Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Reception on most recent Priates of the Carribbean film

Can someone take a look at this (check recent edit history for more)? I was under the impression that our reception mixed/negative/positive statements came from Metacritic (when possible) which clearly says mixed in this case. I think the IP editor is making an assumption based on the RT score (which is pretty common and I used to think it worked that way, too). Originally, I just restored the original mixed statement. Then once it became clear he wasn't going to let it go, I just removed the sentence entirely to jump straight to the stats (which we've done in the past when reception consensus has been debatable and constantly edit warred over). But the guy is so determined that I'm wondering if I'm not mistaken. He's also a little snarky and wildly misusing the idea of weasel words and I'd rather just back out of it now before I go into edit war/incivility land, regardless of how it shakes out. Millahnna (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It helps to use other sources too. I'm not sure if "mostly negative" is a good description because it sounds like the film was universally panned. Here are some other sources that could be used: 1, 2, and 3. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why I keep restoring it to mixed (and then went with removing that sentence entirely and jumping straight to the stats). I haven't created content in that section at all. I just have the page on my watch list and saw the edits fly by, so here we are. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the reception portion of the MOS in my reverts of the IP who is changing it to "mostly negative". And, assuming I'm NOT misinterpreting, I'm at 3 reverts and apparently not explaining it well. He recently dropped a note on the article's talk page. If anyone can explain to him, please have at. Millahnna (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: Let's move the discussion to the article's talk page. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is a neutral request for comments concerning the use of film reviews for early cuts at Red Dawn (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 election

Everyone, it is time for a new coordinator election. We are a little late for one since the previous one was in September 2010. The plan is to have a two-week nominations process from October 1 to October 14 and to have a two-week election from October 15 to October 29. The nominations process for the election will be announced via newsletter, which will be distributed in a few days, and there will be a mid-month announcement to invite editors to support candidates in coordinator roles.

Obviously, the lateness of this election reflects the minimal activity of coordinators, not just this past year, but in general. I'm happy to discuss whether having this roundtable of coordinators is still a good idea. We editors seem to have a penchant for discussing a lot of topics on this talk page but tend to have our own pet projects in different corners of WikiProject Film. It's hard to tell if there is ever a chance to do something collaborative on specific topics. If you have any ideas or thoughts in general about the WikiProject structure, feel free to share! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think collaborative efforts would work if they were introduced by a co-ordinator or group of co-ordinators, but they're unlikely to arise spontaneously. I'd be willing to take part in anything that was declared to be the official WP:FILM collaboration of the month/week/year/whatever, but I imagine that I'm not the only one who'd be reticent to actually suggest one as just a member. I guess if someone who was elected as a co-ordinator from the project was to suggest something, a quick straw poll could determine its popularity (no point working together on something no one actually wants to do after all) and we'd see involvement from there. Just my two pence, really. GRAPPLE X 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered if there was interest in an official collaboration, and I suppose the best way to find out is to announce suggestions! :) One possible approach is to list articles of films whose anniversaries are coming up and see which one most people want to contribute to. The developed and featured article could be presented on Wikipedia's main page for its anniversary. We could look up the 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th anniversaries in 2012 or in succeeding years. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at 25th anniversaries in 2012 would give us Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Saturday Night Fever, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Smokey and the Bandit, Annie Hall or Eraserhead. 30th anniversaries include The Godfather, The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film), Cabaret (film), and Deliverance. I'd say we could probably pick one of those as the 'centre' of a collaboration, aim to bring it to FA status, and try to find a relevant Good Topic to promote around it - for instance, Eraserhead might be the intended FA and a David Lynch filmography could be brought to GT (there's already a few Bs, a GA and an FA in there); or The Godfather could form the core of a Godfather series GT with the other films, the novel, and any relevant character articles like Michael Corleone. Would give us a few articles in the scope of the project so there's a few stages of achievement to meet. GRAPPLE X 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a great idea. I notice a lot of WikiProjects are idle; a little "kick in the pants" would help some of us lazier editors get off of our butts. I think many editors suffer from the "too many choices" syndrome when trying to figure out what to work on. Another collaboration idea would be to identify core film articles that are poor quality but heavily linked-to (i.e. a lot of our genre and subject pages) and prioritize them for cleanup. I definitely like the anniversary proposal, these pages are likely to see an uptick of pageviews if there is any press about their birthdays. The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No need for any coordinators, IMO. Everything I've done over the past year for this project I would have done anyway, regardless of being a coordinator or not. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think coordinators are needed. Actually, I think the whole thing is overly bureaucratic and hierarchical. What does the coordinators page really mean? IMO not much. Almost nothing pertains to coordinators only. I can only find two differences between coordinators and a non-coordinators:

1. coordinators have the responsibility of a few procedural tasks, and
2. coordinators should serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues

But,

1. no approval vote is needed for this, neither is it a guarantee that anything will be done
2. this talk page should be the points-of-contact

I've stumbled upon most of the coordinators, and I appreciate their edits a lot, but I've never seen any one of them in their role as a coordinator. Maybe there is something important I've overseen, but right now I just don't see the use. jonkerz♠ 11:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It boils down to this: "There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group." It could be true, but there has not been much activity historically for coordinators (me included) to feel compelled to be involved. WP:MILHIST is an example that WP:FILM follows closely, and they have excellent milestones and motivation. Is there a reason we cannot do anything similar here? I like Interior's idea about working on film genre pages, especially since Tony1 thought they were bad enough not to be linked to at all. We each seem to do certain things really well, and it would be nice to combine our skills on certain topics. Lack of collaboration is epidemic on Wikipedia—look at the GA backlog—so it's a matter of figuring out what works for us editors of film articles and actually putting it forward. I can't imagine if that can be done with coordinators or not; it just seems that otherwise, it's just somebody thinking out loud. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We could always just pick an article a week that deserves better and should be required reading on the subject, like Star Wars the real Episode 1 as someone mentioned above and we blitz it in that week (Not a strict deadline obviously) with sources and rewrites/organization to raise it to GA or even FA status. I myself have had my eye on Ghostbusters which, while certainly not terrible, could be a lot better and should be because it's freakin' Ghostbusters. It's a massive cultural icon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It might also be worth keeping a banner up with long-term goals, similar to those used by WP:MILHIST and WP:SIMPSONS. It would basically be up to the co-ordinators to update and replace any of these goals as they're completed, giving them an extra janitorial task really. I'm also going to start fielding suggestions for a collaboration to test how well they'll work, I'll start a new section to get some ideas so we can decide on something. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good articles

I just updated the list of good articles at WP:FILMSPOT since it was missing some articles from different years. I compared articles listed here to what was in the table and added overlooked articles to the table. Since WP:FILMSPOT is a page that transcludes several pages, I created the shortcut WP:FILMGA for more direct access to the list of good articles. I encourage other editors to list good articles there when they are promoted. I removed some articles that are now featured and some that were delisted, which brings me to my question. Do we want to maintain a list of delisted good articles? We could have a list that we don't actually maintain by identifying articles whose talk pages have the WikiProject Film banner and are in the category "Delisted good articles". Anyone know of a way to generate such a list? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 29#Template:SatellteAwardBestActorMotionPictureDrama 2001-2020

Could someone please take a look at this nomination? I have no knowledge about this sort of thing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing core topics

Based on the discussion in WP:FILM collaboration, we should review the core topics listed at WP:FILMCORE. While the list is primarily based on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? meta-list (as well as IMDb in part), it needs to be updated since the meta-list was updated in January 2011. I've started a discussion at WT:FILMCORE#2011 update to see if we can revise the inclusion formula. Please share your thoughts there! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where to mention re-release?

Just a minor question. Fast Five, INception and Star Trek are getting a limited 1-week re-release on IMAX screens but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to mention it as it isn't really enough information to have it's own section but it will probably alter the box office takings somewhat. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-trek-inception-fast-five-242671) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe create a new sub-section called "theatrical releases" that details both the initial and IMAX release, and follow that with the box office and critical reception sections. The IMAX box office could just be appended to the end of the box-office section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought, I'm assuming this is a US only re-release so I was going to append it to the end of the US section on Fast Five and potentially add a second row to my box office table detailing the additional takings if they're of any significance. Or failing that, create a mini header using the semi-colon trigger just labelled "re-release".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of articles have a release section that includes subsections for box office, reception and home media release. Often there is information about the number of screens and any festival releases (if applicable) in this section (sometimes in box office, sometimes before any subsections). Perhaps the existing info could be reorganized in a similar fashion? Becuase it certainly seems like it would go in a release section to me. Millahnna (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The release section seemed obvious but I wanted it to be clearly separated from the rest of the info from the original release so as to not cause any confusion about what it achieved in its original release.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And now that you've said that it seems obvious to me that's what you meant. Sorry. Heh. Erm...at the end of the release section? I'm so unhelpful today. Millahnna (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What an actor makes on a film

It is accurate for us to write what the The Hollywood Reporter reports that an actors makes for a film. Especially when they say "sources say..". See here. —Mike Allen 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say "Biggs was reportedly paid $5 million for the role"? or something like that? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like using anything that says "sources say", because it's scooper reports which means it could come from anyone. You talk to a key grip and they could tell you a figure and not actually know anything. I mean, anyone who would know about film budgets and actor payments are likely not going to hide their identities. I cannot see a producer wanting to remain anonymous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some sympathies with that, and besides, if someone wants to stay anonymous they can always say "a producer on the film says". The other side of that though is that a lot of this stuff is probably leaked by the office girl who has sneaked a look at the accounts while she is filing them away and many news outlets have a great tradition of being vague when it comes to disclosing sources because they don't want to reveal illegal activities. There is no way of knowing of course, which is why the criteria for judging a reliable source mostly applies to the news outlet that is doing the reporting i.e. the level of professional accountability, their reputation for fact-checking etc. So on that basis using such sources is probably in keeping with how Wikipedia currently uses sources, but independent corroboration by another source would be better. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the end of the report says, "A studio rep calls the figures "inaccurate" but declines further comment". —Mike Allen 03:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Documentary disambiguation

There are a few documentary film articles on Wikipedia that use "(documentary)" instead of "(film)". I plan to make the moves to be consistent, especially when "documentary" is ambivalent about the type of media used. Does anyone have an issue with this? Should the non-film documentaries be titled something else too, like "(series)" or "(TV series)"? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The articles can be seen here. Might also be worth noting that the featured article that appeared on the main page, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film), had been moved from The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary) prior to the FAC process and the main page appearance and received no complaint. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been moving these type of article titles for years. Where's my Nobel Prize? Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I think consistency is important when people visit Wikipedia. With regard to the non-film documentaries, could you provide a few examples? Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The War (documentary) could be called a miniseries. However, The Spartans (documentary) does not quite seem to be a miniseries? I'll go ahead with moving them, if Nobel Prize winner Lugnuts has not beaten me to it already. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And while you're doing that, also sort out ones that have (short film) and (animated film) in the title. Cheers. Lugnuts (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Animation as genre?

