Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


Naming conventions for foreign titled films

Can I just refer back to this: [[1]]. I dont think there was ever a consensus reach about how this should be tackled. It's certainly still a mess out there! My thought are that we should use the original title as the main name and the English should redirect to it. My reasoning is that if you visit one of the foreign film categories it looks very strange to see English titles. It'll look even stranger if we use the English convention as there will be a few that haven't been renamed that will stick out like a sore thumb. Categorising using the foreign name makes sure we can follow a convention is (virtually) all cases. This is the convention which I notice the IMDB uses. Mallanox 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to use one's own judgment when deciding the title. Surely Film d'amore e d'anarchia, ovvero 'stamattina alle 10 in via dei Fiori nella nota casa di tolleranza...' should use the English title Love and Anarchy, although this is a pretty extreme example. Japanese and Russian titles also seem to be up for interpretation. For example, IMDb lists this film as Okaasan, but other reliable sources call it Okasan, Oka-san or Okaa-san. Original titles on IMDb also change quite often, as original prints are discovered and released on DVD and/or wrong info is simply corrected. English titles are usually well-known and "easy". On the other hand, several 70's Italian genre films have multiple, even a dozen, English titles which should rule out just picking one of them. And then there are the films that are best known by the original title, as Ikiru and Le dernier combat. I think there are too many factors that stop forming a naming convention for this. Prolog 11:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The naming conventions are fairly clear on the general concepts behind article naming. Basically, as said above, use English unless the foreign title is the predominant one. IMDb is a good reference source for many things, but as noted above, the contents do change and oftentimes do have subtle (but important) errors. Much like Wikipedia. Another thing to consider is how the most recent English-language DVD release names it - although this may also vary with region, if most or all of the legal and commercially available copies of the film in English concur on a common title, that should probably be respected. E.g. La dolce vita should stay in Italian, but Nights of Cabiria should be in English. Girolamo Savonarola 21:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The naming conventions also state that non-latin characters should be excluded with the original name in the first line (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Cbrown1023 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Filming locations

Many city articles, especially those in Southern California, list films and TV shows that have used those places as filming locations. Currently the material is treated in a haphazard manner, sometimes having a special section (like "Filming in X"), sometimes coverd in "trivia", othertimes as "X in popular culture". I think it'd be helpful to develop a more standardized approach, perhaps a section heading that could serve for both TV and films. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For the smaller towns and cities which don't see much filming, it probably could be noted amongst a culture and arts section. However, for locations which have a larger share of filming, it might not be a bad idea to split these off into separate list articles. Just my two cents, but it will likely improve the quality of both if there was a split. Again, which articles warrant which approach will have to be somewhat subjective, but surely at a certain point creating a separate list article should be more obvious. Girolamo Savonarola 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello, everyone, I hail from the guys over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cinema. Maybe someone of you could have a look at two or three of our articles:

Salman Khan - if you have a look at the history, you'll see that a user, User:LuckyS, has started to revert each and every edit anyone else has made to the article. Most recent example: [2] He claims that I vandalise the article and now, I'm not sure - am I really? I provided references from news agencies I deem trustworthy and I tried to remove the brackets, since they are awful for people who use Screen reader and the likes. I'd be happy to get some neutral oppinions on the issue.

Ajith Kumar - the filmography and the notable roles get added by User:KingDracula time and again. I'm not sure, but in my humble opinions, notable roles, unless you provide a link from a critic, are POV; what qualifies them as notable? Also, the filmography includes co-stars and directors. None of the filmographies of featured articles include those and I suspect it's a case of fan glorification (Actor XYZ has worked with more famous collegues than actor ABC, therefore actor XYZ is better). Again, I could be mistaken and over the top. Could you have a look at Kumar's article, too?

Thanks a ton and best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a look through for you. It looks to me that you've stumbled across a couple of users who are "particularly attached" to those articles. If it is a question of you and those other users edit warring back and forth, then it might be worth your time taking a step back for a bit and check out WP:3. The important thing is you don't give your name in the request for help, meaning that the 3rd opinion will be impartial as they won't know (unless they look at the edit history of that page) who requested their assistance. If this doesn't solve the matter then it may require mediation. In the short term, I would stop trying to update the pages and seek help either through 3rd Opinion or Mediation. Mallanox 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree - you might want to also use their talk pages to discuss the ownership policy and editing policy. Failing that, dispute resolution is the best method. Girolamo Savonarola 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tvguide movie TfD

Hello all. I've just put a recently-created template flagged with this project's banner, Template:Tvguide movie, up on TfD amongst a couple of other related ones. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tvguideshow. Mike Peel 08:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oviously result was delete. Cbrown1023 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

I want to point all cinema fans to Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week, which I feel should be back and running once more, due to the amount of B-class film articles.Wiki-newbie 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


I notice that the Infobox Syntax Guide advises the format $100 million [[United States dollar|USD]], which produces $100 million USD. This seems unencyclopedic, i.e. wrong, to me. $ and D mean the same thing here, so effectively, the word dollars is in there twice; 100 million dollar dollars.

Not that anybody follows the guide. Worse still is the much more common $100 million. $ doesn't mean anything here; it might as easily refer to the U.S. currency, the N.Z. currency, the Australian currency, or the Alpha Centurian mega dollar. Mercans, eh?

How about $100 million US, US$100 million, USD100 million, 100 million USD, or, by far my favourite, $100 million? TheMadBaron 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it because you and I both think that it looks best and I've seen it in a lot of articles. Cbrown1023 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Plotnote

Template:Plotnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

This is because it conflicts with the stated article style guide. Vaergoth 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It also contradicts the site-wide content disclaimer. I've also noted this on the project's style guidelines page. Girolamo Savonarola 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles being assessed wrong

I just wanted to point out, several films coming out in the future are marked as stub. I've changed the ones I've seen to future class. If a movie isn't out yet, there usually isn't much information... thus the need for it to be tagged future class. RobJ1981 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Griffin (The Invisible Man)

Hi, in order to complete the above article, we need someone to list any movie versions of the above character. I am unable to do so due to knowing nothing about the character history--SGCommand (talkcontribs) 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on SGCommand's talk page. TheMadBaron 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Define "movie versions". There have been numerous invisible men who were not the HGW Invisible Man named Griffin, even though they vary in degree to which they were based on that work. Doczilla 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone own a book of film-related bios?

I know film-related bios fall under the biography wikiproject, and not this one, but I was hoping one of you film buffs might be able to help me out. A single user, User:RJNeb2, has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures, and that the articles on allmovie are possibly copied from the same book. If anyone happens to own a reference work that might fit the bill, I'd appreciate if you'd give a few of these articles a look and see if they match up. Thanks so much!

Note: I've also posted this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: most of the articles in Vary's list need editing to disambiguate and italicise the film titles. (Sorry I couldn't help with the actual enquiry....) TheMadBaron 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeal for help

User:Cbrown1023 and I have been slowly going through the film articles, and I know that some more of you are helping assess. However, at this rate it'll take weeks, maybe even a month, to assess less than 2,000 articles. Could we get some more people involved? It's really quiet simple, and it will be finished in short order if we all help.--Supernumerary 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been assessing several articles a day for a while now as well. I've also found many untagged talk pages for movies, and then added the film tag along with the rating. A good tip for finding untagged: go to Category:Upcoming films. Many of the articles in the category haven't gotten tagged yet. I'm doing my best at assessing, but I'm also assessing for horror project, plus trivia cleanup as well, and stub sorting. RobJ1981 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I too have been assessing films, but not at the rate that User:Cbrown1023 & User:Supernumerary are. I also have been adding the template to the talk page whenever I check the newly created articles and search for films. I will continue to assess them and add them to films. When I get the time, I'll take one of the pages and start assessing them at a faster rate. I'll set this as my priority right now until it is done and I'll continue to adding films to Lists of films by letter from the lists of films by year. Perhaps a message can be sent to some/all of the WikiProject Film participants and request their help. Nehrams2020 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been assessing films also. The problem is that at some point the unassessed cat was filled up with articles for film characters. The thing is, I think the vast majority of these are not notable and, IMO, the articles should be deleted (yep, I believe there shouldn't be a page on every Pokemon). I don't really want to push my opinion on this, but a side effect was that assessing articles stopped being fun when I had to dig through a pile of insignificant characters :-(. However, what I do find interesting and equally important is assessing importance. Does anyone have any idea how that works? 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) I was that AdamSmithee 07:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible more classes to be created just for fictional objects/characters/places, etc? Because I too have stumbled across too many articles that I can't grade because of being one of the articles based on a film. Examples include Wilson the Volleyball, Thomas Edison (the person), and Tholme. There needs to be one or more new levels of classifications for articles like these. Perhaps there could also be a class for actors, directors, or film studios. I don't know how to create the classes and I'm sure it also takes some discussion first. However, these new classes could help weed out the film articles that we don't have any idea how to grade.--Nehrams2020 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no time for assessing or sorting stubs, but in each "year in film", in the list "Films released in YYYY", I keep notes such as "film only mentioned in article", if a "blue" links points to a general non-film article. If this is any help, I've covered from 1960 to 2004 and am moving backwards now. Hoverfish 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I just assessed the majority of section 39, but was unable again to rate the fictional characters. I'll start back on the earlier unassessed sections next.--Nehrams2020 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanatic fans

