was answered on WikiProject Japan. We don't use bold for transliterations of Japanese, and misuse of Template:Nihongo on the relevant articles indicates that the editors who added the bold simply weren't aware of this guideline. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe I was thrown by your link to WP:UE, the first sentence of which discusses the use of characters outside normal English usage. If your question is solely about listing alternate titles then, like I say, bung them into the main body and out of the lead. GRAPPLE X 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the lack of clarity. I actually did ask the same question yesterday just two sections above here. Anyway, another problem I have is that when one home media distributor in US chooses their own English title, and another home media distributor in the UK chooses to keep the original title, some editors are trying to bar me from even mentioning this fact in the article, essentially using UE to enforce a purely North American standard (not an English-language standard) on articles that have nothing to do with America. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well that's entirely wrong of them; link me and I can chime in on that if you'd like. No one region—especially one which isn't even relevant to the work (as America is to a Japanese work)—should have a hegemony on these things. GRAPPLE X 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The articles are Taboo (1999 film), Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff, but I have already taken this to WP:DRN, because since I last posted here one of the offenders has started calling me names, which I think is where it's about time to call in objective users. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Iowa Film Critics deletion discussion at AFD ongoing

Discussion page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003, but the main article itself Iowa Film Critics is also included in the deletion discussion. More input would be a good idea from some fresh eyes for this discussion. — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Payback (1999 film)

On the 2000 release of the DVD there are a couple of interviews, in Mel Gibsons interview he said they used a "Bleach by-pass process" and thats how they tinted the film. I am not sure how that works, but I was wondering can you cite DVD interviews as reference material? Govvy (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite DVD interviews. The Featured Article American Beauty (film) does this with the DVD's audio commentary. It is just a matter of including information of value and to avoid promotional fluff like the director commending the actor for his or her performance. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
{{cite av media}}.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I added a new section called Editing on the article, it's small and I used the citation, someone might want to double check it know. Don't know if it can be better placed in the article or not. The film was edited by a Kevin Stitt, but I didn't mention that. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz anniversary

On a side note, 2014 will see the 75th anniversaries of two iconic films: Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. It would be great if we could get these articles up to GA status some time this year, so I've started work on GWTW myself. The Wizard of Oz article is basically at GA standard in terms of coverage, so if anyone is interested in golden age cinema or is an OZ buff and is looking for something to do, I think it would be a good project. Betty Logan (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDB link

Should the IMDB link "name" parameter use the original language name, or the name as used on IMDB? I restored the link at Double Suicide of Sonezaki to the name used on IMDB, and not the romanization, since it appears as false (doesn't match the title of the IMDB page) and misleading (if the linked page doesn't match the page as stated, the someone may think our link is broken) -- (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IMDB title in the template should match whatever we've called the article on WP. The external link is essentially saying "Here's a webpage about article title", regardless of what the external site titles the film. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, if you omit the "|title=" from the template, and just include {{imdb title}} with the number of the IMDB page, the template will default to the title of the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of removing the title parameter, esp. if a page gets moved at some future date, as the year disambig then is displayed in the external link. But that's just me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If I recall, the IMDB display title defaults to the title it was released under for a particular region i.e. High Tension is displayed for American readers, while it displays as Switchblade Romance for British readers. Taking that into account Lugnut's suggestion seems a sensible one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Brillante Mendoza

What do others think of the filmography section on the article of Filipino film director Brillante Mendoza? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not favor such tables that blow up a single film's row. For the sake of navigation, there should be a straightforward filmography table with awards being listed separately since there are too many such details. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March


Hi everyone at WikiProject Film!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

  • Women's roles as filmmakers, producers, directors, writers and executives
  • Films that have had specific impacts on women or women's history and culture
  • The role of women in film with key articles about gender and film

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

American DVD titles given preference in articles on non-English-language films?

The articles Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff both discuss Japanese films, but are named for their US release titles. I tried to include in the intros a reference to the fact that in numerous English-speaking countries the films are known by their Japanese titles, but was reverted. After extensive discussion, I took this to DRN, and was told to come back here. Anyone up for a little mediation? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the films are known by other titles in English speaking countries then those other titles are also listed in the lede as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Problem is, the other titles are the original Japanese titles, which are already (of course) mentioned in the opening sentence. Difficulty of wording this in such a manner as to satisfy everyone and be fluent and readable. There seems to be a difference in interpretation of the rule: the other two users involved seem to believe that the variant titles only need to be included so British, Irish (etc.) users can locate the page; I believe that the fact that this is the best-known title in these countries needs to be specified, regardless of whether the title is already mentioned. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Election time?

I have been wondering if we should hold an election for project coordinators, since the Film project did have an election back in 2011 and almost two years have passed. Thoughts or ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone could explain to the project what the co-ordinators would actually do? I don't see the point/use of them. Most of those elected in 2011 have made very little contributions to this project as a whole. All the things that matter can be discussed here to gain a consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and film is very broad as a subject matter that the scope of an editor's contributions can vary. Therefore, formal collaboration is unrealistic; there is not enough overlapping interest to pursue project-specific goals, most of which are tedious in the first place. Despite this, we do have a very active talk page for a WikiProject because there is enough film-related interest and editing experience for us to weigh in on different discussions. Basically, this informal collaboration is what seems most suitable for the community. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
El Presidente says elections are communist, El Presidente has your best interests at heart, love live El Presidente and his glorious brutal regime of freedom! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In the past, the coordinators have done some great work organizing and maintaining the project, but the same can't be said for the past few years. It would be nice if the coordinators actually accomplished some of the things they're supposed to be doing. - Kollision (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloated Orson Welles navbox

An editor seems to think it appropriate to adapt the navbox into an entire list of everything Welles was ever involved in, including linking to Shakespeare plays, because Welles once directed a stage version, etc. There are also duplicate links to different sections of pages (trailers for Citizen Kane for example). Anyone have anything to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks bloated. If the decadal fields were removed it would look a lot less bloated. Do we really need seperate decade fields for Television when Welles only did one thing of note in the 1960s and 1970s for example? As for Theatre I would suggest that if there's an entry to that production it is kept e.g. Moby Dick—Rehearsed, if it's to the original play then e.g. Macbeth then ditch it. As far as I can see most of the links in the books are already covered elsewhere on the navbox e.g.Chimes at Midnight just redirects to the film.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - that's exactly my point - he keeps wanting to add in links to every play Welles ever directed. Can you comment on the template talkpage? The editor in question is the most pompous I've ever come across and clearly does not understand how navboxes work and is accusing me of vandalism! --Rob Sinden (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion really could use some further input - please? :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I was trying to avoid making jokes about "bloated" and Orson Welles. I'll take a look. Doniago (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I missed that! ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommended pages

Hello, I wanted to recommend several pages that editors of film-related articles may find useful:

The blue links can be added to your watchlist, where the external links can be added somewhere on your user page for you to review on occasion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple film lists up for deletion

Hi. Please see the following discussions regarding generic lists and lists of films by language:

Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong removal of Template:Bollywood from Bollywood-related articles

Somehow Template:Bollywood was wrongly made part of this discussion about National_cinema_navigation_templates and now they are being removed from Bollywood-related articles, like films, actors etc. Bollywood (Hindi cinema) is only a regional cinema and largely a Hindi language cinema, the National cinema navigational template for India is Template:Cinema of India, which is appropriately used in most cases. So now will the involved editors do the needful and correct the mistake, thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the article is linked in the template, it should be removed from all actor and film articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute here. Ekabhishek removed the template from Vidya Balan because it was linked, and Lugnuts removed it from Mohabbatein because it was not linked. Soon it will be an unused template. When should it be there? Where is the correct policy statement? BollyJeff | talk 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Check again, I removed Category:Bollywood and not the Bollywood template I am talking about above from Vidya Balan, as Category: Hindi film actors is already there, which is used for actors working in Bollywood. --Ekabhishektalk 13:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be included on pages that are mentioned in the navbox itself. Per WP:NAVBOX, "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Now it is fine, my exception is to clubbing Template:Bollywood under National cinema navigation templates, which Template:Cinema of India for India. --Ekabhishektalk 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that Ekabhishek. So for the template, it should only be included in the "(List of) Bollywood films of xxxx" articles, and a half dozen others linked in the template itself, and nowhere else? Even articles that link to Bollywood or Hindi cinema? BollyJeff | talk 17:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Placement of alternate titles

After much debate on Taare Zameen Par's talk page, I would like to have more editor involvement so a consensus can be reached regarding the placement of alternate titles. The film is most known as Taare Zameen Par, and was released in cinemas worldwide under that foreign title. However, the international DVD release years later titled it as "Like Stars on Earth". All of the English sources used (except for ones related to the DVD release) refer to it under the foreign title.