I noticed that 2013 and beyond in film (as well as other pages similar to this) list some films as having "animation" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here also, and I am suggesting that the films on that page and other years in film list another genre instead of animation. Any thoughts? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Most animated film articles I've listed usually include a genre plus the notation that they're animated in the lead. I suppose they could all be doing it wrong, but critical thinking skills indicate that your idea is the correct one. Millahnna (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Animation certainly is not a genre, but given how well-defined it is a medium (for example, it's awarded a separate Academy Award in addition to being eligible for the 'standard' ones), I see no problem with grouping animated features on articles such as the one listed, provided it's not done in a way that states animation is a genre. GRAPPLE X 02:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want them grouped together or anything. I just thought they should say something other than "animation" in the genre section. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that they are distinguished as animated films, but yeah animation is not a genre. One solution would be to correct the genre and remove the animation label, and perhaps add some highlight shading to the animated entries. That way they would still be distinguishable a animated films. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel it's that important to list on that page, but if you do add a highlight or a "notes" column, I don't mind. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film) for featured article review

I have nominated Richard III (1955 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR is on hold for now since there needed to be an informal talk page notification of the article's problems beforehand. See Talk:Richard III (1955 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Restarting FAR

A week has passed since the notification on the article's talk page and here at WT:FILM, and no contributions have been made. I've restarted the featured article review, which you can access here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Scream characters up for FLC again

List of Scream characters is up for FLC again here. Been up since September 21 and has had no input at all so anyone interested, would be appreciated if you would be involved.

I have also created articles for the upcoming films Freeloaders by Broken Lizard and Neighborhood Watch with Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Richard Ayoade and some other guy I can't recall right now, for those interested in those films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of The Godfather Part IV

The following is the text of a discussion I began on The Godfather Part III talk page some time back, and I am here soliciting advice and opinions from other Film Project members on how to move forward on this, as the discussion is at loggerheads.

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Coppola revealed in the DVD commentary his idea of what a potential Part 4 to the series would have held, claiming in a similar parallel story to Part II that the earlier story would see a young Sonny Corleone as the main character, helping his father Vito to gain the family its political powers and control, marking the family's established stance on the world; and the latter story some 40-50 years later based in the 1980's, seeing his son Vincent Mancini, now Godfather of the Corleone family dynasty, haunted by the death of Mary Corleone, leading the Corleone family into drug trafficking and subsequently destroying and losing the Corleone Dynasty it's political powers and control, seeing one final scene with Vincent and Michael in Sicily shortly before Michael's death in 1990.

Coppola stated however that the film was never made as Mario Puzo died before they had a chance to write the film. Actors Talia Shire, Sofia Coppola and Andy Garcia have also expressed disinterest in a 4th part to the series of films.

First of all, this is poorly-written, though that can be fixed. But, it is really nothing but speculation and idle chatter about a film that was never made, never will be made, and may not have ever been seriously considered. What is the purpose of this information? Coppola thought about making a 4th film, but he didn't, seems to be the sum total of what is offered here. How is this encyclopedic? The source is also questionable, and I have begun a discussion about that on RSN. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Coppola's DVD commentaries are full of details about how the films were made and his artistic objectives, process, methods. They are not random detritus and I don't see anything suspect there since it's from the horse's mouth. Although their relevance to the article on Part III is worth questioning, one can reasonably argue that understanding of the three Godfather pictures is improved by a better understanding of the intent of the director. Therefore his thoughts on the unmade film potentially open a window for us on the rest of the series. But even if all that is true it is hard to completely silence the suspicion that it's trivia. The case has to be made by a reliable source (preferably by Coppola himself) that the information is relevant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If people feel, and I am eager to know other editor's opinions, that the information is relevant and informative, and not trivial, using the DVD commentary itself should not be a problem. Hopefully, a third party source could be found in which someone wrote about the possibility of a fourth film. But, what we have now is poorly written trivia which gives the impression that there was no serious consideration of a fourth film, and the source is an alternate history site which is not a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that it has nothing to do with this particular film. Just because it may be relevant doesn't mean it's relevant to this page. At best, since there does not seem to be a "Godfather" film series page, it's probably something better served on Francis Ford Coppola.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes on this article? The editor who insists on having this "concept of Pt. IV" section keeps reverting to his preferred version, saying all the concerns have been addressed. Until the discussion here and at the article talk page has ended, the article should be left as it is. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for undoing the last edit and seeming quite arrogant, i didnt realise the talk page post was from an admin and misunderstood what this talk page was that they offered.

Firstly I'm sorry to be causing such an argument, this is the first time i have been involved in an 'edit war.' Referring to the film's talk page, Republican J seems to adamantly believe my addition is poorly written, but they are yet to describe exactly why. They have also accused me of not addressing any of they're concerns. I have clearly answered all they're points he/she has raised and they keep reverting my edits without a detailed explanation, simply summering up that I have not responded to his/her comments, clearly inaccurate when you read the page.

Unless RJ can give a detailed explanation or offer something in comparison to what they believe is a well written paragraph I do believe it is in fact RJ that is being disruptive to this page not me. Had he/she offered a more detailed insight into my addition I would avoid reposting.

It seems from the above comments and the recent comments from other users on the film's talk page that some users are willing to see this on the directors wiki page rather than on the film's page. I am happy to repost here if that's a common ground we can find. Personally I stand by my original choice of Part 3 as it is the latest/last addition to the series/trilogy, however due to the level of dispute it now holds I shall refrain from reposting it anywhere until we can all find some common ground. If RJ continues to demand more users on board despite this or becomes excessive in demands for better links, avoiding DVD commentary etc, I will have to suggest to an admin that he is blocked from editing the page and will continue this discussion with users who can offer a deeper insight and more detailed discussion.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little pressed for time right now, but my two cents would be that it isn't a good course to discuss the hypothetical part IV on part III's page. If there was a franchise article I would recommend that. Putting in a sequel section on the part III page that points to your main text (cleaned up, as it has grammar issues) in a more appropriate location I would also find acceptable. Doniago (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I was the most positive about inclusion and I don't think the current material is close enough to being on point to merit a place in the article on III. (No, it is not well-written but this is about content not style.) The material on the unmade IV that belongs in the article on III is something that offers direct, concrete information about how III was changed because there was a chance for another movie. Did he leave something out or put something in or use a design element or something like that? I can easily imagine him discussing that and it would be relevant because it would alter our perception of III. But so far, I don't see it at all. The best way to get at it would be to find a reliable source that discusses the relevance explicitly. Then that's your source, not the DVD. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had sometime to rethink the article's relevance to part III and have decided the following.

On the sections relevance to part 3 itself, part 4 was discussed in detail on part 3's dvd, so that satisfies why I put it on the page. The links do not constitute as unreliable, so the sources are not a problem and do not constitute as trivial. Many film shave placed suggested sequels to films that were never made on Wikipedia and I do not believe this is a problem.

As the subject however has caused an issue over having it's own section, i have opted to abbreviate the majority of it on the page and include it under the pages reception. A more detailed section similar to the original I shall place on Coppola's page.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus here, by my reading, is that it is not appropriate for the Part 3 page at all, and should only be added to the Coppola page if it were adequately sourced, which it is not. So, what part of the discussion above did you actually read? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Toon, the fact that Part 4 is discussed on the DVD of Part 3 does not give any relevance to its placement on that page. That just happens to be where he spoke about it. Had he spoken about Part 4 in the Wall Street Journal you wouldn't see a section on that page about a possible Godfather film. Given that sequels are sequels to the original film and not to the preceding sequel, you cannot even argue that he was proposing a sequel for Part 3. In the end, whether you keep the info or not it has no place on the Part 3 page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone care to take a look in The Fall of Berlin (film) and tell me if there is any chance it would ever be promoted to GA status? I'm not talking about style, lead section etc., just asking if the article sufficiently covers the subject. Cheers. Bahavd Gita (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I skimmed the article, and I think that it is appropriately broad in coverage. Is there any coverage about the specific actors and their roles for the "Cast" section? If not, that is okay. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial sex scene in Observe and Report heating up again

Those familiar with the article or the film may recall that there is a sex scene with extremely dubious consent in the film (female character is semi-conscious when male character has sex with her). However, because the character involved didn't classify the incident as rape, the consensus on the article's talk page has been a "just the facts ma'am" interpretation in the plot summary ("has sex with her while she is semi-conscious" is the current text) and the varying criticisms of the scene are detailed with sources in the reception section. The article will stay stable for a long time and then another round of edits will attempt to change the text with little or no discussion on the talk page (this time none). Would anyone care to weigh in (for or against current consensus) on the talk page? It's such a controversial issue that I feel more voices are needed. Or maybe just more eyeballs if current consensus is acceptable to others. Millahnna (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM collaboration

An idea a lot of people seem interested in came up in the above section on co-ordinator elections, and that's the notion of a group collaboration across the wikiproject. Without waiting for a decision to be reached on co-ordinators, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start fielding some suggestions now on a possible collaboration. Just start flinging ideas out and we can see which among them are popular enough to warrant beginning. Personally, I like the idea of choosing a film whose 25th, 30th or 50th (etc) release anniversary will be in the coming months, to bring to FA status in order to be featured on the main page on that date. Alongside this, a relevant Good Topic can be worked on so that we don't end up with a case of too many chefs on one article - for instance, the filmography for the chosen film could also be brought to GA status to create the topic. or perhaps several entries in a film series could be grouped together. Any suggestions are welcome, as is any preliminary support for any ideas suggested. GRAPPLE X 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth finding out which films in WP:FILMCORE have anniversaries coming up. Core articles are research-intensive, but they do get points for successful main page requests. I have a list of anniversaries at User:Erik/Sandbox#Anniversaries. Spider-Man (film) (non-core) for the 10th anniversary might be more palatable in terms of research (and is already a good article), though I don't mind aiming high with something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), which is a core topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I was considered the Godfather series, two of which are on the core list, though Snow White is also a good one. Something that's very research intensive might be suitable for splitting into several articles, which would fit the general idea of having a few things going on as well. GRAPPLE X 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea of an anniversary film. Here are few possible ideas:

• Dumbo had it's 75th anniversary this year.
• Toy Story has it's 15 year anniversary on November 22.
• Back to the Future had it's 25 year anniversary this year, but it's already a GA article.
• The Goonies also had it's 25 year anniversary this year. It was released in the US in July, but in November in the UK.

Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need some lead time because working on an article may be a long-term effort and because the featured article candidacy process may take some time too. Not to mention that we may need to provide relatively advance notice for a main page request for a particular anniversary. The lead time is the reason for looking at anniversaries in 2012. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How about getting all core film articles to at least start class as a first long-term collaboration? There are currently 103 articles in Category:Stub-Class core film articles. It would also become a nice film-watching quest for articles in need of a plot section. :) Smetanahue (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. We could stick a progress bar on the main WP:FILM page to keep track of it, and try to clear out the stub category by the end of the year maybe? GRAPPLE X 01:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bar could be phrased in several ways. The former is initially fuller-looking but will "fill up" slower, whilst the other begins at 0 but will be seen to progress at a faster rate:

All core film articles at start-class or better: 79.9% complete

Stub-class core film articles improved to start-class or better: 0% complete

Yes on the progress bar and the core articles clean up! I'm endlessly fascinated by the detailed stats and bar graphs that the GOCE puts out during their drives. I think they are great motivators. The Interior (Talk) 01:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, seeing Sawdust and Tinsel in that category really takes me back - one of the earliest articles I started. Great film too. I'm sure I can add more to it. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the progression bars too! I can put them on WP:FILM (but feel free to beat me to the punch). So are we considering these two goals: collective improvement (of the stub-class articles) and specific improvement (of chosen core articles to featured status) for imminent anniversaries? The progression bars are straightforward to display and to act upon, though we may need to do straw polls to narrow down what we could do for specific improvements. In fact, let's do that now; I've listed them in the section below. You can add other films if you want. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since both of those bars chart the same thing, in different ways, which would we prefer? I'd rather use the bottom one, to be honest. Also, I've voted in the straw poll below. I stuck a vote in for two things, is that ok? GRAPPLE X 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bottom bar is fine with me. However, we may need to review the list of core articles at WP:FILMCORE. I think it needs to be updated based on the new list from They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? And of course you can cast your votes. :) I only added Spider-Man because it would be easy for a lot of editors to research and verify. Snow White requires real diving into print sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what is core? Because Inglorious Basterds is on the list and Ghostbusters and Terminator 2 are not, and either of them have more cultural significance and impact than Inglorious Basterds.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FILMCORE#Inclusion formula. Inglourious Basterds is only on the list because one of the criteria is to include the IMDb top ten films for a genre task force (in this case, for war films). I'm personally not a fan of using IMDb at all. I'd rather depend mostly on They Shoot Pictures. Perhaps we could just use that as the sole criteria and list 500 films? It may be worth starting a discussion on that page's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, obviously there is a reaosn we don't use IMDb user votes, even if I agree that The Shawshank Redemption is a great film. I don't think I'm being entirely bias in thinking Ghostbuster and Terminator II are articles that should be of a high quality as the films are significant to the history of film. That neither is on that list but Inglorious Basterds (which was OK at best apart from Waltz and it's impact on cinema is questionable) almost invalidates the reliability of the entire list. It's not a big issue, I just followed the link before out of curiosity and was perturbed to find a lot of omissions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we would ever see Ghostbusters as a core article. :) It's a popular film, but I don't think it has been considered influential. On the other hand, Terminator is at #259 and Terminator 2 is at #516. I'll go ahead and start a discussion at WP:FILMCORE about reviewing the inclusion formula. It seems like the They Shoot Pictures website does a good enough job with aggregating polls that we don't need IMDb. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Philistine! Directors are unlikely to say "I got into filmaking because of Ghostbusters" but it is hard to deny the impact it had on popular culture and still has like...27 years later. But yes Terminator 2 should be on any list as it is a quality film in its own right but it also paved the way in special effects and was the biggest budget film ever for a time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick one of the bars on the main WP:FILM page today, but which one do you guys prefer? The fuller-but-slower-moving top one or the emptier-but-faster-moving bottom one? GRAPPLE X 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait a few more days for the "2011 update" discussion at WT:FILMCORE to make sure it has time as well as exposure. We can then update the list of core articles, and we'll have to adjust the bars accordingly. But we could have both of them? Any reason not to? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. GRAPPLE X 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, WP:FILMCORE has now been updated fully. I've amended the progress bars above to reflect that, so if no one objects I'll stick them on the front page tonight. GRAPPLE X 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through the stub list and so far most really aren't stubs, so just re-assessing them as start class suffices. I do perform some clean up to the infobox however. —Mike Allen 00:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looked as much when I was going through them to tag them as core. Just remember to update WP:FILMCORE as you go along, though. GRAPPLE X 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Some articles which at a first glance look like they're beyond stubs are deceptive though. Per the grading scheme, a start-class article should have "a usable amount of good content", so there needs to be more than just plot and/or trivial sections like "Differences from the novel" or "References in pop culture". But a couple of reviews and either a basic production or themes section should be easy to write for any core article with online sources only. Smetanahue (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll for anniversary collaborations

Films with anniversaries in 2012 are listed below. Editors can vote for multiple films or add other films below. There can be collaboration on more than one film, so vote for the ones you'd like to work on. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Spider-Man (film) (May 3, 2002) (non-core) – 10th anniversary on May 3, 2012 2 users like this.
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) (December 21, 1937) (core) – 75th anniversary on December 21, 2012 4 users like this.
• The Godfather (March 15, 1972) (core) – 40th anniversary on March 15, 2012 3 users like this.
• Full Metal Jacket (June 26, 1987) (core) – 25th anniversary on June 26, 2012 3 users like this.
• Lawrence of Arabia (film) (December 10, 1962) (core) – 50th anniversary on December 10, 2012 2 users like this.
• Planes, Trains and Automobiles (November 25, 1987) (non-core) – 25th anniversary on November 25, 2012 (can be featured on Nov. 22, Thanksgiving) 1 user likes this.

Comment So are we meant to blitz Snow White then or is voting still open? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say the top two before, since we'd start on The Godfather immediately and can do Snow White the rest of the year, but Full Metal Jacket is tied for second. I could go ahead and vote for The Godfather, but I was reluctant because March is pretty soon for such a dense topic. We could just choose Snow White officially. In retrospect, the {{like}} template probably wasn't a good idea since it might help editors establish groups for working on specific films, regardless of official selection. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Run it again with just those the two tied options, just for the next 24 hours. We can start Snow White and the FILMCORE stubs right away while that's getting its last day of voting. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea of runoff voting for The Godfather and Full Metal Jacket. Obviously, the editor should choose one or the other. Any qualms with this approach? If not, we can go ahead with it soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello to the members of this project. If you are so inclined your input is requested at this thread Talk:Films with live action and animation#Define the combination. An IP has decided that a large part of the list should be removed. While there is no doubt that it could be pared down, I feel that more input is needed to determine just how much trimming should be done. As this article does not seem to be on many watchlists anymore I am hoping for more discussion than has currently taken place. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can add to the conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 13:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Crom again requests your attention!

Crom! Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) has been nominated for consideration as a Featured Article. Fine was the day when Arnold Schwarzenegger took up the sword and played out the role under the auspices of John Milius, Edward R. Pressman, and Dino De Laurentiis. Please read the article and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

TO hell with Crom, what has he done for me lately? If he won't help me, I'll read the article myself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A possible task for anyone interested

I have noticed that a large number of the Category:Bowery Boys films do not have a project tag on their talk page. If anyone who has a knowledge of the ins and outs of all the specifics that go into tagging these has time on their hands (as unlikely as that may be) I thought I would make you aware of the situation. I don't know that this is a high, or even low, priority and as I say I am sure that most of you are busy with other things but I thought I would bring it to your attention just in case. Thanks for your time and good work all your film and anniversary collaborations work. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Brazil as fantasy film

There is a discussion ongoing at the Brazil talk page as to whether it is a fantasy film. I would like some other editors to weigh in on this, please. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Language Oscar films

Thanks in the main to the hardwork User:Adtran has put in, the List of submissions to the 84th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film is now complete. I've created articles for all the missing entries over the last few weeks. If anyone has any extra information for any of these films, please feel free to expand them. Some have already had lots of work done to them (the Indian entry) and some are in questionable states (the Portuguese entry and the Eygptian film director). Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator election now open

Voting for the October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORROR and Halloween

See the project talk. I think it might be a good idea, seeing as Halloween is coming up, that this month have something special towards the Horror Project, I don't know really what to think of, perhaps a drive on Horror film articles or something like that, which should boost participation in the project. Also, if somebody could help over at the election page there, it'd be great. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Would like a few extra eyes at new article

I've finished creating List of awards and nominations received by David Lynch tonight (this morning... sleep, Grapple, sleep) and since it's my first attempt at a comprehensive list article, I'd like a few more experienced list-writers to give it the once-over if they could. I'm reasonably happy with it, although there's one issue with the "infobox"-style table at the start, in that I can't get the "Total number of accolades" section to line up as two columns taking up the full width together, for some reason. It's probably something ridiculously simple, too, knowing me. Any advice, comments, anything would be welcome, as I'd like to take this to FLC if it seems ready. I've just DYK nominated it too so I'm hoping that will draw in some feedback as well. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean you want the box holding the number "1" to extend to the right margin? I've tweaked it so it does that, although I'm not sure if that's what you wanted. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 07:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent piece of work, Grapples. Lynch is my fave director and I'll have a look at the list to help it get to FLC. Barnstar added too. ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No plot tag

I've seen this tag being added to some articles recently (example). It's a minor point that the article is a stub and a documentary, so it's not likely to have a plot anyway. I think these should be better placed onto the talkpage of the article concerned instead. We have the parameters already for no infobox, no image, etc, and that works well. I fear this could start a drive-by tagging spree of no-plot, no-production, no-awards, no-release-history, etc. It also places the article into the category Category:Wikipedia articles without plot summaries. This could be better managed as WP film articles without plot summaries. I'm sure books have plots too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. No missing MOS-advocated section should really be flagged on the article page, as anything classed as C or below is still given the leeway to omit them; ideally every article would cover everything though. A talk page categorisation through the film project banner would be just as effective as a book-keeping device, and would have the added bonus of being something which takes a slight modicum more wherewithal to add, which would ensure that it's not applied slapdash to articles in a spree just to readily. The extant Category:Wikipedia articles without plot summaries category would probably serve better as a parent for Category:Film articles without plot summaries, Category:Book articles without plot summaries, Category:Theatre articles without plot summaries, etc. GRAPPLE X 07:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding brief synopses to the documentary film stubs whenever I could, and adding the no plot tag when I could not. There's an awful lot of articles that just say a film was nominated for an Oscar, and list a director, and that's it's. There's no way for me or others to move them into a "documentary films about foo" topic category, even. But even my one-line description of a film's topic is not, strictly speaking, a "plot" — meaning my tagging may serve no useful purpose, at all. Anyway, I'll stop immediately and watch this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I started alot of the documentary films off to fill in the redlinks from the Oscar documentary nomination page. I appreicate they are pretty poor in content, but felt they were needed to be started. I think the tag is a good idea, but just in the wrong place. And I've now found out what 140 Days Under the World is about and added a ref! Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it was you who started the Oscar-nominated and winning doc film stubs — and yes, I also felt they needed to be started, as an Oscar-nominated film is inherently notable, imo. If there's consensus to apply this no-plot tag, or apply it on the Talk page, fine by me. I've actually only added it to a handful of articles so little damage done, either way. I'll wait. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I see that on 140 Days Under the World Grapple had removed no plot and replaced it with a blank section for "Overview," tagged to be expanded. Overview is not an ideal section heading, imo, as it's too vague. I would suggest "Synopsis" for such a placeholder section, as non-fiction films do have synopses, even if they don't have "plots." (I say this as someone who has co-written several documentary films myself, fwiw). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, synopsis is a better word to use, I was just looking for something that didn't inherently suggest a narrative. GRAPPLE X 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead Letter Awards

Could I get more opinions on if we should include the "Dead Letter Awards" for zombie films? I can't find any notability for these awards in reliable sources, but an editor insists that they are. The discussion is about Resident Evil: Afterlife here. —Mike Allen 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Secret World of Arrietty

The Secret World of Arrietty is an animated film that was originally released in Japan, with a Japanese voice cast. The film is being re-released in the US with an English voice cast. Should the English voice cast be included in the infobox? Would this be too busy to include? There are also three other positions involved with the English version, including an English Language Version Director (Gary Rydstrom), English Language Version Executive Producers (Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall), and English Language Screenwriter (Karey Kirkpatrick). My gut feeling is that this is a little excessive to include in the infobox, but I haven't done a lot of work with Japanese films converted to American films. Is my gut instinct right? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the English-language cast and crew need to go in the infobox. For presenting the different voice casts, I recommend the approach that My Neighbor Totoro uses. As for the crew, I think you can just mention the key members in "Production". Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of pictures in Maltese Falcon (1941 film)

There is currently a discussion going on here in which other editors might want to participate. As I am involved in that discussion, and it has been contentious, I am going to withdraw and encourage other editors to offer their opinions and perspectives. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Film archives

Hi all. I have created List of film archives. It is a very important list. I hope you can help me to complete this page. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the Vatican City likely to have a film archive? Lugnuts (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the FIAF member directory, there is one: Filmoteca Vaticana Michitaro (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office revision

I have started a discussion at the guidelines' talk page about the guidelines' "Box office" section. You can see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Human Centipede possible Halloween main page featured article?

Hi there. Firstly, sorry for always coming here and begging for comments and stuff when I was putting The Human Centipede (First Sequence) through three successive FACs. I'm sure you'll all be glad to hear however that eventually the article passed! It's now not only one of the most popular articles on wikipedia (ok, so well inside the top 1,000) but it's also now a Featured Article! Hooray!