Hullo, I don't know any of you ... I'm one of the people who have been working on WikiProject Cinema of India [WP:INCINE]. We've been having an growing problem with fans who "annex" the article for their favorite star. They rewrite the article so that it's a glowing fan tribute to the beloved (often be written in ungrammatical Hinglish) and revert any other edits as "vandalism." We have been struggling with one teenage Rani Mukerji fan for more than a year, and lately the Rajnikanth and Amitabh Bachchan articles have been taken over as well. There are only about three editors who try to keep the project as a whole under surveillance, we all have limited time and energy, and it's exhausting to deal with a fan who has apparently endless time to obsess over one article. Are there any policies or guidelines that apply besides WP:OWN? I'm sure that you must deal with this sort of thing in the wider film project ... how do you do it? Zora 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What they are doing can be considered vandalism as it is written in WP:NPOV and probably violating WP:3RR. You could take it up with:
I hope this helps. Cbrown1023 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An issue with film characters that needs to be dealt with

Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, Robots, Toy Story, and much more: have too many articles just for one character. Alot of these character pages are just cruft, in my opinion. A list page should be made for many of these movies. Why is there such a need to make so many pages just for a single character that has appeared once or twice? In the case of Robots, no sequel is planned (that I know of at least), so all those pages can't be expanded much. In the case of Toy Story, there is only 2 movies so far. These little character pages shouldn't exist, and a list page should be made instead for most characters at least. RobJ1981 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rob and I were also having a discussion at the Robots page here. Cbrown1023 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cruft indeed. I would say delete, but merge in alist should be fine AdamSmithee 22:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible more classes to be created just for fictional objects/characters/places, etc? Because I too have stumbled across too many articles that I can't grade because of being one of the articles based on a film. Examples include Wilson the Volleyball, Thomas Edison (the person), and Tholme. There needs to be one or more new levels of classifications for articles like these. Perhaps there could also be a class for actors, directors, or film studios. I don't know how to create the classes and I'm sure it also takes some discussion first. However, these new classes could help weed out the film articles that we don't have any idea how to grade.--Nehrams2020 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Thomas Edison is definately not a film character. I don't know why it was there, so I removed our tag. As for Tholme, I don't think that character was ever in a film, so I removed the tag. When in doubt if it is a film character/article just remove the tag (if you've read the article and found nothing that could make it related to a film).
Second of all, we don't do articles on living (or dead) people (so no actors or directors). That is in the scope of WP:WPBIO (and possible future projects). We also don't really do film studios, they are probably more related to WP:FILMMAKING.
I'm curious to know what is it that makes those article difficult to grade, I may be able to help you or at least tell you my grading criteria. If you think of any more possible classes I'm sure that I could figure out a way to add them to the template. Cbrown1023 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have another issue. I would prefer it if WikiProject Film kept away from characters in books, comics and other related media: I feel the tag should go to solely film-originated characters. From what I understand, the issue came about due to Indiana Jones: well that counts as a film series really. Wiki-newbie 09:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue didn't, the issue you were referring to was before we allowed any type of characters in our project... The we re-evaluated the scope and now they do belong. Cbrown1023 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help with a splitting/redirecting issue?

Some users are starting Jesus Christ Superstar (Film). The main article has a suggested split, but the page Jesus Christ Superstar (film) contains a redirect. Someone who knows how, please help the new article to move there. Hoverfish 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understood the problem correctly, you can request the move on WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. Prolog 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Prolog. The thing is, I don't know if the users starting the new article are in agreement with the split suggestion. I see no talk about it. It could be controversial... Hoverfish 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing controversial about it. I just redirected Jesus Christ Superstar (film) to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973 film), where the film article is now. I think you would need an admin to delete Jesus Christ Superstar (film) so you can move Jesus Christ Superstar (1973 film) to that location. TheMadBaron 10:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Bobet 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:American films

Until just now, I had no idea this category existed. Like English-language films, we have about 15,000 articles to add it to, right? I think I'm going to cry. TheMadBaron 10:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the point I see for crying: there are so many categories, not all very obvious or easily accessible, and a lot of lists, many of which cover some categories. Ideally we should have all categories and lists compared and take a decision on how to best organize and maintain them. If we manage to get some order, there could ba a way of entering a film only once, along with all possible categories and lists it should be listed in, so that the input goes to all lists concerned. I have been trying to find input wiki markup, to experiment with, but haven't found any yet. The action should be: enter title, date, categories, and the entry should update all appropriate lists. Does this make any sense, technically at least? Hoverfish 12:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the better idea is to make categorization into a key priority of the project, much like assessment. What can be done is an evaluation of the current state of categories. Then you can propose a general structure for film article categories and perhaps redesign the categorization as necessary to streamline things. Once that is done, you can create a standard categorization scheme which can apply to all articles. See WP MilHist for an excellent example. Girolamo Savonarola 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's awesome. They've got task forces. That's what we need. We need task forces. TheMadBaron 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It IS awesome, but here we have quite a (famously) busy task force too. We do have to create a category map to give users (including ourselves) an idea where to list a film. Structure of categories is what we need. Dares anyone start unraveling? Hoverfish 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What we have is a famously busy army. I was drawn into this project after seing film stubs I'd created pwned and improved, and what's been accomplished so far is very, very impressive. I'm now speculating that the reason that the military articles are among the best on WP is that they have task forces within their army, each with different areas of 'responsibility'. What we appear to be is.... and I know I'm a relative newb here, and this might be a mistaken impression.... Cbrown1023 and Supernumerary doing the boring jobs, like assessing the articles, and pretty much running the show, while the rest of us tag articles and make infoboxes. What I'm suggesting is....

  1. List maintenance (messy, messy, messy)
  2. Filmography disambiguation (bio project aint doing it, dab link repair are doing it one film at a time, and only where there's a dab page)
  3. Interwiki - coordinating with film projects on other Wikipedias to take interwiki links in hand, and encouraging the formation of such projects
  4. Categories Control, per Girolamo Savonarola
  5. Form Improvement Force - anything above stub level to be brought in line with style guidelines, regardless of the quality of the content
  6. Links force - IMDb, yes, but there are others....
  7. Prose Posse - lots of films have excellent content, but written really badly....
  8. Infobox Infantry - notice how nobody bothers with the "cinematographer" or "country" fields, or links the language per style guidelines.... I've stopped making infoboxes now, because I'm too busy fixing the ones that are already there....
  9. Image Infantry - some of those film posters have seen better days.... 'responsibilities' to include fair use checks
  10. Interproject Embassy - horror, novels, bio project, and task force coordination might come in handy....
  11. Split squad - some of the people who are splitting articles are basically doing it wrong, and that's because they lack clear instruction....

Aw, heck, all I really wanted was to know whether Category:American films is an achievable goal. Because if the category's going to end up getting deleted, I won't bother.