The guideline for alternate titles says to put them in the first or second sentence. I brought this up at the Naming Conventions guideline talk page, and the only editor to respond brought up a good point that I agree with: because "Like Stars on Earth" is the DVD title only, the guideline doesn't necessarily apply because it involves a format title rather than an alternative title (like with Blade Runner and Blade Runner: Director's Cut. Additionally, the DVD title is already mentioned later in the lead section along with the DVD release, making it seem unnecessary/redundant to me to have it mentioned again in the opening sentence. The original discussion can be found here. Thanks. Ωphois 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at the thread you linked to, which is standard for specific articles. Longer discussions on WT:FILM tend to be about multiple articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Since Bollywood is becoming more prevalent in the US, though, it may affect multiple articles if a similar situation occurs in the future. Ωphois 00:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That's actually a good point, but I think that it helps to direct other editors to the original discussion to review the arguments made and build on them. We can make a note here about what consensus was determined. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting feedback in a peer review

Hi! We request feedback in the peer review of the article Mother India. Please help so that it gets readied for FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:American male actors

Category:American male actors (but not any of its brother cats like Category:English male actors) is being considered for deletion. I thought people connected with this project might be interested in weighing in on the discussion there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Award nominee article improvements

I feel that the articles for this year's award nominated films could be improved a great deal. Anyone concur? RAP (talk) 17:31 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cast links

I have been going through cast lists at some films recently and have found many links that either go to the entirely wrong person or that go to disambiguation pages. There are other films where most of the links in the cast section go nowehre. This often leads to the development of incorrect links as new articles are formed. Is there any policy about to what extent the cast section should link to articles on the cast. Specifically, is there any policy on what to do with a bunch of links that go nowhere?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Several editors specialize in dab work, you should ask them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a tool that can be used - Dablinks - to san an article for links to dab pages. It won;'t help with "wrong person", but it should catch the ones that need to be de-dabbed. - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If a redlink could lead to creating an article, then it should stay. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please assist with this

Long story short, could someone please create Template:ActingFilmography/doc and transpose it into Template:ActingFilmography? I have no idea how to use this template due to lack of a document. I'm asking this group due to Template:ActingFilmography seeming to fall under this WikiProject's guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This template is not really used, supported or recommended. It was created in 2005 but is only used in 11 articles. It is the first of three different templates used together: {{ActingFilmography}}, {{ActingFilmography-movie}} and {{Filmography-end}}. Edit this comment to see the code.
Acting filmography
Example Film (2012) Example role
This kind of templates often makes editing harder with little to no apparent gain. I suspect these may not survive a TFD, at least, the start and end templates should be renamed. Feel free to create the documentation page anyway if you think it is worth pursuing or ask here if you need further assistance. jonkerz ♠talk 06:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty much redundant to the standard tables we use for actor filmographies. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Design of movie release pages

Hello everyone. So one of my favorite pages to use on here is the 2013 in home video page (along with past years). Another page I love is the List of albums scheduled for release in 2013. The later has a color coding scheme for separating the months. Is there any reason that this has not been implemented in the year in home video pages? I am more than happy to make the change but since this is not how these pages have been done historically, I wanted to get some input. Any thoughts? --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 in film article uses the color coding, so there probably wouldn't be any objections if you add it, especially if it matched up to the film articles. On another note, since those articles only document the US home video market and not the international market, they should probably be renamed as 2013 home video market in Canada and the United States or something. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

AllRovi movie template

At the talk page for WikiProject Film's guidelines, there is a discussion about the {{AllRovi movie}} template and whether or not it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia's film articles. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is now an RfC regarding AllRovi as an external link. The RfC can be seen on the template talk page here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Crystal template

I put the crystal template on Parkland (film) because the film has just started being filmed and doesn't even have a distributor yet, but the template was removed. What's the guideline on using the crystal template? RNealK (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Only applies if film has not begun production. If the film was just announced, the article will not be made. Once filming begins, article enters inception. It's been this way for awhile. RAP (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Where is the guideline for that claim? Note that Rusted AutoParts is the initial creator of the article and the editor I'm having a disagreement with. RNealK (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No offense, but you have only been a user for a few weeks. I've been here three years. And in my experience i've learned this is what is done. Please read our guidelines before questioning my actions. RAP (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, did you even read WP:CRYSTAL? RAP (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's be cordial here. RAP, RNealK asked about the guidelines, and we should link the editor to them. RNealK, the notability guidelines for future films says that a stand-alone article is warranted if filming has begun. This is the threshold because before that point, there is no guarantee a film will actually be produced. WP:CRYSTAL says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That is being done here, and since filming has started, it is highly likely that we will see an actual film (as opposed to one in mere development, where it could stay for years). Ultimately, this means we have an article for the ages that can treat a work of fiction, per WP:PLOT, "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". We just have to take care to exercise a neutral POV in covering the making of films yet to be released. Erik (talk | contribs) 09:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I never asked that the article be deleted, I merely put the crystal tag on it because there isn't even a distribution deal yet. RNealK (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The {{crystal}} template is a cleanup template, basically to indicate that there is a problem with the article that needs to be addressed. What needs to be cleaned up, exactly? The article states, with a reference, that Open Road is in talks to distribute the film. That's the latest sourced information that we have. (Though this seems to suggest that it is a done deal by now.) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't we have future-class for these articles? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    We used to, but not anymore. I recall it being removed around the time of the last Star Trek film because that article was very comprehensive in all but reception. A case was made that Future-class is not really a class. A future film article can probably go up to C-class (maybe B-class?) but GA-class would not be warranted since the reception ought to be part of a Good Article's broad coverage. Also, I think that we've stopped labeling films as upcoming if they've screened at a festival, a shift I'm fine with. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a parameter could be added to the {{WikiProject Film}} template, similar to the "|future=yes" parameter in {{WikiProject Comics}}. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-evaluating Halloween II

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1 is relisted after one month delay. Either join in discussion, or be bold to the article. --George Ho (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC of interest

I've just opened an RfC that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It can be found at Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh#RfC on use of "second largest". Please give it a look and comment if you're so inclined. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actress categories

User talk:Johnpacklambert has been mass replacing our actor categories with actresses for women. Pretty sure there was consensus against this for gender equality reasons. Surprised nothing has been said to him so far.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You obviously need to pay more attention to what the actual consensus is. A recent RfC on the matter closed with the conslusion that since roles in acting are divided by gender we should divide the categories. There was also a CfD to delete Category:Actresses by nationality and a seperate one on Category:American actresses both of which closed to keep. Most recently a CfD on Category:Swedish female actors closed to rename the category to Category:Swedish actresses. The consensus has changed and we have agreed to split actresses into seperate categories, just as we do with female models and female singers, two occupation groups that not only overlap very heavily with actors but are also performing sets where the performer does not generally originate the content (singer-songwriters are different, but the vast majority of singers sing songs other people wrote).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
John. I've been here nearly 7 years. I founded the Wp:Actors group myself, so please don't patronize me and tell me to pay attention. There was a strong consensus against splitting actors and I'm sure Erik or Lugnuts will back me up on this and might find an old discussion on it. It seems that category:American actresses survived CFD last month which greatly surprises me given how sensitive many are to issues like gender equality. My argument back then was the same as yours now, that it seems more convenient for browsing and in 99% of articles we say xxx is an actress. Perhaps the consensus has changed but if it has it is plain ridiculous that I encountered strong opposition 2 or so years ago.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact of the matter is that the consensus has changed, and you are the one going around ignoring it. The CfDs and RfCs are very clear on that matter. I am not sure why the consensus has changed, but it certainly has. It might be partly because people are paying more attention to common name rules, I really do not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"Ignoring it"?? I didn't even know about the AFDs when I first contacted you!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In light of the CFDs, I've been recategorizing a bunch of articles into their component subcategories. I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to hold off further; I may do some more AWB work later tonight, but I may not. Depends on how the spirit moves me. Personally, I think it's high time we had this split. Either that, or the other gender-specific subcategories need to go. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but sadly its opened "male actor" as a category too which in my opinion is bleeding ridiculous, sor tof like a male King. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted no less than 26 times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Then the tard carnival rolled into town and thought it would be a good idea to go against the consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and in this case it has changed. Lugnuts mischievously posts a lists of CFDs up to 2011, but stops at March 2011. However, consensus has changed during widespread and intensive debate over the last 5 months, particularly the last 4 months. See:
Sadly, some editors don't want to accept that consensus has changed. Lugnuts participated in several of those discussions, so was aware of the lengthy process that has gone on. Lugnuts calls this a "tard carnival"; but what I see here is a few editors who don't want to accept that a huge amount of discussion has repeatedly confirmed a change in consensus.
It is also interesting to compare the lengthy and detailed debates at the recent CFDs (and at the VPP discussion) with the cursory debates at most of the earlier discussions linked by Lugnuts. These issues have been examined much more closely in recent months than in the previous 7 years, and those editors who dislike the outcome should read those recent debates to see why this change has happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is tard a typo for turd? The American male actors category was closed as a keep just hours ater we were alerted, that hardly reflects consensus. I accept the actress categories but not if that means we have to start using "male actor" for actor categories.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts for CfDs are automated using the WikiProject links on category talk pages. The CFD was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts from January 5 onwards, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article alerts and the one for United States. It had already attracted considerable interest, so there was no apparent need to post individual messages to WikiProjects to attract further comments. I had considered the discussion the night before, and still felt in the morning that the outcome was clear-cut, so I closed it despite the midnight talk-page message below to WP Film. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm told "tard" is short for "retard". Not that i would use either myself. Britmax (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

More Star Trek Into Darkness controversy.