The reason I return here to WikiProject Film talk is to let interested readers know that there is currently a discussion going on about the film possibly being the main page featured article on Halloween this year. The discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. So far there are seven people who think this would be good, and two who think this is the worst idea in the world ever.

The article has not been formally nominated for this yet, but it would still be cool to hear what people think about this idea. Personally I think it would be cool to have a popular article about a Horror film on Halloween, but that's just me, all thoughts are very much welcomed. cya! Coolug (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting it promoted to featured status! My only concern about such a nomination for the main page is that the film was very recently released, and with a sequel on the way, it may be perceived as promotional. If it was five years after, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Anyone else think the recency of this topic is problematic or not? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems a good nomination IMO. There's only been one recent FA on the main page this month (2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final), so I think the ballance is OK. Lugnuts (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I asked the featured article director Raul654 about whether or not it might be too promotional (this was a concern when I optimistically/foolishly nominated the article to coincide with the sequels release) and he made a pretty good point that there are a hell of a lot of articles on wikipedia that might be seen as sort of promotional, after all you can spend money on loads of the things that we have articles on - is the entire film wikiproject just a massive advert for the DVD industry? I think that with The Human Centipede (First Sequence) being one of the few featured articles on a horror film then it is pretty good for the main page on that day (probably not on other days though as it's pretty out there). Anyway, whether you think it's a good idea or a not so good idea I'd appreciate any comments on the suitability of nominating this on the talk page. Oh and by the way thanks for the helpful comments during the FAC! cya Coolug (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea for Holloween Main page. I support it! AlbertBowes (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Coolug has formally nominated it now at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Lugnuts (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the supports! The discussion is still going on so there's still plenty of time to get your supports/opposes/comments in and have your say. All input is very much appreciated. Cya! Coolug (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Logos

This may be of interest to some editors: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-24/WikiProject report on WikiProject logos. Traditionally, we've used whatever is available in the Commons, like File:Video-x-generic.svg and its similarly bland predecessors. Not to mention that WP:FILM is Dullsville on the front. I don't have any skills here, but am hoping that someone here will find some inspiration? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could base something on a film currently in the public domain? Night of the Living Dead and Le Voyage dans la Lune spring to mind. GRAPPLE X 22:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We may want to make such a logo more global, such as basing it on filmmaking technology. We have cameras, reels, even the outline of an audience watching a film (actually, I kind of dig that MST3000 vibe), etc. The current icon is just a very simple reel, but it could be more creative. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI There is already a user box that uses a scene from Le Voyage dans la Lune and you can see it here User:UBX/film so I think it could be adapted fairly easily. Erik's idea sounds interesting also. If anyone wants to create a few for us to chose from that would be great. MarnetteD | Talk 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would much rather see something very identifiable with film making. A projector or actual film stock. The movie theater silhouette would be cool but I think it would leave the block very empty. How about a popcorn bucket? Items that you instantly associate with watching films? --Peppage^tlk 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an editor (AbsoluteGleek92) who has contributed prolifically to film articles. Editors who have crossed paths with him may wish to weigh in. The discussion is here. Erik (talk | contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

He's been idef blocked. We may need to watch out for socks based on this comment, "If you do block me, fine. I'll be back eventually. I have my ways. Always remember AshTFrankFurter and his many sockpuppets ;)". —Mike Allen 07:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on project guidelines

Hello fellow Film project members. I've been spending some time editing film awards pages and noticed that we don't really have a standard in some areas. I'm raising those issues which i've noticed in hopes we can decide on guidelines to help maintain better pages.

• Navigation template coloring - The navigation pages that fall under this WikiProject are: film awards, film festivals, film franchises and person templates (director, etc). Because there is no standard on how to create these - these come in a lot of different colors. For example:
  • Cannes Film Festival - Template:Cannes Film Festival
  • Golden Globe Award - Template:Golden Globe Awards Chron
  • Screen Actors Guild - Template:SAG Awards Chron
  • San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor - Template:SDFCS Awards Chron
  • Harry Potter (film series) - Template:Harry Potter
  • Living dead - Template:Living Dead
  • Category:American film director navigational boxes
  • Mission: Impossible III - Template:MissionImpossible

These are of course just a small sample of what we have. My suggestion is to pick a color so we can all work with it and stop rainbow color award sections like in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. We can also choose to pick a different color for different categories - Film Awards and Festivals, Film franchises, directors.

• Category structuring - another thing i noticed is that category names arent the same. For example:
  • In Category:Film awards by category we have Category:Film awards for lead actor‎ and Category:Film directing awards. If we want to make navigation easier we need to decide on how these pages should be written - either Category:Film acting awards and Category:Film directing awards or Category:Film awards for lead actor‎ and Category:Film awards for directing.
  • Award pages. We got:
    • Academy Award for Best Actor and Best Actor Award (Cannes Film Festival)
    • Academy Award for Best Director and Bavarian Film Awards (Best Director)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#Practical instructions - I think we should expand this and give a more detailed example. I've noticed only very few pages that use this layout - The Dark Knight (film) is one of them. But even this page doesn't use the layout shown. Also, for example, should Category:American horror films go under Category:(Genre) films or Category:(Country) films? Should Category:2000s action films go under Category:(Year) films or Category:(Genre) films? I think we should review the order and maybe decide on a new one.

• This has less to do with the award but its still part of this project. I've noticed that other projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Assessment#Quality scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/Assessment#Quality scale have a class for Redirect pages. I think adding one to our project will help us keep track of redirects. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lots to discuss here! For navigation templates, I prefer to use the default colors. I think that colors for specific templates (e.g., Mission Impossible) are unnecessary and seem to lead to aesthetic skirmishes. However, I would be okay with endorsing a color scheme for film award navigation templates. It seems to be pretty common already, so maybe we should go ahead and standardize it?

  I think you bring up a good point about some inconsistency in higher-level category names. Perhaps be bold and request a renaming at WP:CFD? Just link to it here!

  As for categories, I agree about having a fuller explanation. Even though I've edited for a while, categories have always been secondary for me, and I keep having to check for what the proper use is. However, for the ones that you mention, the decades are a way to break out higher-level categories. On each category page, both higher-level categories are included. For example, Category:2000s crime films has the categories Category:2000s films and Category:Crime films by decade. I think I may be misunderstanding you, though... I think that the decade + genre category is meant to replace the general genre category, while the decade category is unnecessary because of the year-in-film category? Can someone more experienced with categories than me clear that up? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (film) for example has both Category:2008 films and Category:2000s action films --Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it's a 2008 film and a 2000s action film. Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Read up, i was referring to the fact that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#Practical instructions says to place the category in the primary section: Year or the other groups such as genre. My point was that i have no idea where in the list a category such as 2000s action film goes. --Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so here is a first pass I made for the category order for a film (film series and film awards might use a different order), a few notes at the end.

(After last section and after all footer templates, line series, director filmographies, etc)
(- One empty line here -)
{{DEFAULTSORT:Noun, Article}} - This is only needed if the title starts with an article.
<!-- Primary film categories - Year, Country, Genre, Language -->
[[Category:(Year) films]] - Category:Films by year / Category:Films by decade for year + genre.[1]
[[Category:(Country) films]] - Category:Films by country / Category:Films by genre by country‎ for country + genre
[[Category:(Genre) films]] - Category:Films by genre by country‎ use sub-categories / Category:Films by type (Documentary films‎, Sequel films‎, etc)
[[Category:(Language)-language films]] - Category:Films by language
<!-- Film Series category -->
[[Category:(Film Series)]]
<!-- Credit categories -->
Category:Directorial debut films
[[Category:Films by (director)]] - Category:Films by director
Category:Films by source [2]
Category:Screenplays by author
<!-- Company categories -->
[[Category:(Studio) films]] - Category:Films by studio / Category:Films by producer
<!-- Award categories -->
Category:Film awards - order alphabetically.
<!-- Setting categories -->
[[Category:Films set in (location)]] - Category:Films by country of setting [3][4]
<!-- Filming location categories -->
[[Category:Films shot in (location)]] - Category:Films by country of shooting location
<!-- Technical categories -->
Category:Films by technology
<!-- Additional categories -->
Category:Films by topic - [5]
Category:Public domain - [6]
Category:Soundtracks
(-- Two empty lines here --)
{{xxx-film-stub}}
(- One empty line here -)
[[Interwiki links]]

1 - Category:Films by date has Category:Films by decade and Category:Films by century shouldn't Category:Films by decade be a sub of Category:Films by century?
2 - Seems as if Category:Films based on literature is overlapping with its parent category Category:Films based on works.
3 - Category:Films by geographic setting has continent, country and city. Shouldn't country be a sub of continent and city a sub of country?
4 - Category:Films by city of setting seems as if this category should be deleted as for example, UK films by city are found also in Category:Films by country of setting (after picking Category:Films set in the United Kingdom‎) and also in Category:Films by city of setting
5 - Category:Films by topic seems to need a clean up. Some of the categories start with "films about (topic)" others are "(topic) films"
6 - There should be a category for films in the public domain.
Feedback - thoughts, improvments, etc.--Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Shaky camera vs. Hand-held camera

Someone in this wikiproject should merge the articles on Shaky camera and Hand-held camera. 67.101.5.42 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the two topics. With today's hand-held cameras, there is not a shaky effect unless the filmmakers want one. The shaky camera technique, they go out of their way to achieve. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Original film vs. film series

There is a requested move to move Home Alone (currently the article for the film series) to Home Alone (film series) and to move Home Alone (film) (the original film) to Home Alone. Should the search term take a reader to the article for the original film or to the article for the film series (provided there is one), with the latter generally meaning multiple films share the keywords (in this case, "Home Alone")? Where is the reader expecting to go? The request can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend that Home Alone should be the article for the film series, as it currently is. Had the sequels been little-known compared to the original, I'd say otherwise, but the current situation is ideal. GRAPPLE X 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've explained my perspective at the discussion. :) Just wanted to neutrally notify the community to see if what the preference is either way. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Film series says to use "For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series) or Series subject (film series)." Hope this somehow helps in the discussion :)--Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I was surprised to see Category:Film series so broken up, considering that there are not that many film series (especially compared to topics in other categories). I think that the subcategories should be non-diffusing per WP:DUPCAT. For example, all the articles in Category:Action films by series will also be categorized with Category:Film series. Diffusing helps with categories where there are too many articles, such as breaking out a genre category by decade, but it's not needed here. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lone Star (1996 film)

Would some previously uninvolved editors care to weigh in on the discussion underway on this talk page? It would be a big help. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Which one? There's two unrelated comments but I don't see any discussions underway. :S GRAPPLE X 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I assumed the heading "A note to the idiot" would be obvious. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was about to offer my opinion when I found that the comment was removed and revision-deleted. So it goes. GRAPPLE X 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did not expect that. Thanks anyway. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion - Adaminte Makan Abu

This Indian film is the subject of a discussion about moving it from its Indian title to an English one. Lugnuts (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HighestWorldwideGrossMovies

The template {{HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Runoff voting for WP:FILM collaboration

Hello, all! Based on the straw poll to choose a film article for collaboration, the most voted-for article is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), whose 75th anniversary is in December next year. (See the talk page to get started!) After that, The Godfather (40th anniversary on March 15, 2012) and Full Metal Jacket (25th anniversary on June 26, 2012) were tied. So we will have runoff voting for these two, so they are listed below. Please support the preferred film with your signature. Below it is a discussion subsection if you want to discuss how to make a choice. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Godfather