I'd start unraveling categories if I had any idea where to start. TheMadBaron 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If we do do what GS (if i tried to spell his name I'd get it wrong and I'm too lazy to just copy and paste Girolamo Savonarola...) is proposing, we should do start at Category:Film because that is where everything is supposed to sub-ed from and it is very confusing to navigate (which I assume is GS's point). Cbrown1023 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would probably be where to start. Now that I've finished Assessment on WP Filmmaking, it's also something I've been warily eyeballing lately...can't say I'm too enthusiastic. (Yet. I thought we'd never be able to finish assessment either, but it was fun in the end!) There's so much which is either miscategorized or not specifically categorized enough (i.e. lazily being placed in Category:Film when there are more specific subcategories that it should be in instead), that it's a big project.
Most of the bigger WikiProjects tend to have a categorization department, which is in charge or maintaining it and making certain that misplaced articles are properly "filed", or even just adding or changing the cat links after new categories are added or restructured. I'd say that it's a perpetual task in the same way as Assessment in that you can clearly reach an initial end-point, but the work itself will never stop as more articles are written and the Wikipedia develops further.
As far as task forces/work groups go, I think that there is usually a clear divide between Departments and Task Forces; Departments handle project-wide initiatives, usually exterior of the content (e.g. Assessment and Categorization), while Task Forces are designed to break down the project into chunks and aggregrate subgroups of editors based on content (e.g. Indian cinema, Anime films, etc.). Others departments that may be useful are Translation (mainly for translating excellent quality articles from other Wikipedias where our English article is insufficient), Style, Image Creation, and so on. Girolamo Savonarola 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So, to sum up what I understood about the topic here: Category:American films should not be filled up with thousands of articles, but should rather have subcategories with articles. I have to admit that some of the more specialized issues pass over my head (and I may not be the only one). To me it seems like Girolamo Savonarola could give us some simplified lines to make easily available to new members feeling a bit unsure of how to proceed correctly. I am not long time member, but I would say the film army is more like a free jazz orchestra with lots of enthusiasm on it. I wish I could understand this "aggregate" better, because used in some appropriate jazz variant, it could optimize the situation here. Hoverfish 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) A department may organize things very well, in categories and all. It is important to keep this information available to any member or user, somewhere up top, where one can't miss it. There should be some more reaching out to projects film mostly unknown. Some central information panel, as well known as the WikiProjectFilms itself. Hoverfish 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cinema Collaboration of the week

Just what is the score with the "Cinema Collaboration of the week"? I presume that it's active again, since there's a banner on the project page. However, it still says "The next winner will be selected on Saturday, April 1, 2006. Last week's article was Billy Wilder". Right....

Can we open a project page, and start discussions about the next collaboration? I propose Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - it starts with three cleanup tags. TheMadBaron 11:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that User:Wiki-newbie was going to open it again (and that's why I put it back on there) but I don't know what's going to happen now. Cbrown1023 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should model it on WikiProject Chemistry's selection process. I'll see if I can make a page like this for our project, but I might mess it up.--Supernumerary 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and completely changed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Collaboration so that it now looks like most of the other projects collaboration pages. We do need a template still. I'll see if I can learn how to do that too.--Supernumerary 16:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Eek! I did mess it up. We already have a page under Wikipedia:Cinema_Collaboration_of_the_Week and the other page that I changed was just some random left over one. Perhaps we should change the name of the collaboroation page to reflect the project's name?--Supernumerary 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I created a redirect at the page you revamped to Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week but left all the text so you can view it in edit mode. Cbrown1023 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have boldly swept out the cobwebs and opened the shop. So go vote. TheMadBaron 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking that this project needs to redefine its scope, and that discussion is coming. However, for the moment I think we could all agree that this project does not include "film directors, cinematographers, other filmmaking collaborators (writer, editor, producer, etc.), and film critics and reviewers" which is quoted from the Collaboration page. Also "technical film terms, or a technical aspects of filmmaking" would seem to fall under WikiProject Filmmaking. Is it all right if I remove these from the list of qualifying topics? --Supernumerary 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I left that text in place because I wasn't sure whether the collaboration was to be considered a joint venture shared between the projects. It did strike me as odd, and I am inclined to agree with Supernumerary. I think the collaboration will be more successful if limited to the scope of the films project, and if most (if not all) of the nominated articles are about films. TheMadBaron 05:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the criteria as discussed.--Supernumerary 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pruning "It is permissible to renominate an article that was pruned after several months have passed." Ooh, harsh! Would anybody object if I changed this requirement? If the collaboration wotsit takes off, I think people should be allowed to nominate an article again within a few weeks - a specified number thereof. TheMadBaron 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mad Baron. Cbrown1023 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Duly changed, though with no number of weeks specified yet. TheMadBaron 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to add some fields to the template based on {{WPBiography}} to reflect your new endeavor. Right now, we just have a few bugs... how fitting that I asked Bugs5382 to help. Cbrown1023 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of films and of red films

Shouldn't Lists of films try to move to subcategory of Films? Maybe after some peer suggestions and improvements it might find its rightful place. I am sure a lot of contributing users could use directive information. The List of films by (number and) letters is the most promising to become an all-inclusive film article list. The list by years is the most promising in terms of displayed content and offer of usefull links. The latest years are presented somewhat differently but some decisions might be taken further on. What is technically the best about it is that a lot of people care to update it. And by the way, the List by letters needs to be split in 20 pages. This is not only my opinion, but also Nehrams2020, who is working hard for it. In [3], I have a table with links to the 20 suggested pages. I am sure there are templates doing this much better, but am not good in templates. Do we need to request this from an administrator, apart from discussing it here?

The list by years is still full of red links, which I intend to gather in a "red list", giving even aka names in red links, and then remove all red links from each Year in film. This list may serve 1) as a monitor for films started, 2) as an adoption list, where users can pick or reserve films to develop into articles, or can just copy a film to "requested film articles" if think that a film has some particular importance and it should have an article, 3) as a place where other red links in film titles can be added, while their link is removed from a list. Some lists could link to it as a See also. It would have nothing to do in categories, but I am trying to develop a simple way of marking red links, so as to suggest some general category. Anybody who thinks it's either useful or useless, could look in [4] and maybe discuss on it. There is lots to improve, so any suggestion is welcome. Hoverfish 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether red links should be removed from the existing lists of years in film (though this would bring them in line with other film lists), but maintaining a seperate list of red links strikes me as a good idea, as it would help us to prioritise the creation of new articles.... film articles to be split from existing novel/play articles could also be included, in the form of their future title. See also Missing articles/List of notable films. TheMadBaron 05:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this link MadBaron. I had been looking for it all over. Is there also some list of mixed subject/film articles with suggested or unsuggested split? If not, it's good to create one. There are lots of blue misguiding links, some just pointing to a dab page. Hoverfish 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Some members thought they had read somewhere that red links weren't supposed to be in lists, but we couldn't find the alleged quote. If red links are allowed, they are still visually helpful in the year by film lists. The only thing is that before someone clicks on a red title and starts creating an article, it would be good to come to a page where some lines are suggested and the possibility of contributing some category (abbrev.text) to films is offered. Admitedly, if someone starts playing around in such a page, it could get confusing. But I will gladly let them red in lists if it's ok with the rules of the game. Hoverfish 08:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An additional possibility that may be of help, is if in the most all inclusive list, we keep track of the assessment class an article happens to belong to. Can this be done to track changes by placing some simple template (Template:Trackclass) after each title? Hoverfish 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question "Is there also some list of mixed subject/film articles with suggested or unsuggested split?", a list of films that are also novels is supposedly maintained by the Films based on books project, though I'm not sure where that list actually is.... there are also articles in the film project which are actually about a play, of course (eg Mourning Becomes Electra, wasn't even tagged by the theatre project until I did it just now) and articles about films which should be about novels (eg Whistle Down the Wind, unclaimed by novel and film projects I tagged it yesterday).
If you would like to start such a list, I will be glad to contribute both to the expansion of the list and the task of disambiguating the links once the articles are split. In fact, I'm going to go dab Green for Danger right now.... TheMadBaron 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, we have a Category:Needed film articles I created it a bit back with the pages on "requested articles. Articles are added to it by placing {{Film|class=Needed}} on their talk page. Cbrown1023 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Expect me to be placing a lot of those tags. TheMadBaron 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I cannot send all red links to this category, because I have no idea if an article is really needed on each and every "red" film I find. So this might be the right place to send all films deemed as needing an article from my suggested "red list". Till now there is a poor list in Talk:Lists of films trying to do this. Maybe we should mention this category there too. Actually I will do this next. Hoverfish 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

British Lion Films

I'd do this myself, but I don't have time right now, and I'm not sure if I'd be breaching some convention.... There should, I think, be a Category:British Lion films, as a subcategory of Category:Films by studio. There are about a dozen film articles for this category, and more likely to turn up as infoboxes get completed. [5] Anyone up for it? TheMadBaron 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll let someone else breach conventions, but since I created the article, I undertake to mark all British Lion Films for which I find existing articles. Hoverfish 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Hoverfish.... the category has now been created by User:Orbicle, and I've populated it with all articles so marked. TheMadBaron 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)



How to disambig this?