Does anyone have anything to add to this Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness#Proposed "Title" Section into Darkness? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think quite enough has been added to that discussion as it is. The discussion page currently stands at over 700k, compared to the article which is 32k. I think the reason this problem has arisen is that a title section currently exists. Do we really need a section detailing a blow by blow account of bloggers revealing the title of the film, and the format of it? All films have titles, but we don't have sections about them. I think the problem comes down to this: if we have that sort of fancruft in the article then we encourage this sort of thing to an extent i.e. if you dissect the format of the title, why not dissect the grammar? Maybe the issue is not so much a case of adding more detail, but whether the section should just be pulled from the article completely? The title of the film is what it is, most people won't really care about the date it was revealed or whether it has a sodding colon in it or not. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I propose changing the article to Star Trek we'll get there when we get there shut up about it. When people are writing news stories about the talk page dysfunction it might be time to just scrap the article entirely. It can become the lost article, people will tell urban legends about it in a decades time. By 2029, Japan will have made The Article, a horror film about a wiki article you read and then 7 days later you go on the talk page to complain about it. Then a girl kills you. Two years later comes the remake starring Oscar winner Channing Tatum as a father trying to stop the Article's curse before it takes his son. A year later? Scary Movie into Darkness, the spoof of the previous film. The talk page becomes a major center for debate over whether or not the 'i' in 'into' is capitalized. We write the article off, ten years later there is a curse... Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Despite making a compromise yesterday, the editor in question has started the same discussion yet again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would say I'm surprised to know that this is still dragging on, but unfortunately I am not. Every editor involved should be compelled to collaborate on bringing an obscure and tedious mathematical article up to Featured Article status. I recommend Ultraparallel theorem myself. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Foreign film franchises where some films have been released in the English marketplace

See Talk:Zatōichi (2003 film) -- should another film in the film franchise that wasn't released in the English-language market affect the name of the articles of films that were released in the English language market? -- (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

film and other work titles: "shorter than five letters" rule / general capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Movie Review Intelligence

Related: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 45#Movie review aggregator websites

Movie Review Intelligence is currently on the spam blacklist due to the website being solicited as linkspam several years ago. A request was recently made to remove the website from the blacklist, but the request was declined as seen here. The decline was disputed and discussed with the admin here, and there is now a follow-up request to add the website to the spam whitelist. The new request can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The removal request at the spam blacklist has been re-opened and can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
An admin suggested assessing the website's reliability at WP:RSN, so a posting has been made here. Editors are invited to review and comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to lack of attention regarding this topic, I'll be leaving it behind for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the topic if another editor expresses interest in resolution on a later date. Here are the relevant links for future reference:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of article and move and merge

A complete rewrite on Family film and Children's film has been done at User:Robin klein/sandbox/Children's film or Family film. As per discussion at [[7]] the rewrite on Family Film and Children's Film along with the page Family film and the page Children's film) is to be merged and moved to Children's and Family film. Please help with the merge and move. Thanks Robin klein (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the new article would be better at Children's film and have Family film redirect to it. This would follow the structure at the Historical Dictionary of American Cinema that has the main entry at "Children's film" and a sub-entry at "Family film" that says "See Children's Film". List of family films also redirects to List of children's films too so it would be consistent with how the terms are currently used on Wikipedia. I think it would be sensible for us to follow the same structure, so I have formally requested that the current Children's Film (an unsourced article) is deleted and your new article moved there. Once that is done I will sort out the redirect at Family film. Betty Logan (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Betty Logan, Thanks for your help. I totally agree with you. I hope this could be done as soon as possible. I put up the rewrite on my sandbox over 7 months ago and have waited for all this time. Thank you very much once again. regards Robin klein (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The move is done. Thanks for your help. Robin klein (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments: low budget films

[Discussion moved from Village pump (proposals) ]:

I propose that the low-budget film article be merged into the Z movie and B movie articles, but not the z movie and b movie articles. Could someone please propose this for merger for me, since I am an IP address or else I would do it myself. Thanks! :-) --Able
Discussion Here (B Movie) and Here (Z Movie)
I don't quite follow. Do you want to propose merging Low-budget film into Z movie and B movie, but keep Z movie and B movie separate? If you go to the talk page (I will watch all three for a while) and add you reasoning I will add the templates. AIRcorn (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Request additional input. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we please not have two separate discussions at two different articles? The discussion should be in one place, so will editors interested in commenting please add their comments at Talk:Low-budget_film#Merger. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On film series layouts

I notice the film MOS doesn't really have any guidance on this point, and we don't really have a stable of Film series FAs to drawn from. At some point I want to get the series article for Star Trek (film series) up to snuff. In 2009 it was unilaterally moved from List of Star Trek films to its current title with the defense of "per WP:NCF", although as it stands the series article in my opinion would be better served with a list; the article is a laundry list of IMDB credits, recitation of plot and a million little tables. Do we have any good examples of film series or film lists? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Batman in film is a WP:GA. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Other good articles: Fantastic Four in film, Halloween (franchise), X-Men (film series), Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
James Bond in film and List of James Bond films have a clear distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Friday the 13th (franchise) is also worth a look. I think that a well-developed film series article can have an embedded list of films. I would also avoid using the {{Infobox film}} template because it is just an incomprehensible mess. At Harry Potter (film series), I hacked the infobox down to the overarching basics, but I'm not very much in favor of using it. Tables also depend on context; I do not mind some cast tables, but they do tend to get too indiscriminate with roles. Box office table is probably the most acceptable. I would not bother with "Critical reception" for Star Trek either since most of the films predate the aggregator websites. "Academy Awards" is a bit too pushy notoriety-wise, not to mention systemically biased. I think the ideal film series article should accomplish two goals: aggregation of relevant content, and linkage of the various topics. What I mean by the latter is how we got from one film to another, either in regard to production (expedited or delayed) and/or reception by audiences and critics. That in particular could be conveyed in prose, using retrospective coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I know this has been brought up before, however I don't think anything has been done about it, but what about developing a specific infobox for film series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the emphasis of the "in film" articles is sourced commentary, they are much more than lists. The emphasis of the Star Trek article is tabulation of data rather than sourced commentary, so personally I would have left it at List of Star Trek films for the time being, but that said the Star Trek franchise has a lot of development history that would ideally be covered in a GA class article, and maybe the article title should anticipate that. I also question whether Star Trek in film wouldn't be a better title than Star Trek (film series) due to the fact it has a substantial TV presence. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought generally the "in film" articles were for when a "film series" article wasn't enough - i.e. the character or property etc., was bigger than any franchise, appeared in multiple series/franchises, etc. As the Star Trek film series is essentially just one series, I'd have thought that "film series" was the correct designation.
Incidentally, I just looked at the Fantastic Four in film article and I don't think it deserves the GA badge any longer. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Editors may be interested in checking out The Wikipedia Library. Apparently you can sign-up for access to resources like HighBeam and JSTOR that would normally be behind a paywall. Had not seen this before and wanted to share. Do any editors have any experience with this? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd—The Wall

At Pink Floyd—The Wall, there is a discussion to move the article. It's an interesting case of exactly what punctuation to actually use. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we need a guideline for this "subtitle" issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) to close by the end of the year

...that is if they do not reach their fundraising goals. It seems they are cash strapped and are looking for $50K to stay afloat. More info can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