Full Metal Jacket

1. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
2. GRAPPLE X 15:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I support Full Metal Jacket because I think that The Godfather's anniversary is too soon to collaborate, get the article reviewed and copy-edited, and succeed in the FAC process. There would be more time with Full Metal Jacket, and I would argue that the 25th anniversary is more of an identifiable milestone than the 40th. (No problem with supporting The Godfather 10 years from now!) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of Full Metal Jacket mostly because it involves a narrower scope than The Godfather - to me, the temptation would be to cover The Godfather as part of a project looking at all the films, perhaps the full franchise. But since Full Metal Jacket is just one film and one book, there's sense of containment there that lets it fit nicely as a side project whilst we work on Snow White. GRAPPLE X 15:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that it is a bit too close to March to get everything done for TG (though I hope we don't have to wait ten years to improve it - by then computers will either have gotten so small and/or advanced that my fingers wont be able to type on the keyboard or we will do all of our editing by simply blinking our eyes) so I too would support FMJ as being the article to focus on. MarnetteD | Talk 16:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the opinions expressed above, and now realize that I do not have that film on my watchlist, which I will now rectify. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Any of these films can be improved significantly by this time. Can then be run through the FA system? Probably not, but brought to that standard? Definitely. If I had 12 hours to just sit and do something it'd be done. And in the case of fims like these, sources are probably significantly easier to come by than they were for something like Scream. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The goal is to improve the articles, get them promoted to featured status, and request for them to be on the main page of Wikipedia on their anniversaries. I think that goal is good incentive to contribute. We can get points in main page requests for anniversaries, which is why it's part of the collaboration consideration. That's why I don't think we can do The Godfather in the time frame available to us. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to agreeing with all of the above, this will be a good excuse for me to watch the audio commentary on my DVD of FMJ. (4 Kubrick movies were released in late 2007 with bunches of new features and audio commentaries- along with the release of the unrated Eyes Wide Shut on DVD in the US on the same date).--WickerGuy (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to take time stamps. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added sources to the awards section, now the rest of you (Private) Jokers can work on it. Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. Seven editors (three in the discussion) support Full Metal Jacket. I cleaned up the talk page (e.g., archived old discussions) and added a {{to do}} template. Take a look here. May as well get started! WickerGuy, you're the Kubrick aficionado, have any books that can be referenced for the article? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket

Full Metal Jacket will be one of the two WikiProject Film collaborations for milestone anniversaries in 2012. The film's 25th anniversary is on June 26, 2012, so the goal is to get the article to featured status and to request its appearance on the main page for the anniversary. This collaboration and the one for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) will be included in this month's newsletter. Since Snow White's anniversary is not until December of 2012, this topic takes precedence. On the film article's talk page, I've kicked off a preliminary discussion with some initial thoughts and invite others to weigh in. Let's do that whole thing where many hands make light work. Some of us have already started helping -- thanks, Darkwarriorblake and Lugnuts! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Q - Are we going to focus just on the article, or try to clean up the associated articles? (I was thinking about The Short-Timers). The Interior (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The focus is on the film article, but we could definitely encourage any details about the novel to be implemented there. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Princess Bride

Like Full Metal Jacket, The Princess Bride also celebrates 25 years next year. I have discussed at the Page improvements discussion here about certain articles getting a reboot, to which Erik suggested TPB as a collaborative piece. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:58 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with newsletter

I'm working on the upcoming newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/October 2011 Newsletter. I put together last month's newsletter on my own, but I'm hoping that some editors could help me with this one. I've added some details so far, and there are instructions here on how to find content to include. If anyone can add even just a few details, it would be greatly appreciated! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the members of Team Chocoloate Fireguard! Don't get killed in the rush. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused page move

Timeshifter has moved Dazed and Confused to Dazed and Confused (film) for no apparent reason and with no discussion. We already have Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), which has three entries, and this discussion --- granted, it's nearly two years old --- at the disambiguation talk page indicates that the film article is the primary topic. This seemed like a good place for a centralized discussion of the move. I am opposed as it is unnecessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I assumed he knew something I didn't but if it wasn't discussed then I also oppose the move as the film is the primary topic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unless Timeshifter knows something I don't. Doniago (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought perhaps a new article had been created that required further disambiguation, but that is not the case. His reasoning eludes me. But, I have informed him of this discussion, and I hope he will enlighten us. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest moving it back, and if he has valid reasons he can file a move proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused should become the disambig page. IMO the song is more notable, but neither of them should be the primary topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts. But I don't want to argue about it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is another idiotic Wikipedia rule. As if making titles clearer is a bad thing. Dumb, dumb, dumb. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've been bold and changed Dazed and Confused to a disambig page. Nice work, Timeshifter. Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't encourage such unilateral action. You can carry out page moves on your own if the decision is unlikely to be controversial (i.e. fixing spelling mistakes, moving a page to a title that is better representative of the subject), but altering the primary topic for a title is always going to be potentially controversial which is why there are procedures for this sort of thing. It wouldn't have killed him to propose the move on the talk page with a rationale, and then perform the move if there is general agreement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Four users disagree with this page move, so I'd like to know how you justify your actions, Lugnuts. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the reasons I've already listed, above... Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

But you've failed to convince enough people that you would've failed to succeed in a move. Which means that the move might just not have been the right thing to do Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well! You lot can sort it out then. Bye! Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should get the move reverted and start an official request to move. Per WP:RM, this was not uncontroversial. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Made a request as seen here. Live link here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the moves, and started a discussion at Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation)#Move, discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm so pleased this project has a focus on the really, really important things! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move here: Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) - Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Page improvements

I have decided to select the following articles for improvement so that they may qualify for possible GA or FA status:

• Apollo 13
• Air Force One
• Blood Work
• Cocoon
• Courage Under Fire
• Field of Dreams
• The Princess Bride
• The Rock
• Scent of a Woman
• Star Trek: Nemesis

I bring this up because i believe this could be a great collaboration opportunity for all film project participants in order to show these articles are well maintained and this WikiProject boasts some of the most dedicated editors on Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:04 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any reasons for selecting those particular films beyond personal preference? Just curious. Doniago (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not personal preference. I selected these as examples. Articles like Field of Dreams and Apollo 13 quite frankly deserve alot more attention. These articles also share the general article form, they have plot, cast and reception. These articles deserve the care that those fan pages from Buffy are getting. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:55 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your ambition here! Did you see the newsletter information about the anniversary collaborations? The goal is to get them featured and on the main page for their anniversaries. Here, I think we have an awful lot of articles. Can it be narrowed down? Are there any that have some kind of anniversary coming up? For example, I know that Lost in Translation has its 10th anniversary in 2013. I think that going for the main page is a worthwhile goal because it's an end in sight. I'd be happy to help research whatever film, though I have Panic Room and Full Metal Jacket on my plate right now. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Princess Bride celebrates 25 years next year. Star Trek: Nemesis, Blood Work celebrate 10 years, and Scent of a Woman hit 20. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:09 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think The Princess Bride could be a good one since it would be between Full Metal Jacket and Snow White, and I think it has a larger fan base than the other films. Let me know if you want research help with that! I also have a research help page here: User:Erik/Research. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be most helpful. I've kinda been sticking this out by myself so far. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:31 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that all of us have varying interests in film, even though we work on the same type of article. You have to line up your interests with other editors, especially ones who appear motivated to help out. The anniversary collaborations Full Metal Jacket and Snow White were of the most interest, so hopefully we can get them up to snuff and in time! Here, my recommendation is not to stretch yourself too thin and to ask others which of these listed films they're interested in. For example, I may be willing to help out with Lost in Translation (as I've already listed references to use on the page) for its anniversary in 2013. For The Princess Bride, I can help research that, though I need to answer someone's research request for The Jungle Book today. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sound fair. I tired to strike out a few films, but it struck out my whole list, so i just wrote (exclude) beside the ones. Lost in Translation can wait a year, we need to prepare Full Metal Jacket, Snow White and hopefully The Princess Bride for their anniversaries next year. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:46 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Template proposal

I am proposing the creation of a template that can be used for film and theatre technical articles such as Theatrical property, Costume designer etc. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I invite anyone for input please. What you feel should be included and what might be a good way to encompass a sort of "overall" template for all technical fields within the project pages!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That san be included to bottom part of {{Infobox film}}. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this template {{Stagecraft Nav}}? It has theatrical property and costume design in the bottom row. There's also the template {{Film crew}}. Are these close to what you're looking for, or what do you have in mind? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are no small potatoes! Thanks! What I was hoping for was in info box template for stage craft or film technical positions, but this is also excellent!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Karthikndr I will check that out!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Collider.com

I may have asked this before so I apologize in advance but does anyone know how reliable http://www.collider.com is? I've been using it here and there as it generally has frequent updates adn has been reliable for me in the past but I'm a bit conflicted on Tower Heist as I have one source from Collider and one from The New York Times which seem to be saying opposite things. But perhaps they are just chronologically opposed. Collider says:

Ratner: It wasn’t a Bernie Madoff-type character, it was kind of like Donald Trump, or something. The movie felt too much like Ocean’s Eleven, which I had actually developed.

Ted Griffin, who actually wrote Ocean’s Eleven for me, came in and came up with this whole idea about the guy who does kind of a Punk’d scheme and loses the employees’ pension fund, which just made it much more relevant. But the original idea was Eddie’s.

Which makes it sound like it being like Ocean's Eleven is a problem. Where as NYT says:

To Mr. Ratner, however, the film had the pleasingly familiar ring of the “Ocean’s Eleven” remake, which was developed as a project for him but which he gave up to make “Rush Hour 2.”

Which makes it seem like it was a good thing. Both interviews/pieces are recent, COllider says that is actual dialog from Ratner while the NYT bit seems like a bio so perhaps it is just a chronology issue and not Collider's reliability? That he liked it was like Ocean's Eleven based on Murphy's idea but that it was too much like it to continue? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this, Collider publishes user submitted content, presumably operating along the same lines as IMDB, which would violate RS. Betty Logan (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I just noticed in this particular case, the interview is also presented in an audio recording of the conversation, so I don't know how that applies. EDIT Reading that page it seems like they have actual professionals and that users can just submit things which need approving, like TMZ, and this particular report is by the Editor of the site. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a site with a hired workforce and the content is distinguishable from the user-submitted stuff (as in an audio recording) I would think that would pass as reliable, certainly as a primary source for the claims of the interviewee at any rate. You'd probably be best served asking on the RS noticeboard though. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks Betty. Re-reading the stuff I'm starting to think that their claims are just a timeline issue anyway since it takes place over 5 years.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I try to only use the site for interviews. —Mike Allen 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think generally that interviews are most of the original content they have, a lot of the film news is linked to a source like THR or Deadline Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One

Plot section of the Ra.One article is too long, and for your knowledge it's just 50% complete. Shall I create a new article for that? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a plot notice. The plot doesn't need to be that detailed, it is supposed to be an overview of the story. The Film MOS states that plot summaries should be 400–700 words, so it needs to be brought within those limits. Use WP:PLOTSUM as a guide. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Betty's advice is right on the money. You can't have a separate article of just plot summary (WP:PLOT). So some revisions and trimming until you can get it down to 400–700 words. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate page move

There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. This is relevant to this film project, and several people involved in this project took part in previous related discussions. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The page mover should have checked the talk page first, and having done so would have realized it's a contentious issue and that he shouldn't have unilaterally moved it. Personally I'd just move it back and ask him to propose the move on the talk page. The move might be justified, but it's not an uncontroversial move. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely what I said to him. Given the two previous discussions, which were highly contentious, it was reasonable to assume a move would be controversial. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst for deletion - again

Discussion is here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Top critics

I'm having an issue with this site, normally I'd think it was a one-off but in the past I've had issues with someone on Scream 3 putting in figures for reviews that do not match up with what I see. Well now on Tower Heist User:Aquila89 sees this while I see this. There's an obvious disconnect here so how do Top Critics work? Do they change based on location, can they be modified by a personal users settings? Otherwise why is this happening, does anyone know? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Top Critics chooses the top rated critics based on location I believe. It seems to cause a lot of confusion between editors because they're seeing different things when they click on the reference, so personally I think we'd be better off dumping Top Critics. I don't see much point to them because all they do is present a biased sub-section of the reviews, whereas "All critics" includes all the critical reception from all regions, so is much more representative of how the film was received. Top Critics might be useful for breaking down global reception (if we could adequately reference it) but for just a critical overview I don't think they add that much. This problem does come up periodically, so it's about time we either scrap TC or address the geolocation problem if we are going to use them. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I run into this from time to time too. I believe it differs by location, for example you'll see different top critics results on the US site vs. the UK site. For this reason I generally don't discuss the top critics, just the overalls. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to stop using the "Top Critic" section because it only included a handful of critics and because of the region differences.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The last bullet point of "Limitations" in WP:RTMC covers this. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess thatm akes sense in why it shows me the UK Guardian then but why show me the Los Angeles Times? Bizarre set up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever figured out the criteria. There clearly is some core group that appear in all regions, and then supplemented by the "locals". Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here[1] is the page which RT explains the criteria for a "Top Critic":

"Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff."