I'd like to start an article on David Boyd but there's already a disambig page for him, so do I name the article David R. Boyd (since sometimes he's credited that way) or David Boyd (cinematographer)? --plange 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

David Boyd (cinematographer), unless he's better known under David R. Boyd (I'm assuming this isn't the case though, or you probably wouldn't be asking). - Bobet 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, yep, I've never seen him mentioned with the R. (except the note at IMDB) --plange 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment completion

Congratulations! I have to admit I was amazed at how quickly you guys managed to make it through that gigantic pile of articles. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bugs5382/monobook.js/film.js must have helped. :-) Shane (talk/contrib) 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone else feel a sigh of relief and a little pride when you looked at the statistics and so no field for Unassessed articles? Cbrown1023 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I most certainly did.--Supernumerary 07:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Grading those did take forever, and I jumped in to help much later then I should have. However, seeing all of the various classes of assessed films is great. But we should continue to watch the assessment page, since new articles are always added daily. I recently have begun going through the list of films by year, and I find on average 3-5 articles or more a day that do not have the film banner but have been in existence for quite some time. Also, eventually, we will have to go through a lot of the start/stub classes and see if they should be upgraded to another class. But again, for right now, let's enjoy the main completion of all of the known films we have assessed. --Nehrams2020 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tabled data

Since we are all around base lately voting on infobox issues, could we also take a decision (or are there somewhere clear guidelines?) of what one should do when one finds casts, awards and other issues neatly arranged in tables within a film article? Do we go ahead with dissapointing the table-makers and make lists instead or do we leave the table enthusiasts at it? Hoverfish 08:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just leave them there because most of the time they look better than the list and show them clearly. But if something looks really bad (and a table would look better), definately take it down. Cbrown1023 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorised films

Could someone please add the template to this category again? An admin deleted it without discussing or putting it up for deletion, and I've just recreated it but I'm not a project member and don't know where the template is. Also, if you find this category useful, please note that on the talk page of the category to prevent a recurrance. Aelfthrytha 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the template, {{Film|class=Cat}}. Seems like a useful category. Prolog 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that useful to me. People going through Category:Category needed can easily add categories for movies as well. Why does the uncategorised films category need to exist? As a side note: I've never seen the category with much in it, so it doesn't serve much of a purpose, except to just move it from Category needed, to another category. Pretty pointless and a waste of time, in my opinion. RobJ1981 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is very useful. People going through Category:Category needed CAN easily add categories for movies but they seldom do it as thoroughly as a more specialised Wikipedian does. You've not seen much in the category as users such as myself keep an eye on it and make sure things are kept moving. The number of articles being quickly and accurately categorised must surely have increased since its creation. I have no figures, but that's my opinion. Mallanox 14:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So what's the point? Category:Films has done the same thing this far, and it's always been kept nearly empty. Adding a new category that less people know about doesn't sound helpful. - Bobet 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
As stated before, speed and accuracy. Also, the subcat of uncategorised films appears at the top of the uncategorised articles page so I can't really see that there should be a lack of knowledge of its presence. Keeping the articles in the realm of uncategorised means that those whose interest is categorisation do them, and probably more accurately than some random visitor to Category:Films.
Previous section by Mallanox. I posted an opinion in the Talk page of Category:Uncategorised films. If it doesn't sum up well enough the above comments, I can move it here. Hoverfish 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Music videos

Ok, hoping this isn't a can of worms. On my categorisation travels, I came across Love You Till Tuesday. Essentially a music video but it got me thinking. Music videos share many commonalities with feature films. Many directors such as Martin Scorsese have dabbled in both. They require timing, design and mise-en-scene. Should music videos come under the remit of our project, or at least, should music videos be considered a film genre and categorised as such? Mallanox 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think not. By the argument that they share much in common, all television would come under our banner. Love You Till Tuesday, however, is certainly more a film than a music video, and several other promotional pieces from the 60s and 70s might qualify. TheMadBaron 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In the lists by year I found some performances and MTV collections on video and added notes, as I'm not sure what to do with them. Hoverfish 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Only certain music videoes, if any, should be included. Cbrown1023 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not. Although there are many, especially short, films that are close to being music videos (this comes to mind), if a music video is mostly dubbed as a music video, then it really belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Video. If not elsewhere, the difference usually shows in credits and possible plays on film festivals. Prolog 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween everyone... Let's all stay up and watch some scary movies! (and then go onto Wikipedia and improve the articles on them, of course :)) Cbrown1023 23:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Proposed new project banner

I am going to update our template {{film}}. This adds a NEW option to article grading. "Importance". Once I finsh updating the template, I will post up a new javascript code so it will be faster to "orginizae". That is all.. --Shane (talk/contrib) 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion about the usefulness of the importance parameter? Many, or probably most, WikiProjects don't assess articles by importance because it is highly subjective. And I completely agree with that. Assessment should be POV-free. Prolog 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Don't get POV-fundamentalist. Anyway, article content can not be POV, but some talk page template used for inner organisatoric work can be POV (just discussing, because I don't think importance is POV). Moreover, if we go all fundamentalist, the notability requirement is as POV as importance, so does it mean they should close WP down for lack of internal consistency? Anyway, it would really be usefull, as we currently have almost 10000 film stubs and 5000+ start articles and no way to sort through them other than importance. Go, Shane! AdamSmithee 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the importance parameter's applicability has a lot to do with the subject matter of the WikiProject. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics would rate algebra as a top importance article, but conformal field theory would be low importance. This is because the subject is in itself hierarchical. On the other hand, WikiProjects with an isolated focus, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF, can easily prioritize articles by main subject (the band), high-level subjects (their main albums), and less important articles which focus on miscellaneous other work. Unfortunately, the Films project has the problem that it is neither focused on an isolated and coherent group, nor does the topic have much of a hierarchy of "fundamental" concepts or works. There's nothing wrong with that - it's simply something characteristic in particular of a broad arts project. In theory, you could make a list of "top importance" works based on somebody else's list, but that still will reflect the bias of that list. Should we base it on popularity? Box office gross? Critical acclaim? Awards? Etc.
My opinion of the class parameter is that it is particularly useful for identifying articles that need a lot of work (stubs) and articles which need very little (GA or A). You can quickly isolate your articles which are close to FAC, as well as bring the particularly poor articles up to at least a standard under the style guidelines. I would also assume that perhaps there would be a sporadic re-assessment of all the articles on a set schedule (12-18 months?) But the class parameter is a good one for a project to use for getting an idea for where the whole stands. The importance parameter is interesting, but ultimately does not say much about the project at large, because you can't determine anything out of it. The editors will still usually work on the articles they want to work on. And we do have a newly resurrected collaboration group. Girolamo Savonarola 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Importance as an issue of priority for stub articles' development should be given in such subcategories, as would help, for example, the art oriented contributions find their films in a list unmixed with articles needing development as per popularity. Each type of user finds his work area easier so. Importance, as a general factor? It would be a very unstable category, I think. Hoverfish 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way. I knew Shane was working on it and it was being discussed but never got into the discussion (it was a while ago). Importance could be very helpful but we should have a small selection of editors who assess the articles as importance that are voted on and those are the only ones who assess it. This will help to keep the assessments consistent. When we first assess them all, of course, we will do what we did for quality: A free-for-all, any one's help is greatly appreciated. Cbrown1023 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For those who want to take a look at {{Project FBI}}, my other project, I updated it's header to what the {{Film}} will look like. I have to do some extra coding with the {{Film}} template because of the lowercase "class". But that's about it. Shane (talk/contrib) 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We are waiting with bated breath for your update. Cbrown1023 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It is updated. It added lots of jobs to the queue. So it will take a while. I made a mistake in the first round, but it should not display the "Usage" stuff in the end. Shane (talk/contrib) 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again: the importance parameter will not appear in the article, so it doesn't matter that much if it is POV. It is only usefull to those who chose to use it, the others can ignore it. It doesn't have to be an exact science; and again, it is generally preatty clear how important various films are. However, it should be made clear that one's personal favourite is not necessary important for everyone. Now, a constructive proposal: if anyone knows how to recover the original 1,914 films list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films, maybe those should all be assessed as High importance (maybe even by some bot) AdamSmithee 09:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too difficult - I express no opinion as to whether you should do this, but if you were so inclined, I suppose you might copy them from the earliest edit, paste them to a user page intended specifically for the purpose, add "Talk:" to the article names, enter the name of the user page in AWB, list the pages that link to it, set options to change the tag, and launch.... TheMadBaron 09:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple things

Two things:

  1. A shameless plug: Right now, Kroger Babb, an exploitation filmmaker, is up for featured article status. As it's within this purview and people here might have opinions and input, I figured I'd point it out.
  2. Speaking of Babb, I'm working on his filmography. The issue is that he often renamed films many times over the course of a time period. What's the standard that's used here - do you use the best-known title, or stick to the original one? I want to keep it consistent.