$713 raised so far. Bye-bye! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hope the Internet Archive can step in and help out. They've stuck around a good while (in internet years). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
To follow up, there is a WebCite proposal here: "The idea is that the Wikimedia Foundation takes control over the WebCite service, including the physical infrastructure (such as servers) and the domain In return, the WMF would finance the necessary modernization of the service." Erik (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion with Television? (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Hello. Here is a link to a page which links itself to the Film Project. [[8]]. If you look at the main article page, you will also notice that there appears to be some confusion/disambiguation between film, and television.
It looks like this was originally intended as film-specific, BUT-if you look at the edits, including the most recent one which was done by my self to include The Real Housewives, television series, you will notice that most of the list is related to television opening title segments.
The image, which is shared on another page, is most certainly a film image.
Please do not interpret my request that Project Film look at this as an "article for deletion"-request. The info. there is high-quality info. but it may need some tweaking? I would appreciate any advice/suggestions on sorting this out a little because I'd really like to upgrade the opening sequence list as it applies to the television category specifically, or maybe link it to some Television project lists.-TY24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding title sequence (to provide a link here), it looks like this topic should fall under both WikiProjects Film and Television. However, if the article is further developed, I could see potential for splitting the topic by media (e.g., "Title sequence in film", "Title sequence in television") since the media is thematically different, a film's title sequence generally being a one-time watch, and television's title sequence being a repeated watch. Also possibly worth noting here, Google Books shows roughly equal results for "title sequence" and either film or television, but with "opening sequence", there are more results for film than television. Still, in case of a split, we should have more precise article titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree but I am not experienced enough to contribute a "split"-subject w/o causing a ruckus. TY by the way for the Google Book clue. Also that fact conforms with how the (two) pages currently are listed with "Title sequence"-specifically being the "plus tv"-page and "Opening Sequence"-being more exclusive to film although as your Google Book check pointed-out "title Sequence"-could be both. (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not have to do a split now. We can just maintain the "Film" and "Television" section headings and cover each sub-topic that way. Most of the items under "Television" are rather trivial, though. If we are going to list examples, we should be able to back them with inline citations. For example, I'm sure it is super-easy to reference The Simpsons. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RS/N discussion about documentary films as source for BLP

Members of WikiProject Film might be interested in this discussion on the RS Noticeboard regarding the conditions under which a documentary film can be a reliable source in Wikipedia. The discussion relates specifically to the articles The Queen of Versailles and David A. Siegel. —Mathew5000 (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

La jetée

There is a request to capitalize La jetée. The request to move the article is here. Would like input on how to work with the letter case in this particular instance. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose, but on closer inspection, it would appear that "Jetée" is capitalised in French anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality in lead sentence

All, I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about modifying the guidelines for greater clarity about mentioning nationality in the lead sentence (which is covered at MOS:FILM#Lead section). The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

AllRovi movie template at TfD

The external link template {{AllRovi movie}} is nominated for deletion at TfD. The discussion can be found here. Especially since this template is used across many film articles, editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Child's Pose

Can anyone help out, and expand the article on Child's Pose, it has been nominated for inclusion on the in the news section of the main page but before it can appear it needs to be expanded on. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing, it would be great if someone with experience in these things expands this important film stub. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Did my bit by creating it in the first place. You can all thank me later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Input request

If any members of the project would like to add their thoughts here Talk:Full Metal Jacket#Images it would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar 2.0

I have created a new Barnstar 2.0 version of the film barnstar, available here [9]. FrigidNinja 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actor vs. Actress

All right. I have a question for the project. Some female actors (i.e. actresses) may prefer to use the term "actor". Would it be appropriate to use either "actors" or "actresses" for female actors? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend just to use "actor" across the board. It's easier, cleaner and leaves no room for squabbling. GRAPPLE X 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Rocky 2

Has anyone seen Rocky 2 recently, or clearly remember the ending? An editor has contested my revert of his edit, which I felt was a "viewer interpretation"; my reasons are at User talk:Betty Logan#Rocki_II_edits. In truth though my memories of it are fuzzy at best so I'm not really sure if my revert was correct anyway. Can someone familiar with the ending have a look, and if the original edit was correct then please feel free to revert mine. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Betty, Betty, Betty. What is this, 1994? Youtube that ending. That said the bracketed edit he is making is still stupid and unnecessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Thin Red Line cast list

I would like some other editors to take a look at the cast list for this film and help me answer some questions. I reverted an anonymous editor's changes to the cast list, but, comparing our cast list to that found on IMDb, I noticed some discrepancies, mostly characters whose first names are not given on IMDb. Since the latter's list is said to match the final credits, what is the source for our list? Why is our list not also in credits order? And, last but not least, why are there significant differences in some of these names? I am puzzled by this and would like to hear some other opinions. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Significant how? If it's first names it might just be someone taking the first name from the film because it is mentioned during the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess I was unclear. Take a look at this most recent diff to see the change made by the anon. editor today. Yet, when you look at the IMDb page, many of these characters' first names are not show at all. I have a problem, and maybe I am alone in this, with people filling in first names based on something they heard in the film. In the past, some of the names were changed completely. This is why I have a problem with people making changes based on their own viewing of the film. I attempted to discuss this on the article talk page, but received no response. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the version of the article that passed GA, it looks like that list was not there anyway and was replaced by the casting section, so you can feel free to remove it if you want, but considering the changes and the previous version containing a character whose name was apparently Charles E. Lee, I'm guessing they are too unreliable to keep as they are and should be reverted to strict credits at the minimum. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I made what I consider a compromise: rather than delete it altogether, I altered to match IMDb's and added a hidden comment saying not to alter it without good reason. But, yeah, hidden comments are always read and abided by, right? Thanks, DWB. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jurassic Park (film)/archive1

This FAR is overdue, so join in discussion. In the meanwhile, do not be afraid to fix the article Jurassic Park. --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Films distributed by Disney

Category:Films distributed by Disney, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at Argo (2012 film)

There's an ongoing disagreement between several (two?) editors on this material's worthiness of inclusion. There has been no discussion started, only reverting. Additional eyes and outside opinions might be helpful. (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the paragraphs are fairly irrelevant as there already exists articles about the historical basis. However I'll defer to Erik and Betty Logan who have more experience in these matters and are better qualified to judge. - Fantr (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If there's material directly related to how the historical events were adapted to this specific film script then add it, if not then a "see also" link to Canadian Caper at the start of a section on the production is all that's needed. GRAPPLE X 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, we should let the historical articles cover the matter, but it is not unprecedented to have such a section. The Featured Article Changeling (film) has a decent "Historical context" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The "historical context" section in the Changeling (film) directly relates to that film's story. I believe Argo's disputed "historical context" section is more background information not directly related to the film's story as it mentions people and incidents that don't occur in the film. I favour removing the disputed section especially as several senior editors on that particular film's page feel strongly about removing it. - Fantr (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I am one of the involved editors in this dispute, and actually came here to start a discussion on this very topic. The fact is, I have started two separate discussions on the article talk page regarding the historical background and accuracy of the film, but have no received much in the way of helpful responses. My position on the larger matter of historical accuracy is that this film is a fiction "inspired by" true events, so questions of "accuracy" are largely moot. What we have in the article now is a laundry list of errors, many of which are trivial. Then, in the last 24 hours, a long section was added about Rockefeller, Kissinger, the Shah and other figures and events not specifically germane to the events of this film. It is overkill. A brief discussion of the historical background, which is actually shown, in truncated form, in the film's animated prologue, is necessary for context, but should be relevant to the film. Likewise, a discussion of the divergence from the historical record is also necessary, considering that this has been mentioned by a great many critics and journalists, especially in the wake of the Oscar win. But, there is a limit to how much history we should be discussing in an article about a film which, though inspired by historical events, is largely a dramatic concoction of truth and fantasy. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST that cover "Historical accuracy" sections. Such sections are permissible if there is coverage specifically assessing the historical accuracy of a film. It is a given aspect of such a film that readers would want to know, and if coverage exists, it should be included. I think Argo should definitely have a "Historical accuracy" section, but editorial discretion is required for the level of detail. The "Historical background" section is a different beast, and we do not have guidelines for that kind of thing since I think we usually entrust the historical articles to explain, well, history. If there's consensus for having such a section for a quick history lesson, I'm fine with that, but I don't feel strongly either way. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines permit a section on comparative analyis using sources that actually compare the film and historical events, but the "historical background" section seems to be just a history lesson thrown into the article and does seem to be superfluous in this case. All the sources predate the existence of the film (some going back to 1981) so fail the basic requirement that historical analysis is introduced within the context of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources that predate the film could be fine if they pertain to an issue of accuracy that is mentioned in a source that postdates the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New user needs some mentoring

Hi guys. I was scanning for articles in template categories and found a bunch in the M's of Category:Japanese film director navigational boxes. They are all the result of User:Righteousskills trying to create new director navboxes by substing in code from existing navboxes (in this case using a Japanese director template as a source, hence ending up in that cat). I've given him some pointers on template use but I don't suppose someone here could mentor him a bit? (S)he could be an asset to your Project, they obviously has enthusiasm and a love of films, it just needs to be focussed a bit. Le Deluge (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lost or incomplete?