--DrNegative (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On another note, it seems that Flixster merged uk.rottentomatoes.com with the American one when they acquired RT. The domain redirects. DrNegative (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Negative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about using THR for a budget figure

Resolved

Could I get some other opinions here on what to do about a user who will not allow a budget figure to be included from The Hollywood Reporter? —Mike Allen 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rating in infobox

I've noticed in film's infoboxes that they have budget and runtime. Should we place the film's rating in it too? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:59 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not include ratings because they can vary by territory and have different meanings in different societies. We can cover ratings that have some coverage, especially controversial ratings. See WP:FILMRATING. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it the best idea to stay away from the criticism sections of movies?

Back when I was active I defended Bad Boys II and edited the section and acted like a fucking fanboy. I don't wanna do that with any other movie page as it will just harm the articles rather than helping them. So I ask, is it best to stay away from criticism sections and just focus on other aspects of the articles or not do anything at all? I don't trust any project page, as they all have one thing in common. They all contradict each other and even themselves, which is the main reason I don't trust them. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Blaze, many fans of old films have fun quoting contemporary professional reviews. The more time goes by the funnier it usually is. There are so many classic films which are nowadays recognised as milestones by everyone and still at their time there have been critics who thought they knew better. You take away the fun for future readers if you delete certain reviews. Reviews are documents showing later on how difficult it must have been for the producer and the director to finance and realise the film. I am thinking, once your grand-son might ask you about "Bad Boys II" and he could get the impression it hadn't been any achievement at all to write and sell the film because the director only did what everybody else also had in mind. And then you show him the previews and you have proof that once it took a lot of courage to stand up for this film... (talk) The man from Nordhorn 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Canadian film list

{{Canadian film list}} has been nominated for deletion. It is part of a series of national film list templates, but currently contains very few links. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"All films are fiction"

I am seeking clarification on a comment I made in an edit summary earlier today. Regarding this edit I made to the Patton (film) article, I said "All non-documentary films are works of fiction." Is this correct? L1A1 FAL had said "remove all 'fiction' categories- this is a biographical film, since when is that synomyous with fiction?" But, even biographical films, though based on real people and events, are still works of fiction. As I said, I want to clarify this point. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all the fiction cats for a better reason - they are parent cats to the relevant "set in country" cat (eg - France in Fiction is the parent to Films set in France). Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine --- I'd actually not even thought of that --- but, I would still like clarification on my comment. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the biographical aspect is just the subject of the film, the form is still fiction. Smetanahue (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All works of art are a form of "fiction", aren't they? An argument can even be made that most documentaries are a kind of fiction in that documentarians inevitably introduce some amount of POV and personal interpretation into their films, thus making them something other than strictly "non-fiction" or pure presentation of "fact". Shirtwaist ☎ 11:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question on linking to characters

I tried searching for this in addition to looking for precedent and came up empty. Is there a wiki policy about not linking to characters in films based on real people? For example, the Wyatt Earp portrayed in Tombstone is different from the real-life Wyatt earp in a number of ways, as is the version shown in Deadwood. The same argument could be made for films like Patton Boardwalk Empire or Hoffa; films based on real people placed in various degrees of distorted reality. I'm running into conflict with another editor who is removing links to real people portrayed in Black Hawk Down (film). I see no precedent for this, nor a project guideline...can someone here help me out?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe delink and add a see also section, with a note on how close to the actual person the character is? Lugnuts (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly link to the section on media depiction as in Wyatt_Earp#The_Earp_legend_in_film_and_television. That way readers can read up on the background of the real life character, but it's made clear it is a fictional portrayal? Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely how depictions of the Earps and other historical characters of that type should be dealt with in my opinion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no problem with linking an actor's role to the real person that role is either meant to portray or is based on. It's a depiction of that person, even if the depiction differs in some ways from the real-life person. In all likelihood the article on the real-life person is going to discuss various depictions of that person in films, books, etc., so that's where the reader can learn more about the differences between the portrayal and historical fact (this ties into the "All films are fiction?" thread above in that respect). For works of historical fiction, the film article should probably have some discussion of the historical background and the creative licenses taken in the portrayal. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with "George C. Scott as General George S. Patton", or even "Ian McShane as Blackbeard". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, that's the editor I'm having conflict with. I'd like to assume good faithm but perhaps he's singling out this film to make a POINT? As far as I know BHD is the only film depicting the 4 characters with wiki articles in question. I don't see any depictions as over the top portrayals that clash with any historical accounts, except perhaps the MOH Citations, which is addressed in the articles on the two men who died.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked at the history - the reasons being given for removing the links is a bit wrong. It doesn't need to be a documentary film, it's a dramatisation of real events, and dramatises real people. So you're perfectly fine to link to those people, just as the article also links to Battle of Mogadishu - its depiction of the event is as accurate as its depiction of the people involved, after all. GRAPPLE X 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This situation is not the equivalent of Tombstone or Patton. In both of those cases, the people depicted were historically important outside simply the events portrayed in the film. The Wyatt Earp depicted in Tombstone is not necessarily historically accurate in every way, but he is recognizable, as is Patton, by comparison to other depictions. In this case, the individuals had no historical importance outside the events depicted, and there is no way of knowing how accurately they are depicted, and in some cases, "characters" are composites of multiple people who took part in these events. As such, the events and the people involved should be discussed in a section that deals with historical accuracy, with references to show what is true, and where the filmmakers altered the events for the sake of drama.

On another matter, Mike Searson should not have restored the information while discussion was still ongoing (both here and on the article talk page), nor should he accuse me of an "anti-military" bias, which is untrue, utterly irrelevant, and offensive. Keep your comments on the content and on policy, not what you perceive to be other people's thoughts, feelings, or motivations. As he did above, when he accused me of being POINTy.--RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC) -

And the four or five individuals in BHD are historically important as well: 2 Generals, a Pilot who was POW for 11 days, and 2 recipients of the CMH; which is why they have their own wiki articles. I would agree with you if there was a wiki piece on Norm Hooten and Hoot's character played by Eric Bana linked to it as Hoot was a composite that just took the name. I apologize if your feelings were hurt by comments I made.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films

So, here I am again, with problems involving the definition of a film series... Okay, the problem with the template is with the Film Series sections for Fantastic Four, Punisher and Spider-Man, as they all contain films that are from separate continuities. This is a problem for two reasons:

1) The separate continuities mean that they are separate series, and should not be listed under the same film series section (would be a different story if it said "Film Franchises").

2) There is a consistency issue, as "Hulk" (2003) is separated from "the Incredible Hulk", and the two Captain America films separated from "The First Avenger", whilst this separation doesn't occur in other franchises.

As far as I can see there are two main options to fix this problem:

1) The first is the simplest: restrict this template to just listing continuities, which means that "The Fantastic Four", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and all of the Punisher films are moved to the "Single films" category. The sub-categorisation of the MCU would remain, as that refers to different series within the continuity. However, I'm not a massive fan of the "Single films" category, as it leans more towards just making a list of films with no differentiation between them, meaning they're all jumbled up together.

2) List the "franchises". This means that a Captain America section would be created that includes ALL Captain America films (including "The First Avenger"), and the same for Hulk. This causes issues for the MCU, which could be resolved in a number of ways, such as removing the MCU section, and instead, placing asterisks next to films in the MCU, or the MCU section could remain as a section, either being considered as one of the franchises or separate to the franchises (meaning films such as "Hulk" (2003) would be listed twice). Also, when listing franchises, there is the option for sub-categorisation into separate continuities (e.g. under the "Spider-Man" franchise, having a sub-section for the 2002 continuity, and then another for the 2012 continuity). This ends up looking a lot bigger, but it is less misleading, more informative, and probably a well-organised system. But yes, it does increase the size of this template dramatically.

Also, just a quick on-the-side thing, Men in Black and Kick-Ass were originally from other imprints owned by Marvel, and this is clearly illustrated on the List of films based on Marvel Comics page. Differentiating these from the other films in the template would be a good idea.

The same issue was faced on the List of highest-grossing films page, on the Film Franchises and Series section a little while back, and in the end, they went with a similar layout to option 2. Franchises were listed, and elaborated upon in expandable sections, and the size of the table increased considerably (particularly when fully expanded), but that is a table in an article, and this is a template, so it is not necessarily the best option in this case. I have provided several examples for my given options in my Sandbox, the first corresponding to Option 1 (Series division), and the remaining four corresponding to Option 2 (Franchise division, taking subcategorisation in to consideration). My personal preference lies with the "Franchise division, Continuity subdivision, MCU separated" template, which is the largest. A discussion involving this problem has already begun here, where other editors, Spshu and Osubuckeyeguy have also provided examples, which can be taken into consideration. So what option would you think is best? And if anyone has any other options, yell out. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would list the Marvel Cinematic Universe films at the top of the template, horizontally in chronological release order. The rest as they are now I guess. Possiby rename the template to Films based on Marvel Comics Universe superheroes or something to restrict something like Men In Black from being added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would rearrange the entries by franchise, all X-Men films together, all Spider-Man films together and so on. Removing "Film series" removes a bit of in-universe perspective. Besides some series already have there own templates such as Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you have (for example) Captain America: The First Avenger on there twice - once under the Cinematic universe section, and once under a Captain America header with the other two Captain America films? That doesn't seem a bad idea. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would personally get rid of the "Cinematic Universe" section. It's irrelevant. It's better to just keep them in individual film series categories.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Or could we organize them by decade? Seems easy enough and creates fairly distinct production era's. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would remove the cinematic universe section. I would also support Darkwarriorblake's suggestion of listing the films by decade.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So, am I right in saying that a majority of editors seem to feel that dividing it by franchise is the best option? And does this mean that it should be further divided into continuity, or is this unnecessary? And a number of editors are in favour of removing the "Cinematic Universe" section (meaning a link to the cinematic universe page should be provided in the "See also" section). Although I would rather keep it and list the MCU films twice, removing it is okay for me. However, with no acknowledgement of it at all, will probably cause frequent edits from others saying it should be there. And that argument has a point, as the MCU is treated as a film franchise everywhere else on wikipedia. So, I don't mind removing it, but if there was some way of acknowledging it, that would be great. Also, I would strongly oppose listing the films by decade, as only seven of the films were made before 2000. It would be ridiculously unbalanced, causing no organisation. Besides, other connections, such as direct continuity, occur over decades. And these connections are more significant than a fixed period of time that does not necessarily reflect stages of development in Marvel films. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above there is an MCU template, so you can add that template to the article directly below this template. In view of the fact an MCU template exists, this template just needs to focus on franchises and series, and I would model it on the DC one which is nicely organized and intuitive: Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the DC one is fairly neat and well-laid out. However, it has a lot of unrelated films, so the "single films" section kinda works. And because of this, it lists few franchises, and therefore, subdividing into continuity doesn't take up a lot of space. But, I don't really feel the need for a "single films" section on the Marvel films template, and I'm not sure continuity subdivisions are worth it either. And removing the MCU from it is also fine, but I have expressed concerns just above here. For the most part, I feel we should go with the format of the second template in User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox, so I propose we go with that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of the two, I would go with the second one as well. But I was thinking something more on the lines as this. The single films sections makes the template more concise. I also used the term "multiple films" as opposed to franchise or series, to help convey the message that there might not be any in-universe connection to the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I really don't like the "single films" section. We're using it for just three or four films, so we can fully lay it out, and it won't take up much room. And also, I would rather the other imprints films separated, so that it better reflects the article. Also, you are listing it by franchises there, though. And "franchises" shouldn't convey in-universe connection. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not just about the template's current state but also about its potential, the single films section makes the template much more concise. However this is not a huge hang-up for me, and I would support the use of Osubuckeyeguy's second template if nobody else has any other objections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Premise