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding an article is featured if it is writen good enough as an article, as per Wikipedia guidelines, not about what its topic may be. As for a new film's title it is left up to one to decide, but it is more convenient if it is given as it is in one of the major film databases, like IMDb. Hoverfish 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On the first, right. It may be of interest, in any case. On the latter, they're all in the IMDb, but there doesn't appear to be any consistency regarding the title, which is why I was wondering if there was any specific guideline people here use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Just follow the normal naming conventions: use the best known name in an English language context. If the correct name in that sense isn't apparent, just put it one name, create redirects from the others and don't worry about it after that. And if there's something interesting to say about the name changes, remember to include a mention in the articles themselves. - Bobet 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

List of films without article

Well, there it is: List of films without article. I hope it serves us well. Hoverfish 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean the list to be in the main namespace, or created it there by mistake? It should be moved to user or project space. Prolog 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Count this as mistake by ignorance. Where do I move it to project space? Hoverfish 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article would work? Good work anyway. Prolog 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Can anyone tell me how I can track if a red link shows because there is nothing in the article page, but in the Talk page there is the {{Film|class=Needed}}. I know I could check every red link against the contents of Category:Needed film articles, but is there a more practical way? And are there any other templates that could have been placed in such reserved/empty pages? Hoverfish 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you're asking. If there's no article page, there should be no talk page. TheMadBaron 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to have a talk page for an article that doesn't exist (unless it has a deletion discussion that was moved there for some reason). If you come upon a page like that, tag it with {{db-talk}}. - Bobet 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact is that we are planning on eventually creating an article. Talk pages are for suggesting imporvements to the respective articles, this definately applie here. The main reason it is there is to add the article to a category, but have the article still not exists, and so that a creator can find a link to WP:FILMS and editing guidelines for the film-based article. Also, I did not create the {{Needed-Class}} template; if it is not allowed, then why does it exists? Cbrown1023 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm stupid: Can you explain why it's better to create hundreds of talk pages that only contain the template and might stay orphaned for an eternity instead of one list? A list is a lot easier to manage, it's easier to see when an article pops up etc. and I really fail to see how a talk page that has no content would be useful. What's the point? - Bobet 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If you've created your project banner to place these into a category, then you have your list nice and handy by browsing to the category and seeing what's been tagged as being needed. In theory, this would be easier to maintain then a list made by hand. Using the category and the class is completely optional. Some projects don't use it. --plange 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I know it's completely optional, but why would anyone use it? Isn't it easier to have a centralized place (a list) that has all of these, including a reason why an article on them is needed in the first place (that might inspire someone to write about something, I really doubt someone would bother going through hundreds of talk pages)? If someone starts an article on one of these and doesn't change the talk page, there's no way to tell something has changed (since special:relatedchanges in the category shows nothing) while in the list a blue link would've popped up. As far as I know, the entries in the category were created by autowikibrowsing the requested articles list. Since there already was a list, I really don't see how doing this was useful. Since these talk pages now happen to exist, great, I won't be deleting them, but it does seem like a lot of redundant work for no apparent gain. - Bobet 11:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There is always the possibility that some user who has no idea of all this, decides to create a new article on a film, but not exactly as we are expecting it. It could be under a foreign title or an aka name. In the list there is the possibility of red-linking to many possible versions of the title. Surely if a different capitalization is used, we miss it here too, but we get better chances even by seeing that there are these other possible names. I still think this list should be somehow better projected, so that new users find it easily and use one of the names as given. By the way I don't remove articles that have been found under other names, or recently started, but inline and srtike the titles and give notes on how they turned blue. Also I mark awarded films, which may be a hint to importance sorting. Hoverfish 16:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper use of 'Year in Film' link

In a film article, I want to know the proper format for using the 'Year in Film' link.

When I create a film article, I write it in the following manner which just shows the year and if you click on the year it takes you to the Year in Film page for that year:

    Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue. 

However, some of my films have been edited by others changing the year link to just the year and then adding a {see 2006 in film) to the end:

    Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in film).

I would like to get a ruling as to which is the proper format. I think the way I do it is, as it is cleaner and there is less "clutter" in the article, but if the other method is correct I will start using it.

Thanks! Donaldd23 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited hundreds of introductory sentences for films, and I tend to follow the first approach that you listed, since that was what I saw as most common for other films. I just think having a "see 2006 in film" detracts from the introductory paragraph when it can just be included within a wikilink. Also, the title of the film should have both italics and bold around it such as Movie Title to also remain uniform with the thousands of other films on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work with your film contributions. --Nehrams2020 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nehrams. Cbrown1023 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the list by year point of view is that it offers the possibility to place this film in relation with other films of the same year or period. So, if there is a place in the article where this link can be given, the code is [[1968 in film|1968]], which gives 1968. Hoverfish 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also I personally don't like to come in articles where everything is linked to something. I could ignore the link, but it gets the eye for sure. Hoverfish 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that WikiProject Music specifically deprecates the use of "piped links" of that form. That is, you should only link to [[1968 in film]] without any piping whatsoever. This is compliant with the WP:MOS guidelines about linking text. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no "proper format". There's no clear WP-wide consensus on this (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates), so policy for film pages is pretty much whatever we say it is.... and fortunately, we do seem to agree on this.
I'm not too keen on the counter-intuitive [[2006 in film|2006]] links, but I strongly dislike the "see 2006 in film" approach, which clutters the text, and I see no value in a link to just the year. One possibility would be not to include a link to the year at all, except that somebody would probably add one.
TheMadBaron 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The format preferred by WikiProject Music (at WP:MUSTARD#Internal_links), which is probably influencing the use of the "year in X" form, is instead:
    Album is a 2006 record by John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in music).
First of all, the manual of style deprecates standalone years except where they are particularly significant, so those may be removed from any article as you edit (I wouldn't bother unless making other changes as well). Second, the idea is that with music articles, having bunches and bunches of year links right next to each other is clutter and only the most significant dates should be linked, for example, if the item itself is placed on the "year in music" page. This is so you don't get an article full of "In 2006, Britney Clarkson released her 203rd album, I'm Boring (see 2006 in music), which contained the singles "So Are You" (see 2006 in music) and "I Forgot Your Mom" (see 2006 in music). I don't know that this concern applies to film articles. In any case, mentioning it once in the lead doesn't bother me in the least, especially if the movie article is already included in the year in film article linked.
I'm not saying we must be compliant with the other WikiProject, but I would prefer that the two projects not have completely opposite standards. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote Results

I know they are above but I need to add to it...

IMDb ------ Stays

AMG ------ No consensus

Does everyone agree with that interpretation (?) of the results of the poll. The only reason I ask is that some users are questiong the results (Hover and Phoenix know what I mean) and I'd like anyone who doesn't agree to add whatever they want here. Cbrown1023 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You want us to take a poll on a poll??? ok thats just weird :)
There are many more quotes I can put up but I think that these ones are the most effective. I hope that helped -- UKPhoenix79 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt the results of the vote, but (and that's all new to me) there seems to be some argument on the application of the results of the vote as stated above. I am very democratic in nature, but I didn't make the rules of the game here. I am just learning more about them as this issue unfolds. Hoverfish 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be clear since you cannot add it to the template (since it has been included for some time now) the only question would be about removing it. Heck even the poll said it was whether you would like to keep a link to IMDb in the infobox and/or AMG. In wikipedia this tends to be a typical result, either the decision is clear or there is no concensus. -- UKPhoenix79 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment help

Flywheel (film) was given class B by the user who created the article. I just moved the template to the talk page, but I am not so sure it is more than class start. Can someone please take a look. Hoverfish 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a start class article and re-assessed it now. It might be best if one wouldn't assess his/her own article, unless it's obviously stub/start class. Prolog 12:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems my change was reverted. Maybe we need another opinion? Prolog 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a note in its talk page. I have some way to go till I trust myself with assessing though. Hoverfish 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the list by letters

I mentioned it above, I mention it here again. If no one has any justified objection, I take it for a go ahead. The list of films by letters is about to be split´from 4 to 20 pages. Each of the lists is about 4 times the recommended data size and I may not be the only one getting delays with unresponsive script. I am as favorable for this list as I am for the year in film lists. It can easily be styled into a user friendly index and as easily into a member friendly tool.