Does a film with only a surviving trailer belong in List of lost films or List of incomplete or partially lost films? I'm doing a cleanup and there are examples in both lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I've decided they belong in the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd go with the latter too. Nice work on these lists as well. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Still a long ways to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disney Vault

Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran/Persian film stubs

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


file:LadyGodivafilmposter.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster of the movie The Big Circus.jpg

File:Poster of the movie The Big Circus.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster of the movie The Man from the Alamo.jpg

File:Poster of the movie The Man from the Alamo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mark of the Hawk 1957 poster.jpg

file:The Mark of the Hawk 1957 poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


image:Kingkongvsgodzilla-656x1024.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


file:Kidnapped1960poster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Variety notice

As some of you may have noticed, Variety has modified their site design to make the site even more unusable. This means at the moment a lot of variety references are not working. It says they are migrating the content over to the new design so hopefully they will come back, but if not, anything you relied on may need searching on the new site or replacing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Another reason to archive your references.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree—although that may not do us much good soon if Webcite shuts down. Wikipedia really needs to operate its own automatic archiving service. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yep, the four links on Horrible Bosses all give a Page Not Found link like so with a message they are migrating content over the next few weeks. Whether this means that content will ever come back to that URL, come back at all or take weeks to come back, it;s bad news for any articles using them without an archive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
They have been migrating some of their more recent content, but they're using new URLs. So even if the content is eventually restored on their new server all the links on all the pages will probably need to be replaced. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So we're screwed basically unless someone has a bot that can compare a ref title against the article title or they institute a redirect system which by all rules of web design they should do. I mean I archive my refs religiously when I can but it's not going to be a universal thing across the Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Archiving refs? Where do I find out about how to do this? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories for films based on television series

The following are already in this project's Alerts page, but I draw your attention to them as I intend to cite them as precedents to rename other categories to the naming convention "Films based on"... works.

Fayenatic London 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article "Film director"

Hello, I have rewritten the article Film director. It had been tagged for years and I felt the time had come to try to do something about it... Please check my changes. Moreover I like to suggest to remove one or more the old lists because they are terribly long and one can also get there rather easily by merely using the categories at the bottom of this article. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability of the Burgundy Film Critics Awards

Hi. On the article for Amour (and possibly other articles), an IP has added that it has won several awards from the Burgundy Film Critics, stating "It is an association of french critics". But are they notable? Google searching either "Burgundy Film Critics Awards" or "Burgundy Film Critics" doesn't hint towards notability. Does anyone have any further info? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

These regional critics associations are problematic, in that some are notable and some aren't. My personal feelings on this is that we shouldn't list awards that we don't have articles about. If an editor truly feels a particular award is notable they can create an article about it, and if someone wants to challenge that notion they can nominate for deletion i.e. make inlcusion/exclusion of awards entirely procedural. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"we shouldn't list awards that we don't have articles about" Yes, that's what I believe too. Thanks Betty. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
And sometimes not even if they have a Wikipedia article. See Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've Been bold and removed the non-notable awards from the Amour article (they're now on the talkpage). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Film poster sourcing

Can someone go through Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source and add sources to all the film posters found in this cleanup catgory? -- (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cast discussion at Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Hi there. There seems to be a disagreement over how to present the cast listing on the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article. The discussion is at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#Cast listing. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When someone asks about IMDb

Members of the project may be interested in the discussions going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Gadyukin and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucharest Film Festival. You will note that, in furtherance of their project/fantasy/hoax, those involved have created ads, You tube videos and have gone so far as to create pages at IMDb like this [10] and this [11]. It does illustrate how little fact checking is done at IMDb. Another difference is that there is no way to find out who/how/when the IMDb pages were created. At least we can dig into WikiP's edit history to track things. We can also get the hoaxes deleted through the AFD process. I wonder if IMDb even has a process to get rid of made up pages like these. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When someone asks about IMDb, I tend to point them to WP:RS/IMDb. I'll use it to verify a cast listing I find dubious or such, and I won't necessarily stomp on it as a citation for things like awards, but otherwise... Doniago (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that link is most useful. I was just amazed at the lengths that the people involved in this hoax went (and were able) to go to. So many more places to seed things then when The Blair Witch Project and all its attendant furor happened back in 99. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: FILMRELEASE—Things to Come‎

I wonder if I could please have some thoughts on the article of the 1936 HG Wells film Things to Come, particularly in relation to the age-old question of WP:FILMRELEASE, along with other pointless additions of US information into the infobox of a British film. Earlier I removed the superfluous US information from the infobox only to have it reverted for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The US dates and other information is not particularly notable in itself—certainly not for the infobox—but could be in the article body instead. I'd be very grateful to hear the thoughts of others on the US material. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think comment is going to deal with that kind of person, jingoism is a big problem on here, some of us saw it with MervinVerreal or whatever he was called, I've got people right now at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone who are just depserate to add American to the opening sentence, not to add any substantive information or contribute anything to the article of worth, but gotta slap that nationality on there after "upcoming" because they can't wait 2 days for its release so that sentence can be changed properly. In your case, the infobox guidelines support earliest and home country dates only don't they? I indulge someone exactly once, if they keep doing it I start warning, simple as. If it isn't an American film, the American stuff goes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for all who commented here and on the talk page—as well as edited appropriately: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Renaming The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The title of the 2005 film is now discussed. Please join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow

I tried to submit an AFC to get an article going about this Fiennes' documentary, Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow. I just learned about the movie in a presentation at the local museum, and I wanted to read more. My first choice would have been to just read a Wikipedia article about it, and there I would find the links to its website, the director, the artist. But there was no Wikipedia article, just a few mentions in the director's, artist's and musician's articles, and my Google search for the tile AND movie OR film gave me half a million hits.

It seemed a no-brainer to start a Wikipedia article, but I ran into an editor who is demanding an unspecified number of references and deems The Guardian and The New York Times, to be questionable sources. I added half a dozen more sources, but I cannot win a battle with a user who calls NYTimes a "questionable" source.

For outsiders at Wikipedia it is completely arbitrary what will be sufficient for an article. Learning that the NYTimes is a questionable source is the sort of arbitrary stuff that outsiders at Wikipedia are frequently faced with. I think this could be an article. It does meet the stated requirements of having two reviews in notable sources (the Times is not a questionable source), and it has multiple other reviews. It opened at Cannes in 2010, a non-invited film, but still notable enough to open there. It has been released in over a dozen countries.

Flat out, it is notable. I have more sources to add, but for now I put it in the director's article. It should be a stand alone film article, though.

What else do I need? Thanks. - (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow
Directed by Sophie Fiennes
Produced by Sophie Fiennes
Émilie Blézat
Kees Kasander
Music by Jörg Widmann
György Ligeti
Cinematography Remko Schnorr
Edited by Ethel Shepherd
Amoeba Film
Kasander Film Company
Release date
  • May 16, 2010 (2010-05-16) (Cannes Film Festival)
  • October 10, 2011 (2011-10-10) (United States)
Running time
105 minutes
Country France

Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow is a 2010 Sophie Fiennes documentary about German industrial artist Anselm Kiefer's creation of a Gesamtkunstwerk in an abandoned factory complex outside Barjac, France.[1][2][3] Kiefer moved to the South of France from Germany in 1993 and began creating his art installation, "La Ribaute" on 35 acres of land belonging to an old silk factory.[4] The film begins with a lengthy silence to show the tunnels and spaces the artist created before showing the artist and his process in creating a large landscape painting. The film opened at Cannes in 2010 as a special screening.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

  1. ^ Jennifer Shryane (28 November 2011). Blixa Bargeld and Einstürzende Neubauten: German Experimental Music - 'Evading Do-Re-Mi'. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-4094-2157-3. 
  2. ^ Bradshaw, Peter (16 May 2012). "Cannes film festival review – Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 March 2013. 
  3. ^ Dargis, Manohla (9 August 2011). "Touring an Artist’s Pre-Apocalyptic Realm". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2013. 
  4. ^ Harrison, Rodney (26 October 2011). "Surface assemblages. Towards an archaeology in and of the present". Archaeological Dialogues. 18 (02): 141–161. doi:10.1017/S1380203811000195.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
  5. ^ By V.A. Musetto (2011-08-09). "'Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow' movie, directed by Sophie Fiennes, opens in NYC". Retrieved 2013-03-10. 
  6. ^ "Festival de Cannes - From 15th to 26th May 2013". Retrieved 2013-03-10. 
  7. ^ Tobias, Scott (2011-08-10). "Movie Review - 'Grass Will Grow' On Abandoned Factory Art Project". NPR. Retrieved 2013-03-10. 
  8. ^ "Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow - Film Calendar". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved 2013-03-10. 
  9. ^ O'Hehir, Andrew (2011-08-11). "“Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow”: Inside Anselm Kiefer’s apocalyptic theme park". Retrieved 2013-03-10. 
  10. ^ January 06, 2012 (2012-01-06). "Movie review: 'Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow' - Los Angeles Times". Retrieved 2013-03-10.  Text "By Sheri Linden " ignored (help)
External links