I've seen "premise" used in place of the "plot" section in several articles (see The Avengers (2012 film). It seems like "premise" is used earlier in the page's development (usually before anyone has seen the film), whereas plot is used later. I didn't see anything about this in the MOS:Film, and I was hoping someone could clarify. Thanks in advance. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Premise" has on occasion been used in cases where there wasn't enough information available (i.e. pre-release) to develop a full "Plot" section, but there was enough reliably-sourced plot information to put something in place. In other words, "Premise" would be a holding section until it can be "upgraded" to "Plot". Doniago (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --TravisBernard (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Martha Marcy May Marlene

For the above film, some edits keep adding that it's "losely based on the Manson Family". When tagged for a source, one was provided, which was a link to the review in the NY Times. Reading the review, it seemed to me that the reviewer was putting their opinion across in regards to the potential link to the Manson Family, so I reverted it (check the edit history). I don't believe this is a reliable source in itself. Any thoughts/comments on this? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume the IP is referring to this passage in the source which states, "Gradually an uglier side of his community emerges, and it starts to look less like a progressive summer camp than a new incarnation of the Manson family.". This is a comparison that the critic is making and is not claiming that the film is based on the actual cult.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 3Threat's assessment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Tuttle in Brazil

There is currently a rather contentious discussion on the Brazil talk page here regarding a possible real-life inspiration for the character Harry Tuttle. I would like some other editors to add their opinions about the relevance of this information and the appropriateness of the sources provided. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: the edit in question clearly states that it is a comparison made by Tim Wu, a Columbia University professor, and placed under "Critical response". I've been advised that it is a WP:SPECULATION, but the linked policy has nothing to do with the case. Other than that, I truly hope that whatever I wrote on the article talk page clarifies the situation. 206.188.135.140 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actor filmography template up for deletion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Film project at CfD

Discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot length

I happened to see a hidden message within Rango (2011 film) article saying that all plots must be between 400-700 words. I have been trying to find the discussion that reached this consensus. Will someone point me the way? Mice never shop (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT contains the actual guideline. If you're after the discussions which lead to it, try searching the talk archives for the page, should turn something up. GRAPPLE X 01:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion about it in the archives can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User adding the Internet Entertainment Database (IEDB.net) to film articles

User FrostAcolyte (talk · contribs) has added the review aggregator IEDb.net to quite a few new film articles. (site example) This is the site's about us page. What are everyone's opinion on adding this along with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? —Mike Allen 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I love it. User:NordhornerII The man from Nordhorn 23:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the example given, it does not seem to add anything not already offered by the other common ext. links. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's rather unspoilt by advertising, isn't it? I call that pleasant to the eye. NordhornerII The man from Nordhorn 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is run by "friends and family" doesn't bode well on the RS front. Are its scores quoted in any secondary sources at all? If not they should be removed from the articles; we already have RT and Metacritic, there is no need to compromise the articles with a questionable source. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Betty that was a red flag I picked up too. I haven't been able to find this site being quoted in any reliable sources. I also can't find how they calculate the scores. @Nordhorner, explaining why you "love it" would be beneficial to this discussion.—Mike Allen 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Mike. "I love it" and "pleasant to the eye" are not very helpful comments and are, frankly, irrelevant to the matter at hand. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on a few things:

1. The aggregation process is explained on this page: (About the aggregator) which is a link in the footer.
2. Each review and score on IEDb is clearly marked under the "reviews" tabs.
3. I found this site while searching for reviews on a movie a while ago (I can't remember which movie), but I spend a lot of time searching for movie reviews for the movies I watch.
4. I spend more time on BOM, MC & RT than any other sites, because I love review aggregation, and found IEDb to include a lot of reviews not found on the other sites.
5. Metacritic seems to add a lot of reviews in the beginning and then not follow through after release with new reviews (you'll see many of my posts say "Metacritic scores unchanged"), so I argue that it's a more reliable source for aggregation than Metacritic.
6. I don't only add IEDb. I've added BOM, RT & MC to film pages where they are missing (and I WILL add them to movie pages wherever I see they are missing), and every time I edit a page, I've opened all 4 sites, BOM, RT, MC & IEDb to compare and I check all sites & scores and update them all. (I added RT to movies like the The Debt (2011 film) & didn't add IEDb)
7. MC is more focused on US sites (about 90% US sites), while I found IEDb to include reviews from a much wider range (UK, Canada, Australia, Europe, Asia etc.) For instance, MC doesn't include reviews from IGN Movies, possibly because they are owned by CBS Interactive, owners of Gamespot which is a rival to IGN. So you have a biased aggregator who hasn't added reviews from it's rival.
8. I love the concept of review aggregation and I've spent more time improving the content from BOM, RT & MC than anything else. I often spend hours checking and making sure everything is as accurate as possible.
9. For movies like Warrior, I added both MC and IEDb.
10. I haven't added IEDb to other movies like Contagion because I didn't feel it added much more than Metacritic. Usually when the review count was very similar. But I just checked and now I see IEDb already has 53 reviews for Contagion while Metacritic STILL only has 38.
11. Aggregation is really a simple process, take reviews and derive an average from the scores (you can do it from both MC & IEDb, with the same reviews they will give the same scores, I know because I checked, basic Math), so I don't feel comments like "reliable source" are valid in this situation, because the "sources" of the scores are the reviews themselves. FrostAcolyte (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, RS does come into this, because if you were just directly quoting the reviews you would not have to go though an aggregator site, you could just quote the reviews directly from the newspaper/magazine that published them. With scores on an aggregator site, you are quoting from them because they have assigned a score and combined them in some way. Even if it is done in an intuitive manner, they are still publishing an opinion not held by the original reviews: they have combined the reviews in some way to advance an idea of critical consensus. Basically anyone one on Wikipedia could set up an aggregator site, and select which reviewers we are going to track, and set our own formula for scoring with radically different results. Selecting reviews and assigning a score is basically an opinion, and for us to include that opinion here on Wikipedia then it must be established as a reliable source in the way it is used i.e. principally, other reliable sources most quote the scores from IEDb like they do with RT and Metacritic; if not then it falls down on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. I have an open mind on this, I don't take the view that we don't "need" it simply because we already have RT and Metacritic, but I take the view that since we have RT and Metacritic we don't need to compromise on source credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have always been very leery of any of these "popularity" contests as they often use data from user reviews/scores rather than more reliable sources such as published reviews or media critics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in reply to Bzuk, Neither MC nor IEDb include user reviews in their aggregates. MC has a separate score for user reviews, IEDb doesn't include user reviews at all. All the reviews on MC & IEDb include direct links to the review publications.FrostAcolyte (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to remove this from articles? —Mike Allen 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's a consensus issue, it's a policy point; whether you look at these scores in terms of RS or Due Weight, they ultimately introduce their own variables into how they present information (even if that's just as basic as review selection) so their legitimacy still needs to be established by secondary publication if they are going to be added. So by all means remove them, and if the editor objects he can always appeal the decision at the RS noticeboard or make an RFC request. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Mike Allen 04:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I would also note that its About page is riddled with spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors, demonstrating that it's simply a fan site and in no way up to professional standards. It's like the old tactic of ordering the simplest thing on a menu — spaghetti, say, at an Italian restaurant. If they can't handle the basic stuff well, they're not going to handle the important stuff well. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Blues Brothers

Can someone with more experience with image use policy have a look at the new images added here, and give an opinion as to whether they are being legitimately used? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say they violate fair use since they don't enhance the critical commentary in any way; they are being used in just an illustrative capacity. On that same note the soundtrack image probably fails too. Betty Logan (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those same lines. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the posters, but not about the soundtrack cover. The cover image passes WP:NFCI criterion #1 as there is critical commentary of the soundtrack album (albeit it couls use some expanding & more sources). This is the same criterion that allows an image of the film poster in the main infobox. The same cannot be said of the alternate poster images. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for the alt poster images either, unless they are accompanied by critical commentary. Shirtwaist ☎ 13:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Sunset Boulevard (film)

I have nominated Sunset Boulevard (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo publisher

I have a quick question. Since Box Office Mojo is owned by the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) according to the website and IMDB is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, should we just change the publisher from Amazon.com to IMDB? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.com still owns and publishes both. Further some editors wary to add "IMDb" in a reference. —Mike Allen 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because IMDb is a subsidiary of Amazon doesn't mean that Amazon publishes IMDb content. The relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary can be complicated, and it doesn't follow that Amazon exercises any kind of editorial control over what IMDb (or Mojo) publishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

On the Box Office Mojo site it credits the copyright on the content to IMDb, not to Amazon, so I'd be inclined to credit the copyright owner as the publisher in such cases. This would be consistent with how book publishers are acknowledged i.e. we go with the actual publisher rather than the holding company (if there is one) of the publisher; for example, if a book is published by Virgin Books we acknowledge Virgin Books as the publisher rather than Virgin Group. As Bbb23 points out, our primary concern is who is exercising editorial control. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

“Superman” credits

I was engaged in a discussion regarding whether Marlon Brando or Christopher Reeve should receive top billing for Superman. Here’s what I initially wrote: “It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star!” Any comments? 67.239.63.243 (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be listed as per how they are listed in the credits to the film. Lugnuts (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess the same applies to Apocalypse Now. 67.239.63.243 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Muppets - portal for deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muppets. — Cirt (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add American cinema task force under WikiProject United States

Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the American cinema task force of WikiProject Film might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include a joint task force for it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the joint task force being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. If have any thoughts, comments or questions, please let me know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's active as much as it is a part of the overall project and the vast majority of work on here is for American films. I have no objection for it to become part of the US WikiProject though. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time on the comment. I will send any individual comment to each active editors of the task force myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

American cinema task force has been added to the WikiProject United States banner

I have added American cinema task force to the WikiProject United States banner since there any no objections. I will begin to asses some of the articles myself. If have any concerns or questions, please let me know or ask at the project. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess all the recently elected Film Co-ordinators are too busy to contribute to this. Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Inland Empire (film) vs. INLAND EMPIRE (film)

Please see the page history for a recent redirect/copy & paste move from the former to the latter titles and this discussion. This doesn't help with the issue on caps vs. no caps for film article titles, but I suspect it's a Wiki policy on all articles and not just films. Can anyone help with the relevant policy link? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the most relevant guideline: MOS:ALLCAPS. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks Betty, I knew it was covered somewhere. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TM also covers it, emphasizing that we use normal English capitalization regardless of the preferences of trademark holders. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I've noticed that WALL-E is styled all in caps - why is this? Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because the name of the film is an acronym (Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth Class) --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Professor. Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, man --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Including co-directed films in director templates