To contribute in updating these 2 lists, I will start comparing them with some subjectively selected directors' filmographies. Any importance priority listed somewhere? Actually anyone can conrtibute here in case a certain director's (or actor's) filmography is found missing from the list, by checking if the rest from the filmography has been included. I am also gradually comparing the year in film lists with lists of any important film awards I happen to find. If anybody notices an important award missing from the Lists of films, please add it there, even without a link, if there is no list of films available. And by the way why isn't there a subcategory of films by Award in Category:Films? Hoverfish 11:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with your plans for splitting those looooong lists. I'm not sure I understand your plans for Directors but I wholeheatedly agree that Films by Award is a worthwhile subcat of Films. Mallanox 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that these lists aren't complete enough to claim being a "film index" of wikipedia yet. So, instead of randomly searching for which films are not in, which would amount to very little, apart from having a nice time surfing, I thought I will look for all (my) "important" directors' filmographies and see what's missing from there. And the same for all "important" awards. I've already posted in TIFF awards the need for a list of winners and in several awards for better articles on winner films (and less "reds") -else their poor covering creates the impression that there is no interest or importance in such awards. I already fished several undetected film articles like this, some not even having a film project template. Hoverfish 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. What you could do is add an {{incomplete list}} tag. That way you might attract others to help you make it complete. Mallanox 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Aliens and Predator question (concerning the template for movies and so on)

Here is the template:


Why exactly is Predator lumped in with Alien? They have had a bunch of crossover movies, games, etc... but not all are related. Wouldn't it be better to split them into two templates? Or possibly three? Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator. I don't see why they should be lumped together, when all of the things they've been aren't related (and don't feature both characters as well). RobJ1981 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to get your feedback on the revamp of the page and the new sidebar (based on WPBio's and WPFilmmkaing's). If you like the sidebar, we should move it to all our related pages. Cbrown1023 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good to see someone else likes the template too! :) My only request would be that you change the colors so that it is a little different from WP Filmmaking's. Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it! I just have a few questions. Under "Infoboxes and Templates" you have the template for a film stub. Perhaps a link to all the film-related stubs would be better (for convience's sake it's here). The colors of the template do need to be changed to make it more aesthetically appealing. Also not specifically about the template, but on the assessment sub-page it links to "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review", which does not yet exist. Are you planning on creating that page because we could definitely use it. All in all I say good work! --Supernumerary 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, all those links that are there should be created and/or expanded. I agree with you that it should like to more than one template, and feel free to add anything else that you feel needs to be there. Just try not to make it too long, I was going to add the {{WikiProject Films tasks}} but it was way too long. Cbrown1023 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review... Check it out. Cbrown1023 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New Template Fields

I added the fields attention, past-collaboration, and collaboration-candidate to the template. Check it out and tell me what you think here. Cbrown1023 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does the attention field work?--Supernumerary 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You put |attention=yes somewhere in the template (ike how you put |class=stub) and it adds the page to Category:WikiProject Films articles needing attention. Example:
{{Film|attention=yes}} gives
File:Transparent film reel and film.png This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has not been rated on the quality assessment scale.
This article has not had been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Cbrown1023 02:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you please remove "To do" section from the template. It clogs up Special:Wantedpages. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, sorry, Bugs added that and none of us thought that would happen... :( Cbrown1023 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I went through the same experience. I had added the to-do section on India template. An anon came by and explained the problem. Thanks for removing it. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added peer-review and old-peer-review fields per the above section. Cbrown1023 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be added back, as long as we remove the "Wanted Film" articles from that template. Shane (talk/contrib) 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So.... what does the collaboration-candidate field do? Is it intended to replace the existing collaboration-candidate template? TheMadBaron 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The collaboration-candidate field is for the article page and the mentioned field is for the talk page. Cbrown1023 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Current instructions are "please add {{Cinema COTW candidate}} to the top of its talk page." A tag goes on the article page only if the article is selected as the Cinema Collaboration of the week. TheMadBaron 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to to tell you, you may definately remove it if you want. I don't mind and it seems like you should. Cbrown1023 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I should? No.... it's your baby, and I might break it.... I thought maybe you had plans to change the way we use the existing template.... there's not much point in it the new field being there if it's not going to be used, though....TheMadBaron 03:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! Cbrown1023 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A new request

Since this is within this universe. I just essentially polished up an article I wrote on Mom and Dad, one of the 2005 inductions to the National Film Registry. Any help/input/expansion people here may be able to add to it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh... if you post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review, you will be the first peer review that we do! :) Cbrown1023 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm honored! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Cars characters

I haven't seen the movie myself, so I'm asking for help here. This list is just too huge in my opinion. Is it really needed to list each and every character in the movie (which is what the article seems to be doing)? Wikipedia isn't a guide to every little thing in movies, it's an encyclopedia for useful content. Also, some Cars characters have pages of their own... they should just be merged into the list article, in my opinion. Serious fancruft going on. It seems like anytime a movie is a hit (animated films as a good example), people think they must make article after article on one-time characters. Sure, Cars could have a sequel...but it doesn't as of yet. There isn't much point to have small one-time character articles that can't be expanded much. The articles might be useful for fans of the movies, but simply put: they are still fancruft. Just because a movie is popular, doesn't mean each main character (along with someminor ones) should each have articles of their own. RobJ1981 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but I personally don't have the energy to start fighting these. However, if you decide to propose deletion (or whatever) leave a note here and I'll back you up AdamSmithee 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Magnificent Seven (the movie)

There is another Magnificent Seven, named after the movie, but missing in the search results and in the page about the movie.

They are maybe even more known than the movie. From the SANParks website: Over thirty years ago seven impressive elephant bulls, all with tusks weighing more than 50 kg each, could be found in Kruger National Park. The Chief Warden at the time, Dr U de V Pienaar (Tol Pienaar), decided to publicise these elephants as a successful example of Kruger's conservation work. He named those bulls that had not already been identified and also coined the collective name, the Magnificent Seven, based on the 1960 Hollywood film. The public reaction was staggering and, when each of these great elephants died, it was decided to retrieve their tusks and skulls in order to display them. The Elephant Hall at Letaba Rest Camp now holds the tusks, but for João's as his body was never recovered. Their names are: Dzombo João Kambaku Mafunyane Ndlulamithi Shawu Shingwedzi.


Feel free to use the text on the website.

Regards, Duco Quanjer (Moderator on the SANParks forum)

I don't think that this is really a matter for the films project, and I'm afraid I can't agree that the elephants are better known than the movie. If you think that they are suitably notable to warrant an article, then you might consider creating a user account (registration is easy and free), starting such an article at The Magnificent Seven (elephants), and adding a disambiguation link to the top of The Magnificent Seven page (in a similar style to those already there). You might also consider adding a link to the list of historical elephants. I hope you find this helpful.
TheMadBaron 10:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Batman Begins

Wasn't sure if just posting the peer review for Batman Begins would get enough attention, so I'm announcing it here. The film's article is undergoing revision as of the last couple of weeks, and feedback would be appreciated at its peer review. My apologies if this is too spammish to post here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Films only mentioned in articles

So, now that the list of films withou article is almost ready, can I start with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films only mentioned in articles? I have marked several such films to make a start with. This list of (blue links) can be a starting point for deciding if a film should be considered as having an article or in need of one (so it can be turned to the appropriate red link). Any comments on this? Hoverfish 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Cbrown1023 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

On behalf of WikiProject: Sailor Moon I have added your template to the talk pages of the 3 Sailor Moon Movies... I hope you guys don't mind :D Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to pile on, but I stumbled on this article about a week ago and it's....not the best. It doesn't provide a synopsis and it's not very well written. I would help it out myself, but I'm kind of new here and sticking to copyediting and vandalism reverting. Also, my DVD player is broken so I can't rent and view the movie. I just thought I would point it out.

You all do FANTASTIC work!NinaEliza 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's also not of the worst. There are a lot of remarkable films that are much much poorer. It's an advanced class start, easily to reach class B. You can nominate it for the Collaboration of the Week. I also think it's a very good film, but it depends on how many signatures for participation it gets. And thank you for your kind words on the project. Hoverfish 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what Hoverfish said, you could ask for it to be peer reviewed by us. Cbrown1023 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - can I do both, or would that be annoying?

CheersNinaEliza 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can do both. :) Cbrown1023 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about awards?

Do film awards fall within the scope of the project? Perhaps an Awards class could be added to the talk-page template?-Wisekwai 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by awards... Cbrown1023 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The Oscars, Golden Globes, film festival awards (Palm d'Or, Golden Bear, etc.), national film awards. For that matter, do film festivals fall within the scope of the project? That could be another class. Browsing through Category:Film awards, I came across quite a few articles that don't seem to have a project home.-Wisekwai 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a case-by-case basis. There are already wikiprojects for Academy Awards and Filmmaking. Some of the other ones may fall under our scope. But keep in mind, not every article belongs in a wikiproject. (and no to an Awards-class... they are only for "grading articles", we don't "Film" or "character" classes...) Cbrown1023 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify further, WikiProject Filmmaking doesn't cover awards or festivals. We're more of a tech(nique/nology), terminology, and companies project. Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Awards are on the move! I am working lately on awards, whether they are film project or not, because of their presentation in the "years in film", which has been a mess through the years. So I am adding more than just Academy awards (I had already posted I was going to do it, some time ago and got no objections). I am following the later years' presentation backwards and I intend to add more awards later. There is both filmmaking and films interest in these lists and by supporting a bit the quality side, vs. the (monetary) quantity side. The years in film will soon have all Academy (all will show director, also foreign films and maybe supporting actors, since I find it existing in several years), Golden Globe (drama-comedy-director-foreign), Palm d'Or (or Grand Prix in some years), then there are Berlin, Toronto, Moscow, Sundance and so on. I think if this section becomes more inclusive, it may redeem a bit the quality in the later years. Hoverfish 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
For purposes of article-grading, are awards articles NA-class or would they get the same grading as films (stub, start, B-class etc.)-Wisekwai 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just like ususal articles. NA is "non-article" and they are articles. Cbrown1023 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also many awards articles that are lists and should be in List class. Hoverfish 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lists are articles... see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment and Category:Film articles by quality for more information. Cbrown1023 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look what I found: there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Academy Awards!!! What d'ya say? Hoverfish 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah we know... it's noted above and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Related WikiProjects. Cbrown1023 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criterion Collection infoboxes