  • Seems notable to me lots of news coverage.Moxy (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Same for me. Sourced by WP:RS, and passes the WP:GNG. ZappaOMati 05:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And thanks to whoever added the search link. There were so many sources, it didn't seem it would be an issue about notability, so I just put the two big reviews and meant to add more later (I was working on my cell phone at the time and adding sources is tricky). It is good to include a professional journal article outside the field also, and I found that in the search. By the way film fans, it's gorgeous and it's currently streaming on Netflix. - (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem - I hope this is not the only thing you will be contributing to Wikipedia. If your interested in hanging around - you can make some friends and help build the encyclopedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. PS I have an open door policy so feel free to come to my talk page for ANY reason.Moxy (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been around for ages, and I'm not interested in an account. I used to create more articles, and AFC is usually a snap. The artist has a few major paintings also, and I was writing about his "To the Unknown Painter" series for an AFC when this all began. I might post that for a starter to the Wiki projects; one of the paintings sold for over 3 million a few years ago. I don't do much in film, though, edit some Polish film articles, but mostly science, biology articles. Thanks for stepping up to a workable solution. - (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We should be having this talk on your user page - but O well. Any help you have/can offer be it large or small is greatly appreciated. No need for an account - we just want YOU to help.Moxy (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess we have gained consensus to make the article live. IP (no offense), if you think the article is ready for submission please resubmit it back.--Ushau97 talk contribs 05:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by resubmit it? Someone here can just move it. - (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
That is correct - I will do so after a few more comments on the positive side. There is no rush.Moxy (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no urgency, especially with the huge backlog at AFC. Someone already moved it, though. - (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not notable – All the sources are essentially film reviews i.e. opinion pieces. These in no way constitute encyclopedic commentary by independent secondary sources. Basically the film plays festivals because it's about a famous person, and reviewers who attend the festivals review it. It's not the quantity of sources that establish notability, it is the type: reviews in major publications don't really establish the notability of a film, just the notability of someone's opinion of the film. If there were independent sources offering us factual content about its conception/production then it would be notable by the general notability guidelines. If it has had some form of mass distribution i.e. international general release in cinemas/on homevideo/television broadcast then that would establish its notability by the Film notability guidelines. As it stands, there seems to be no factual sources—which means we can't really write anything about it—and no evidence of wide distribution. Betty Logan (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • All the sources are not film reviews. It has been released internationally in a dozen or so countries. - (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the IMDB release dates, I just see festival dates. If you can prove it's had a general release outside of its country then fair enough, but it's not evident from the article. A film must have "signicant coverage" in independent secondary sources: what we basically mean is that the film must be the main subject of the article. This isn't the case with film reviews, the reviewers opinion is the main subject of the article; that rules out refs 2,3,5,7,8,9,10; 6 is just a calendar notice, 4 doesn't even mention the film, and whil 1 mentions the film the subject is Kiefer. There is no evidence of the film being the main subject in independent secondary coverage, so I can't endorse the article as it currently stands. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Betty, I don't understand why film reviews don't constitute commentary by independent sources. Isn't that exactly what a film review is? The reviewer is independent of the filmmakers and offers their opinion of the work. What's missing? --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The threshold is significant coverage, and I don't believe run of the mill film reviews offer that, no matter how many there are. The primary function of reviews is to offer the authors opinion, and by their nature they are very limited in what they tell us about the film, besides the author's opinion of it. Sure, there are extensive reviews that border onto analysis of the film in some cases, that consider its themes, its impact etc, that do offer significant commentary on the film besides the author's opinion but they are few and far between, and I don't think the reviews above meet this criteria. I could well be out of sync with other project members on this though. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you looking at the sources? The entire second page of Harrison's article is about the film. How is that "doesn't even mention the film?" - (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean though by film festivals is not the same as released in a country--I don't generally created film articles, and this was not something I was familiar with. It was only released in the US to half a dozen art houses. However, juried film festivals should contribute something to notability. Not every film plays at Cannes, Melbourne, or Toronto due to the selection process, and, not every film is reviewed, especially by the major papers. If it only played a few art houses, yet received a solo review by a prominent NY Times film reviewer, it had to have some level of notability to get that level of attention. The same with The Guardian, and the LA Times. I think also the number of google hits, although not notable in itself, does suggest some notability for the film. Much of this is because the artist is famous, but it is also because of the critical acclaim the film received in some reviews. - (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I read the abstract for the Harrison article, since I am not coughing up $6 to check a source. The abstract makes it very unlikely that the paper covers the film in any significant detail. If someone on here besides you assures me it does I will concede my stance. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Since, there is no consensus on Wikipedia for your assumption of bad faith that I am lying about the content of the article, there's no forward from here. Wikipedia community consensus is that I don't have to prove the source exists, just because it is offline to you.- (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe your intentions are sincere so I'm sorry if it came across that I was accusing you of being disingenuous. I just have doubts over your judgment in regards to what sources are acceptable for establishing notability, so I think it would be best if someone else checked the source. Then again it may not matter if no-one else agrees with me. Betty Logan (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We're even then. I more than doubted your judgement when you said Harrison "doesn't even mention the film," since I had just read the entire article and knew you were wrong. I read the article, so I have to be done with this converstaion, because what is going on here, is that you did not read the source, and drew an incorrect conclusion for the entire source from reading just the abstract, and want to say that I, who read the article, cannot be believed unless someone else reads the article. It is not a requirement on Wikipedia for anyone to prove an off-line source exists. There will be no more comments from me on this matter. -07:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
What I concluded is that 9 out 10 of the sources you claim establish notability don't IMO, since they do not discuss the subject in detail; that leaves the one source I was unable to access where the abstract does not mention the film at all. Given that your other nine sources have flunked I don't think it is unreasonable to question your judgement in regards to the one I can't access. However, if the Harrison source is substantial why not use some of the content to expand the article, and then request a reasessment? Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article titles are supposed to be singular. How about...

... if the word "Award" isn't the last word? I'm planning to create an article about PMPC Star Awards for Movies (there's also PMPC Star Awards for Television and PMPC Star Awards for Music), and I want to be guided on how it should be named. –HTD 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you were to create such a thing, I would assume it should be: PMPC Star Awards for Film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If PMPC Star Awards for Movies is the actual name of the event then I suppose we would just use that, wouldn't we, in the same way we use the title of a film or a book, along the lines of AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies? FWIW one of these lists already exists at 28th PMPC Star Awards for Movies. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I figured using PMPC Star Awards for Movies (there's already PMPC Star Awards for TV), I'm asking if the word "Award" is singular or plural or the title would have to be reworded, etc. since the apparently title format for awards shows is "________ Award" (singular). –HTD 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no real consistency in naming. The more established seem to go with the singular: Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, Golden Raspberry Award vs People's Choice Awards, Independent Spirit Awards. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. Since there's already a similarly title article, I'd follow that format. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There should be a rule on this, to help n00bs like me. I'd personally go for the plural form, but the big time awards are singular so I went with that. –HTD 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Movie databases - which are considered reliable sources?

Dear film buffs: I have been reviewing new pages, and I sometimes come across film articles where the only sources are movie databases. I don't know enough about these to tell which ones have editor-overseen content. I'm pretty sure that the IMDB is all user-generated, and therefore not reliable, but what about the others? AllMovie seems to keep editor reviews and user reviews separate, as does Turner Classic. Has your project made a list of these web sites and which parts of them are or are not populated by knowledgeable people as apposed to fans? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This should help. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Never trust Allmovie synopses. I've found way too many errors there. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A Late Quartet or Performance

It seems to me that the name of the film described in the article A Late Quartet has been changed by the distributors to Performance which means it ought to be moved to Performance (2012 film). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

IMDB says it is known as "Performance" in Australia, but it still seems to be called "A Late Quarter" in the US. Betty Logan (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


I just reverted an editor who added an animated gif (File:GremlinsStripeShootsBilly.gif) to the Gremlins article. Are such images ever considered acceptable? I do not recall ever seeing one. His rationale for the image's use seems flawed. Is this image even kosher? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose they have to be assessed along the same lines as video, in that the scene itself needs to be the subject of sourced commentary. I think it's safe to say that the FUR won't hold up just for plot illustration, which we never add images to anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty, you expressed what I was thinking better than I could. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistance requested with plot bloat

An IP editor is blatantly violating plot summary guidelines at The Thing (1982 film). I'm close to 3RR and don't know whether reverting plot bloating would qualify as an exemption. They're not engaging in dialogue and I have left a note at the article's Talk page as well as their Talk page. Would greatly appreciate other editors' assistance! Doniago (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep reverting them - IP editors are scum and should be treated with contempt. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That's the spirit! Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm harsh but fair. And the below blocking backs up my convictions! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to the folks who got involved with this; the IP has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. If they return and resume their behavior I'll take it to WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reliable source? Plus other issues

I am transferring over part of the discussion at Talk:List of lost silent films (1925-1929) for more input.

... why are you deleting the Silent Era references from List of lost films? Deutsche Kinemathek considers Silent Era reliable enough to use as one of its sources in compiling its own lost list, e.g. Adrienne Lecouvreur.
Silentera is a "Self-published source" and according to wikipedia rules,WP:USERGENERATED, are not allowed. Silentera has it's own agenda and it clearly interested mainly in silent films, even though they include some sound films in their listing. There are numerous errors in films from the early sound era, showing this disinterest in the period. Additionally, I would hardly call Adrienne Lecouvreur a reliable source. I just checked for some of the most sought after of lost films, including, "The Rogue Song" 1930 and "Gold Diggers of Broadway" 1929, and nothing turned up. If silentera sources are going to be included here, then so should imdb and similiar websites. Both of these sites are selective. I have attempted to list every lost American sound feature film for 1928.1934 in the "list of lost films" and would like to now include a list of all known part-talkies which I have compiled from various sources. By the way, these film are considered lost because they are not known to exist in any archive around the world. In private hands, anything is possible but this list, and any list of lost films, is simply a statement that no print is known to exist in any archive. It is common knowledge (among film buffs of this era) that the films I have listed are lost. They have been lost for decades. But to expect an authoritative source for every film to somehow back up these commonly known facts is absurd. It is more reasonable to include a reference for films known to exist and it can easily be verified by an archive's website. But to expect confirmation for something that is not known to exist any longer? Talkicolor (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Silentera has it's own agenda? Well yeah, here we go again with a dumb argument as we did with the allrovi argument. Again somebody has created arbitrary WP rules. So I guess TCM doesn't have an agenda. Every website has an agenda if its to mean something. If you're meaning that he has ad banners advertising silent movies, so what! takes money to run a website. Silentera, though not perfect, is one of the best sites on silent films on the net. Those films you listed "The Rogue Song" and "Gold Diggers of Broadway" may not have been list cause in the case of of Rogue Song, it is a 1930 film. Silentera goes up to 1929 and there was no silent version anyway. "Gold Diggers" was all-talking, all-singing, and is a 1929 film. It is most certainly listed on the website. Understand that silent film interest is a niche interest. You're not going to find that element of perfection either on a website or a printed book. Koplimek (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:USERG is flawed anyway. It ignorantly states that no selfpublished websites can be used as verifiable sources. That would include everything on the net as everything would be questionable. What the ruling meant was that BLOGS are not to be used as verifiable sources since info is gathered from tepid conversation. The rule is also elitist as it automatically sanctions what are deemed professionals and or published authors which doesn't by virtue ensure accuracy. Koplimek (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Koplimek. While flawed, Silentera is a very good resource for a niche area of cinema. In lieu of anything better, it becomes the defacto RS for silent films. Everything on the internet is user generated. If something is contentious then it should be verified by another RS, or removed altogether. I love how people scoff at the reliability of site (IMDB, being a prime example), yet WP is far from reliable either. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record we are not allowed to use Wikipedia or IMDB as sources, so the question must be asked, where does Silentera get its information? If it is user generated by people like us, then it is no more valid as a source than a Wikipedia article. If the content is created by someone who is published in the area of silent film, or the site is acknowledged as a reputable source in this area by other writers on silent film then that could maybe qualify it, but simply because it supplies information that we want to use does not. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Silentera's agenda is silent films. I have zero interest in silent films. Although they list a few token sound films, there are many errors in the listings for those as their focus is silent film. (For example, they ridiculously states that the print of "Men Without Women" 1930 housed at MOMA is a work print when anyone with an elementary knowledge of the talkie era knows it was an "International Sound Version": . Note the references they list to this film "References: Film credits, film viewing : Website-IMDb." Silentera lists IMDB as a reference and yet I can not use the original source that they have used. Furthermore they have a link selling a bootleg copy of this copyrighted film made from a VHS recording from an AMC broadcast(!) I was attempting to list all the lost American sound films by the major studios 1928-1934 at List of lost films. Since there is no "Talkieera" website I used links to imdb and tcm as a backup reference to what was listed as being lost as well as a few references to books. The links to and were removed by User:Clarityfiend who claimed they were self published WP:USERGENERATEDand therefore they were unreliable. I do not see why silentera should get a free pass but the other sites do not. If I were to make a site called can I automatically start using it as a reference on wikipedia? Silentera is a self published source made by fans of silent films. Since I am a talkie fan I should logically be able to do the same? Talkicolor (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
See this is where you're disingenuous. Silentera has provided you with information regarding a work print held at the MOMA. Would you have known that if you hadn't researched silentera? You're criticizing silentera for really doing it's job. If you read the whole description of the movie, the last line says that a silent version was also released in lieu of it being 1930. If you're interested in talkies, why spend so much effort dissecting a silent film website. You should give kudos to silentera for going above and beyond the call of duty. Sound films didn't just begin with The Jazz Singer. Sound films go all the way back to 1894. To add perspective to film history Carl Bennett devotes a WHOLE section on early experimental sound films, that is sound or talk films that were produced in what is categorically defined as the silent film era 1894-1929. Explore the website a little more.Koplimek (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever its faults, silentera is acknowledged as reliable by Deutsche Kinemathek, a "major German film archive". IMDb trivia is considered reliable by nobody. This means you have to work harder to source sound films than silents. That's just how it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I already knew that MOMA has a print of the film. Silent era has provided me with no information, only errors. It is not a work print. It is the "International Sound Version." It is clear that the people are completely confused. They say that the print is a "compilation of sound and silent footage./ [?]" And you seem to be confused yourself. Studios would produce "International Sound Versions" as a cheaper alternative to re-shooting the film in another language (known as "Foreign Language Version"). The English titles would be replaced with the appropriate foreign language title cards in whatever language was necessary. Numerous examples of "International Sound Versions" have survived. If you had read my previous comment you would realize that I am only criticizing the use of silentera as a source because my reference citations to both tcm and imdb were removed. Silentera itself uses imdb as a source. Look at this page once again Look at the bottom at the sources given: References: Film credits, film viewing : Website-IMDb Silentera's only source for this page is IMDB. So you have just said that the one of the original sources for silentera is not reliable, but that silentera is.Talkicolor (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
So silentera has at least one dubious entry. It is trusted enough, as I've stated several times, for it to be used by others.
Show me where I've taken out anything other than IMDb trivia and a couple of "references" to other Wikipedia articles.[12]
The website has the same films listed as lost as does I can easily put the tcm website as a reference to replace the imdb entries. Or is tcm not as trusted as If not, then who decides what is trusted and what is not? It seems a bit random to me. By the way, the lost film status is also stated on the main imdb page for each film, I simply put the URL of the trivia page because it is more easy to find the pertinent information. I am pretty sure that imdb is referenced much more frequently than silentera on wikipedia.Talkicolor (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No, IMDb is not (at least not correctly). It is listed in the External links section very frequently, but that's not the same thing. TCM is cited on occasion, but not often. It's more of a case by case situation. If somebody authoritative writes a bylined article in TCM, that's certainly fine. An unattributed, anonymous one, not so good. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: IMDb is also used to support the cast credits as well, now that I think of it. I personally don't see the need for it (credits usually aren't controversial). This illustrates that IMDb is trusted in certain areas. I've seen the "Believed lost. Please check your attic." comments, but always in the trivia section, e.g. Women They Talk About. Nobody around here would touch IMDb trivia with a ten foot pole. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I will however go through the silents and check for any silentera entries that depend solely on IMDb as a reference and excise them. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. After some thought, I see no inconsistency in our use of silentera as a reference; when it cites IMDb, it may be for cast listings or other info for which we do trust the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuation on another front