It was suggesteed that I post this here (it has also been posted at categories for deletion and Administrator's notice board) so here goes. One of the pages on my watchlist is The Seven Samurai, I have noticed that in the last year, on two seperate occasions (Jan 29th and Sept 28th), the category "Criterion Collection films" was deleted. On Oct 22nd User: Cop 633 went around the category designation by creating an info box listing the CC's films in the order of their original release and began applying it to the films in question. On Nov 8th an anonymous user began removing them and yesterday User: Doctor Sunshine began putting thm back in. I am simply trying to get an administrator to take a look at this situation so that we can avoid an edit war. I understood the reasoning for taking the categories out, but, I have to say that they were less obtrusive than these boxes and they gave one a chance of seeing all of their releases on one page. I have also taken the liberty to post the one reply that was given on the AN page. Thanks for your assistance. MarnetteD | Talk 14:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Boxes are inherently less useful than categories, IMO. They add bulk without adding content. That's just me, though: I really am no box fan. (Don't fence me in, either.) If the purpose is to make finding common elements easy, then a cat works best. If the purpose is to advertise for Criterion, then the box, which forces you to see every film whenever you look at information for one film, is better. I regard the latter to be outside of our purpose. Geogre 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, I was the Jan 29th creator of the category. The argument was that there was already an article listing all of the releases, and being that it's a relatively limited number of releases per year, which are clearly definable and easily grouped both here and on the official site, there didn't seem much purpose to the category. It was also noted that the category could be construed as favoritism or advertising for the DVD label and questioned whether or not it would open the precedent to let all labels have a category, which seemed less than to desirable to nearly everyone. While I don't agree 100% with those reasons, I don't totally disagree either, and it's probably best to leave the matter be. Girolamo Savonarola 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I enjoy my Criterions, but as mentioned above, we shouldn't promote the company in film articles, be it in the form of an infobox or a category. It's too unrelated and the list should be enough. Category:Blue Underground and Category:Legend Films should go too. Prolog 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I mainly agree with Prolog here. I don't see anything wrong with a list, nor with mentioning a Criterion edition in an article (especially if the features and extras are described encyclopedically). But a category or a template is inappropriate. Sheesh, it's already one click over to IMDB where there are Amazon links. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My thanks to each of you who replied to my note. The question now is do we go and remove the info boxes in question and do we direct anyone who wants to keep them to this (and the previous category deletions) discussions? I will be happy to help with doing the required edts if you wish, just let me know and again thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
An update User: Cop 633 has gotten to Monsieur Hulot's Holiday which is a little over half way through the CC's titles. I would guess that when (and if) a decision is made to begin to remove them that this user will be a bit upset and the sooner a decision can be reached would be better for all involved. Thanks again for you attention. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the posts here, and at WP:AN, it seems we already have a consensus not to have those infoboxes in film articles. I left a note on Cop 333's talk page. Prolog 12:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the Guilty Perpetrator. It might have been polite to actually talk to me 4 days ago... Anyway, I can see I'm likely to lose this one, but let me explain my reasoning. First, these aren't infoboxes. They're navigation boxes. I like navigation boxes: I think they're fun because they take you on a journey through lots of different things. That was the idea here. It could be done for any film distributor, and I wouldn't object if there were navboxes for all film distributors. A second point is that Criterion advertises itself as a selective distributor that chooses films that they regard to be 'cinema at its finest'; this means the inclusion of a film within the CC is, for film buffs, something notable (which it isn't for, say, Warner Bros.). Thirdly, I notice that there are enormous categories for Warner Brothers films and New Line Films and indeed all the other Hollywood big boys. These categories could equally well be considered advertising. In that context, why is the CC being repeatedly singled out for special opprobrium? Cop 633 15:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree you should've been notified earlier. However, I don't think those Warner etc. categories are about a certain film's DVD distributor, but the movie production company, or at least main distributor, as for example in Category:Hammer Film Productions films. Criterion isn't directly connected with the films they release, so this is a completely different thing. And what about re-releases, which Criterion make a lot these days? Two boxes? Plus boxes for Eureka, Anchor Bay, Kino etc. releases? List of Criterion Collection releases is the most useful way to present the information, so a navigation box is just overdoing it. Criterion is selective and they have a great brand, but recognizing that in a Wikipedia article of every film they have ever released is a bit too much. Prolog 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As noted by Prolog the other categories that Cop 633 mention are the producers (the people who put the money up to get the films made) of the films. In addition to the question of the CC's rereleases is the films that are now out of print, such as Salo. Adding to the confusion is the fact that several of the CC's titles have also been released by other distributors such as The Blob and This is Spinal Tap. MarnetteD | Talk 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see the point about producers vs. distributors. Mea culpa. I still think CC is a special case: there is an issue of notability here that means the company at least deserves a category. But I appreciate that it's a thorny issue. Cop 633 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Rereleases and films going out of print aren't a problem as they are still considered Criterion Collection releases via their continued inclusion on the official website, retention of their spine number (hence the table order here wouldn't be affected) and through fan recognition. Once you're in the club, you're in the club. Salo, for example will likely be rereleased next year but under the same spine number. So that part would be easy. And Criterion is extremely popular among film enthusiasts and plays a huge role in reigniting interest in many films that would otherwise remain cloaked in obscurity. If any DVD distribution company deserves an exception it's these guys. That said, I'm still not sure about the tables either. Personally, I like them and would hope that they're more likely to lead folks to discover films they otherwise wouldn't — rather than serving as just advertising for Criterion — but agree that it's questionable. If these tables do disappear though, I think legitimate replacement would be a DVD releases section on the film pages, as certainly knowing how these films can be seen, whether through Criterion or not, is important information and included in many books on films. --Doctor Sunshine 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Lead folks to discover films they otherwise wouldn't" - that's exactly why I thought the navboxes would be a good idea, thanks for articulating it better than I could! Cop 633 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am as big a fan and purchaser of the Criterion Collections product as anyone and I know that the boxes that Cop 833 created are a labor of love for the films and CC's product. I would add just a couple of points about Dr Sunshine's comment. Wikipedia users can discover films they otherwise wouldn't at the List of Criterion Collection releases. There is absolutely no evidence that they will rerelease Salo next year (there has been no indication of this on their website and even if they had announced such there can still be a long delay before an actual release as in the fact that Playtime took two years from their intital notification of its rerlease until it was out and Yojimbo and Sanjuro were both scheduled for rerellease this year yet they aren't going to make it). In the cases of multiple company releases (again as in the cases of The Blob and This is Spinal Tap) one companies product is being favored over another. There is also the question of what Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals are. I have found that they can be both hard (edits that I have had removed due to their unencyclopedic nature) and flexible (too much fan speculation in the Doctor Who episode pages gets to stay). In the end the boxes are still a bit to intrusive on th page for my eyes (though I won't rail agaisnt it if the consensus is for them to stay). Perhaps a compromise would be to combine Dhartung's idea with Doctor Sunshines by having a section for the DVD releases along with a description of the excellent extras (sometimes mind boggling ones like being able to access the Philip Glass soundrack on La Belle et la Bête and the Akira Kurosawa: It is Wonderful to Create documentaries that have been included on recent DVD's of his films). In any event is there a chance that some final resolution could be reached by the wikiproject films group. As always, thanks for your attention. MarnetteD | Talk 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just using Salo as an example to illustrate that they continuity of the boxes wouldn't be a problem — although a film that's already been rereleased would have been a better choice. Anyway, I still like them in theory but you make good points, MarnetteD. We fought the good fight, Cop 633. I've noticed a number of films already have DVD sections with like information, so I don't think that will be a problem. I'll abide by the consensus. --Doctor Sunshine 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, me too, I fully accept the consensus. And, yes, there should definitely be more information on the available DVDs. Indeed, this is one way Wikipedia can improve on the IMDB, which is very weak on this: the IMDB just links to Amazon, but there are often obscure DVD editions of films that aren't sold on Amazon. Describing all the available DVDs in neutral language is the best way of avoiding the charge of privileging one company, which I now agree is problematic. Cop 633 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ideal length for plot summaries