TCM's trivia is no better a source than IMDb's, especially when it's worded exactly the same.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Silentera's information is also no better a source than TCM. As you can see from the following page the contributors to silentera are musicians and silent movie fans. They have no credentials to speak with authority on silent films. The highest degree these people hold are a Bachelor's Degree which hardly qualifies them as an authority. If you check the source they quote, none of them, except for imdb, state that a film is believed to be lost. They are general references to common facts about the films such as cast, director, plot, etc. At least TCM owns the right and copyright to most of these lost films so the fact they considered a film to be lost is hardly trivial. They have considerable interest in finding these films, so if they have any information about a film being discovered they will reveal it if for nothing more than to make a profit. According to TCM any user contributions will be distinctly marked so: "You will receive online recognition for any posted contribution based on the personal info you submit." In the pages I referenced there was no such recognition. The material was supplied solely by TCM. Furthermore, if you look at the bottom of the pages you will note than TCM has used the following reference work in composing their movie files: "LEONARD MALTIN CLASSIC MOVIE GUIDE, COPYRIGHT 2013. USED BY ARRANGEMENT WITH PENGUIN GROUP (USA) INC."Talkicolor (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
As I've stated ad nauseum, silentera is recognized by the professionals of a notable film archive as reliable. Can TCM claim the same? Your TCM suppositions are WP:OR. You need to read and understand WP:reliable sources. It's not about what we guess or surmise, it's what recognized authorities accept.
As for your other points, the list of names to which you refer is merely people that silentera wishes to thank for their featured "writings"; nowhere is it stated or even implied that they are the sole or even primary contributors. Examining the list, how is Greta de Groat (whom I have cited for a number of Pauline Frederick films) not qualified? She's the "Electronic Media Cataloger at Stanford University Libraries". The Kaufman Agency deals in film music.
Nor is having nothing more than a bachelors degree some sort of automatic disqualification. Roger Ebert, by your "reasoning", must be a fraud. That charlatan Gene Siskel only had a bachelors in (shudder) philosophy, albeit from Yale. Pauline Kael dropped out of Berkeley without a degree. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Film producer

The article film producer has been rewritten. It resembles now in regards to its structure the articles film director, line producer and executive producer. Please check it out and rectify whatever isn't alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII (talkcontribs) 00:20, March 15, 2013

Category:Abandoned film projects

Quick note for the participants of WikiProject Film. Someone recently created Category:Abandoned film projects for films who were abandoned before principal photography even began. This is distinct from Category:Unfinished films (abandoned before completing principal photography) and Category:Unreleased films (abandoned after the completion of principal photography). I'm not entirely convinced that the new category is needed but if it is kept, a number of entries in Category:Unfinished films need to be moved to the new category. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between Category:Abandoned film projects and Category:Cancelled films. From my perspective, the easiest way forward is to simply dump the problem on you guys. :-) Pichpich (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to start a discussion about this but got seriously sidetracked. Thanks to Pichpich for starting this discussion. I believe I created the category "abandoned film projects" before I discovered the "cancelled films" category. I think "cancelled", "abandoned" and "unmade" are distinct categories. "Shelved" is an alternate term for "cancelled" and "abandoned". "Cancelled" implies a studio decision. Further "cancelled" may be confused with "unfinished". Some films go on being unmade even though key production crew are in place but remain on the immediate back burner therefore they aren't truly "cancelled". I have another reason for disliking "cancelled": I edit numerous articles where British vs American spelling disputes erupt; I can see someone moving the category to "canceled films"; perhaps even noting in the edit summary that "people should learn how to spell if they want to edit wikipedia." The problem with "unmade films" is that editors will confuse it with "unproduced screenplays". - Fantr (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This presents a typical problem when choosing a categorization scheme. On one hand, we want to be precise but on the other hand we want something coarse enough to avoid categories which are too small to be useful for navigation. In that sense, breaking down the set of "films that never were" using the trichotomy "before/during/after principal photography" may or may not be ideal but I think it's at least reasonably meaningful, reasonably precise and reasonably coarse. Pichpich (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel very strongly that we should not under any circumstances combine "unfinished films" with "unmade films". Additional note: I may have misunderstood Pichpich. Were you suggesting we should combine the unmade and unfinished categories? If not, sorry! - Fantr (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, but as Pichpich pointed out, it seems to me that all of these films fall into one of three categories based on principal photography: unproduced, unfinished, and unreleased. I think that any other film articles that would fall into Category:Cancelled films or Category:Abandoned film projects could be merged into one of those 3 categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify my comment. I think three categories based on principal photography is at the very least a good solution. Pichpich (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as we don't merge "films that completed production but not post-production" with "unreleased films". But we still need to decide what to call those films that died immediately before production was to begin? "Cancelled" (which I still don't like), "abandoned", "shelved", or "unmade"? And as no footage is shot I think we should add "project(s)" to the category title, (i.e. "abandoned film projects", "shelved film projects", etc.) - Fantr (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I created a draft article for "unfinished and abandoned films" here. I encourage editors to add entries. - Fantr (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Meet up suggestion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

3O at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone over cast order

I know, I know it's a pathetic subject but the user is being an unrelenting pain and edit warring over it. I've reported him to AIV but imagine nothing will come of it. The credits as they stand are based off the poster on the article, not any personal preference just the cast as it stands on the poster. The user replaced them with film ordering because he believes the credits is based off importance in the film; he ignored me when I mentioned alphabetic or in-order-of-appearance lists. I put them back to the poster one because the poster is right there, easily checkable without owning the film and helps prevent the kind of stuff this user is sadly doing. No messing about, it's just THERE. He iwll not let it go, and I'm assuming he is a fanboy because there is no way someone should be causing me this much hassle because of film credits, but the way he keeps going on about prominence makes me think its fanboying, he wants it because it credits cast members higher than others, earlier edits he made to the article had him saying pretty much this along the lines of "Carrey is clearly more important to the film based on the official synopsis" when putting him higher. As far as I am aware there is no guideline or rule that says one must be used over the other, so in this case what is there is perfectly acceptable, especially since the cast sections are not based off importance EVEN IF film credits WERE, and can as easily be entirely a block of prose. I would appreciate a 3rd opinion in the discussion either way to end it because I never want to speak to this user again. Thankfully this is the last article I started work on before my semi-retirement and I will not be dealing with this or his kind again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at just his recent edits, he is happy to use the poster when it suits his requirements for getting his favorites higher. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
C'mon guys, I'm not asking for a lengthy debate here, you literally have to go there, say "Hey yeah we use the billing block and not just the listing that you think has more important people first" as we actually do, or "No, we just decide who we think is important and list them in that order" and sign your name. This 'thing' will not quit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tcmdb title

Says it has been broken since 2011. Is this true? Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Not that I know of. Where's it say that? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
See this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion

[14] possibly under the scope of the project.....I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Populate request for help on categorization

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that "men by occupation" categories - including "Male film directors" survived a CFD here. I'd gladly support a new CFD for this pointless category. Sorry, but that's how I feel. Anybody else have an opinion? Betty? Schro? Erik? - Fantr (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's necessary either. It seem to me it exists solely because we have category for female directors, which is a notable subset, so I would support a CFD. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Created along with this obsession of adding cats by gender. Pointless and not needed. No doubt BrownHairedGirl will hound anyone who dares add a delete comment too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've begun a CFD here. Actually, in the last generic CFD ("Category:Men by occupation") BrownHairedGirl wrote "per the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS, at WP:Cat gender, a female category does not have to be balanced by a male one, and vice-versa. Both should be assessed on their individual merits, which is what this group nomination fails to do. It lumps together male film directors (which looks to me like a hard-to-justify category) with male actors (which has some prima facie merit, because as you point out men cannot usually play female parts). If the nominator is serious about deleting these categories, they should be nominated separately to allow an individual discussion on each of them." - Fantr (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Production year/country

Hi: sorry if this has been discussed here before. Do we have any rules/guidelines on how to identify the nationality of a film? Case in point: The Quiet Man, which is currently described as an Irish-American film. IMO this makes no sense as other sources describe it as a strictly American film: production company, distributor, director, stars - all American. I have tried to raise this issue on the talk page of that film, but there has been no response so far. Usually it seems that the nationality of the production company is the key in identifying nationality, and co-productions are labelled as having multiple nationality (eg German/French).

Similarly, what about the year? Is this always the year of initial release? Some "official" sources like use a different approach. E.g. The Indian Tomb (1959 film) is identified there as a 1958/59 film, because the filming happened in 1958 whilst the initial release was in 1959. Any thoughts? Thanks!Drow69 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationality is quite a contentious issue, and there have been lots of discussions on it, as many editors here will attest to. Have a look at the instructions at Template:Infobox film. If your questions remain unanswered, please come back here and ask again.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
For the release date, you go with the first date the film was released, not when it was filmed. From WP:FILMRELEASE - "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! That means: In the hypothetical case of a film made in 1980 but released directly to video in 1998, it would be described as "xxx is a 1998 drama-comedy, filmed in 1980". Drow69 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - take for example The Cabin in the Woods, filmed in 2009 and released in 2012. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)