I am editing down a couple of plot summaries that have been flagged as overly long. It strikes me that guidance as to rough word count would help future editors. From looking at other - good and accepted - plot summaries, my feeling is that they should be around 500 words (as a rule of thumb). Putting this in the guidelines would save people from writing 5,000 word summaries, only to see them radically pruned. Any thoughts? raining_girl 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at most of the Featured film articles and they are around 1,000 words each (but some only had 500.) I think that is a good number, beween 500-1,200 is preferrable. Cbrown1023 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it also depends on the type of film being described. Long epic films or ones with inherently elaborate plots probably deserve longer summarization than, say, a Chaplin film. I'd say that guidelines on this should be focused more on the quality of the writing than a strict number. Should Sleep have 500 words? Girolamo Savonarola 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also depends on the style the plot was written. Take a look at the edit history of Alice in Wonderland (1985 film) for example (ok that's a two-part film). It's either start from scratch or, like I did, respect the efforts of the writer and make the best out of it. Hoverfish 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that word count should be a priority, but it is important for each article to have at least a reasonable size summary. There are way too many stubs that only list cast and trivia sections without a decent plot description. For the movie Crank, I'm pretty sure I wrote too much for the plot, covering a lot of the details, and raised some eyebrows on the talk page. Due to this, we also included a plot summary that does not give away any of the details of the plot/ending as well. I know I usually jump onto Wikipedia to find out the entire plot of the film that I don't want to sit and watch, and I'm sure there are plenty of other people out there that just want to read it also. Whatever the length of the plot, it wholly depends on how much time people spend writing it and putting in the effort.--Nehrams2020 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Count me in with the "other people". I love to find strong plots on films I haven't seen. I also loath to find instead of plots long quotes from some part of the film. Hoverfish 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to remember that, in general, the aim of Wikipedia articles is to provide a very good overview rather than an in depth analysis. That aim should appply to the component parts of articles too, so a scene-by-scene retelling of a film would count as in depth. Strong is great, in fact strong is exactly what we should work towards, but strong can and should be succinct. Personally I think that some of the longer summaries provide too much unnecessary detail that effectively drowns their strength. Rossrs 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But I, for instance, am one of the other people which find lonf detailed plots boring and suggesting cruft. Films are for watching, not reading. The plot should just give enough for the following analysis to make sense AdamSmithee 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would love it if there were useful plot summaries in all our articles, but I almost never read the ones we have because they're too long and are basically blow-by-blow recounting of scene after scene. I concur with the 500-1200 word guideline. That's longer than the capsules in most movie books, but short enough to be informative. --Dhartung | Talk 10:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur absolutely with short! Reading some plot summaries is a horrible experience -- like being trapped in a corner at a cocktail party by a bore who wants to tell you all about a movie he just saw. In excruciating detail. Zora 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

this is exactly my point. keeping them in the 500-1000 word limit would be fine. when they go over that they generate cruft complaints and get cut back. wouldn't it be nicer for keen plot-editors to get congratulated for their effort than to see it cut back by more than half? we could achieve this through a guideline. raining_girl 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 500-1000 words is sufficient. I'd be surprised to see an article where the plot summary genuinely needs to exceed 1000 words - that's really quite a lot actually. I think the summary should be enough to give a good but basic overview of the film without bogging down into minor details, and I believe that even a fairly complex plot can be boiled down to its most salient points and kept succinct. A scene-by-scene retelling is too much. Rossrs 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, under Plot or Plot summary some 1000 word limit. It's reasonable. But once we already have a decent "extended plot", I think it's information worth keeping for those who would like to find it. Maybe in a subpage linked to the film article? Hoverfish 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actor stubs needs some attention

I've been going through the stubs off and on for a while now, but I certainly could use some help. There is a ton of sorting to do. RobJ1981 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also tons of them (and directors) don't have a biography template in the Talk page. I add some but at random. Hoverfish 07:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say that many of these people barely deserve a page of their own. If they are not notable then why should actors get any more attention than carpenters, say? Also - many of the short articles say as much as needs saying. In that case, are they really a stub? raining girl 22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mind you RobJ1981, biographies have their own project. I agree, raining girl. That's why I pick my choices only from awarded films and directors. Yet, if someone starts a stub, for whatever reason, it's there and it should be taken care of. I guess the same applies to carpenters' stubs :) Hoverfish 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, Rob posted the above on many different projects. It was slightly related to Films, so he posted it. Also, people who like films probably like or know about actors and can help. Cbrown1023 16:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'd do it too if I knew more. But the stub sorting I leave for WPBiography members. Hoverfish 17:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting, obviously! Cbrown1023 01:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Once you learn what goes where and which project is which, it's obvious. In my situation, I am still surprized at every turn. So, thanks for pointing this out. Hoverfish 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A compromise to the infobox issue

For those interested further on the issue, I have here a suggestion for a compromise based on the idea that databases should not be in the infobox, but can still be there in the template, for all practical purposes. Hoverfish 16:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It totally just restates what is in the external links section. Inside the infobox is one thing... (no just means I don't like it...) Cbrown1023 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It also does not work... look at the example I put on the talk page. Cbrown1023 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Blast! But someone who knows better could make it work. Pitty you don't like it though. I thought you would. Hoverfish 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the fact that you tried to make it work, but if we change it to that the users who are totally opposed to links in the infobox will find it easier to oppose it and have a better reason to remove it (it is almost identical to the external links section). Cbrown1023 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the whole infobox is condenced repetition of data that's in the article. If a box under the infobox displays selected (any of the 4 permitted sites) and condenced data from the External links section, I don't see the contradiction. It's just a user-friendly facility. It doesn't substitute anything. Hoverfish 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I gotcha, Cbrown!! You had not given imdb and amg in the right syntax and that's why it didn't work (it was given as "imdb" without "_id"). I corrected it and it works!! You almost had me there for a while, but something kept telling me you had glitched it (unintentionally). Hoverfish 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh!? uh! oops. Thanks. :-) Cbrown1023 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot summaries for upcoming films

The current plot summary for Dreamgirls, which I wrote, specifically avoids discussing most of the second half of the film, because it hasn't gone into general release yet. However, there was a request on the talk page to complete the plot summary. Is it proper to write a full plot summary for an upcoming film, even with spoiler tags? --FuriousFreddy 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In theory, yes, you should include everything, as per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. However, the other problem you may encounter in writing this section is that the information, especially if you're going to include the full plot, needs to be verifiable and citable. Girolamo Savonarola 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I was unable to add an infobox to De-lovely. Can anyone help? --Kms 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Go here. Cut and paste the parameters box into the article at the top. Fill in the parameters (most of the information can be found at IMDB). If you still can't figure it out try looking at another film article with an infobox and mimic what they did there. If that still doesn't help, feel free to ask a more specific question. --Supernumerary 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You have to watch the wiki markup. Your infobox only had a single "]" at the end of Ashley Judd and that was enough to cause the template to fail. Alan Smithee 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!--Kms 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Films based on books

For your consideration, there's a discussion of the consistency of Category:Films based on books by author over at cfd. Her Pegship 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I think we need to discuss why Rotten Tomatoes and Meta-critics will be the only allowable external links to review of films. What makes these two so special and why have external links to independent reviews been deleted and considered spam or commercial in nature?

Presumably because Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes collect the reviews of professional critics and reviewers who work for major publications, whereas an 'independent reviewer' could be any bloke with an internet connection and an opinion. We have to draw the line somewhere. Cop 633 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's impossible for us to monitor all the pages, so you might want to give us examples of this occuring. Cbrown1023 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears (with some research) that the page you are upset about is Fearless (2006 film) where you added a link to a blog. A blog is an example of "any bloke with an internet connection and an opinion." I'm sorry, but that does not make notability standards for reviews. Cbrown1023 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Error on original page-

Is this discussion in the right place? I am confused. Anyway, the plot description of the movie on the original page says " (Borat like) going to the capital city of Almaty to look at lurid pictures of women "make toilet." Actually I think it is clear he likes TAKING pictures, and as such he watches the women directly! If you look at what he is doing he is adding another Polaroid picture to a scrap book, surely he has taken the picture himself. Signed Dangerdave user:dangerdave

Fixed, I saw it twice, he says take pictures. --Nehrams2020 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Template:Infobox Film: "Narrator"

"Narrator" seems like it'd be a reasonable addition to this template. Any reasons why it shouldn't be added? --Czj 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Don't see it getting a lot of use, but it seems like a reasonable addition. RichMac (Talk) 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Right before "starring". Cbrown1023 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added it. --Czj 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)