Is there any reason or precedent why films that have been directed by more than one person should or shouldn't be included in a director template? There seems to be inconsistency on this issue, so maybe we should draw up some guidelines. This inconsistency can even exist in the same template - for example at Template:John Landis an editor was removing Amazon Women on the Moon, but leaving The Twilight Zone. I'm all for keeping them in - after all these co-directors were involved in directing these movies. The Jean-Pierre Jeunet template is definitely correct in including the films he directed with Marc Caro, and the individual directors involved in Ro.Go.Pa.G. all have this film mentioned in their individual templates (Godard, Rossellini, Pasolini). Many other examples exist, but for a couple more, how about the directors of Dead of Night, or the directors of Stimulantia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be hit and miss; if you check out Aria (film), some director templates (Roeg/Russell/Jarman) include it while others (Altman/Godard) omit it; my personal preference is to include the film, but make sure it's clear they co-directed or directed just a segment. Both the Rodriguez and Tarantino templates include Four Rooms as well. Templates can easily accommodate co-directed works, even if it's simply by adding a row called "co-directed works"—there is no good reason to just remove the films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean - it shouldn't be "hit and miss". It seems sensible to include these films, so should we update a guideline to say that they should (or shouldn't - if that is consensus) be included so that there aren't these potential edit wars? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Did they direct any part of the film? Yes. Then include them in the template. Lugnuts (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Skid Marks (film)

I came accross this article tagged for proposed deletion. As the film has been released and has recieved coverage in multiple reliable sources,[2] I began some expansion and sourcing and then removed the tag. This is something I would do for ANY film article so tagged. But as much as I might like to make the article better for the poject, and as able as I might be to make the article neutral and encyclopdic, I feel I cannot continue due to my having had a 5-second apearance in the film. And as much as I feel I have the skills to vastly improve the article, I do not wish even a seeming of conflict of interest. I do not personally benefit from the article remaining or being deleted, as my scene was incredibly brief and I do not receive residuals from that minor appearance. As the article is improvable, I bring it here and ask that others look into it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you can work on in your userspace and then someone else could add it to the article (after reviewing it). Personally I don't see it as a conflict, you have the skills to improve the article, and it probably won't ever get improved and thus deleted.. so I don't see a problem. You're not even listed in the main cast! —Mike Allen 00:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek 2 (2013 film) and WP:NFF

There seems recently to be a movement against the notability guideline for future films. It is largely overlooked in AfD discussions. Is it time to revisit this guideline? Personally I'm all for it, but I'm getting a little fed up of it being ignored and overridden. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should rewrite WP:CRYSTAL while we're at it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to peruse the guideline WP:FFILM, which addresses how guideline WP:NFF is sometimes seen to conflict with policy WP:FUTURE, a policy which itself does allow properly sourced discussion of events that have not yet occured... even planned films. As long as we have proper sourcing, we can find a place for the information, even if not in a separate article. I have not yet opined at the AFD you linked, but believe that at a minimum, we can allow the article to be userfied or incubated out of respect to NFF and the willingness shown by editors to continue improving the article. After which we can then set without prejudice set a redirect of the title to a parent topic elsewhere where the unmade film might be discussed in context to the film franchise... such as either Star Trek (film series)#Reboot or at Star Trek (film series)#Films and allow its return to mainspace when principal filmming begins. Seems a reasonable compromise that meets both policy and guideline without rewriting either or bending them into pretzels. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Music videos

Hey y'all. Does anyone recall, or have an opinion on, if music videos fall within the scope of this project? Or if they classify as a film? I've ran into an issue at We Found Love (video). At first, I thought that the {{Infobox film}} was inappropriate for this article, as it seems that we mainly use it for feature films. However, we also have used it for short films and it seems that we can qualify it as film; the article music video considers them short films. It seems now, there is an issue over the disambiguator "(video)". If we consider these films, then it seems that we should use the same naming conventions explained at WP:NCF and use "(film)". Any input? BOVINEBOY2008 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a vacillation. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Firstly, film infoboxes are appropriate for both feature length and short films. And in looking at two cogent examples, Michael Jackson's Thriller video has an IMDB listing as a video and so does M.I.A.'s Born Free. For Micheal there is use of a film infobox. For M.I.A. there is use of one of the Music infobox templates. With cast, crew, production information and enough information to write a nicely encyclopedic article, we can treat the more major and well-covered ones under project film and allow use of a film infobox, without a big worry. The minor videos which do not provide similar high levels of sourcable production information, we should not and instead use an appropriate Music infobox template. No doubt this contradiction in usage will be hashed out at project music, and such as Thriller can and will be converted, but for now... we can let sleeping dogs snore peacefully and let Project Music make the final decision. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Thriller is a short film which contains the music video - it's much longer than just the song portion, and is properly termed a short film rather than a promotional video. The same goes for a few of Michael Jackson's videos, but I can't think of any other artists off hand. However, other famous videos, such as Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer", are just the song's length and are mostly produced for promotional purposes, no matter their notability or content. Unless it's likely to be filled out to a signicant degree of completion, I don't really know what the merits of using the film infobox really is for those, though. GRAPPLE X 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the others. :) At at 14 minutes Jackson's Thriller video is definitely longer than the song. Similarly, M.I.A.'s Born Free video at 9 minutes is more than double the length of the 4-minute song performed live Thus, both videos might be considered films based upon the shorter songs which inspired them. In these two examples, one uses a film infobox and the other uses a music infobox. So I suppose if the video is markedly longer in length than the song which inspired it, and can be considered a short film in and of itself, we might best use the film infobox. Not arguing for a radical change though, as all any infobox is for is to assist readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there used to be a {{Infobox Music Video}}, but it has since been redirected to {{Infobox film}}. I really think we should be consistent with videos and decide what all of them should use. And still, what naming conventions should be used? BOVINEBOY2008 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we might wish to avoid drama. :) While I agree with consistancy, there was a rather heated discussion a few months back over at project Opera about whether or not to even use perosn infoboxes for opera singers, and if so, what to include and why. In the cases of film infoboxes for music videos, there will be those wishing to treat them as music only and include information about genre and studios and albums and more. Things not consistant with treating them as film. And too, often a music video does not have the same independent notability as does the music or musician, and would best be mentoned in the artist's article or song's article. So I think we might best to consider such on a case by case basis, and not declare some style that cannot be appiled equally to all.... and consider we really do not want to clutter up a film infobox with paramaters applicable only to music and musicians. Perhaps this question might best be asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music? Just when do they consider a muic video as a film? The way I see it it is creating a drama when non need exist by drawing a hard line in the sand between film and music videos... specially as both were created for similar reasons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing after coming across of a few of them. I'm on the fence because some of them have a lot of production value but they aren't films in the classic sense. Pink sweat is a really strange one I found. I would like to know what the consensus is because doing it on a video to video basis is going to create a lot of arguments. --Peppage^tlk 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Need some help editing an article...

Hello there. If you look carefully at the info box for The Dungeonmaster, you'll see that it's a little screwed up. I'd like to fix it, but I don't know how. Help would be appreciated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox? Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll know how to do that next time I see that kind of problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Big brother needs a home

B movie has an article, but A Movie and A Film redirect to unexpected places. Anybody have any suggestions for sources to create an article? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the term "A Film/Movie" was never used to describe a "feature film", which usually was the main attraction in a two-film engagement. Main features were called just that - "main feature" or just "feature" - so I believe the article Feature film would cover that. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you had the "main feature" and the "B-feature", which of course were referred to as "feature films" and "B-movies" when considered as separate entities. I have never heard the term "A-movie" or "A-film". Can we demonstrate that these terms were ever actually used in this capacity? If they weren't, there is no need to change where they link to. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, people in the business often used the term "A picture" when referring to films that were not B movies. This was a big issue among producers and exhibitors of Westerns in the 1930s, for instance, because A Westerns were in general not successful and thus most Westerns were B movies. One of the significant things about John Ford's Stagecoach was that it was a successful A picture. One scholar talks about Ford, John Wayne and the A picture here. And some of the ads even playfully emphasized that it was an A picture not a B movie, such as here. I think it would not be bad to have a short article on the A picture. Michitaro (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems it was an American term mostly, you can read up on its origins here. The term does seem to be "A picture" though, so I am not sure to what extent "A Film" and "A movie" apply. A Film is a redirect so that could just made into a DAB; A Movie is an article, so maybe we can hatnote that with a link to Feature film. As for an article about the "A-Picture", it's basically just historic terminology for Feature film so I don't think a separate article is required. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "feature film" has multiple meanings. It can of course refer to the feature movie in a multiple film bill, which in many cases would be equivalent to the A picture. But when the term emerged, it was a feature picture because it was long, which is why feature film is also a term used to refer to films more than a certain length (e.g., feature-length movies). This definition is not equivalent to A picture, since B movies can also be feature length. The Wikipedia entry on feature film emphasizes the latter definition, so one can say that the meaning of "A picture" is not represented on Wikipedia. Michitaro (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "A-picture" was widely used in any context other than that used by the two sources as the apparent "opposite" of B-picture. Are they assuming that because there is such a thing as a "B-picture", there must be an "A-picture"? I tried to find "A-picture" in numerous movie term dictionaries, which do mention "B-pictures", and found none. If it was that common a term, you'd think it would at least appear in such places. Consequently, anyone creating an "A-picture" article would be hard-pressed to find sources that A)explain its origin and B)document its widespread use similar to the ubiquitous "B-picture", but they are welcome to try. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good encyclopedias like the Ephraim Katz encyclopedia do have it listed (p. 48 of the 6th edition). It is true that is that is an antiquated term. It is very much a term that denotes a particular form of distribution and exhibition practice (making and releasing double features) that does not exist anymore. B-movie as a term has survived because its meaning has changed or expanded. It no longer just refers to the second, lesser feature in a double feature, but to a kind of filmmaking or genre. The term A picture did not last, except in film scholarship on this period of double features, because what it referred to didn't really exist anymore (or more precisely, because all films became A pictures in the sense that they were the main film you were paying to see). Whether we have an article on it on Wikipedia is merely a question of whether people think it is important to talk about a real, definite, but past historical phenomena. There are plenty of such articles on Wikipedia. But it would take some digging and require some expertise to create a good article. But it would not be impossible because it is an established term among film historians (again, Katz cites it), and is used in dozens of books and articles. Michitaro (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me, then, that the best course for the OP to take regarding such an obsolete and relatively obscure term would be to use the sources you speak of to integrate any "A picture" material into the B movie article, as the two terms were originally used in the same context, then create a redirect from "A movie/film/picture" to B movie. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calculating Film Gross

Recently, when I was working on the articles You Are the Apple of My Eye and Starry Starry Night, I discovered that Box Office Mojo did not present the full gross figures for the two films. For example, the figures for Taiwan and China are not included, thereby greatly reducing their gross figures. Therefore, should I find other sources with reliable box office gross and add into the one presented by Box Office Mojo, or does anyone know of an alternative to Box Office Mojo? Thanks.--Lionratz (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Year and genre category for deletion

Discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC : Notability of foreign language works

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

---

A proposal that : As this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary users of this wiki are English speakers

Works which are in a foreign language

must have one of

• a) coverage in English language sources
• b) significant screenings/showings/sales in markets which are primarily (or significantly) English speaking
• c) a higher standard of notability in foreign language sources, indicating that the work is likely of lasting value and interest.

(Basically, do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Bollywood/Japanese/Etc film and c-list star? Those interested in that artist are likely to be using the applicable language wikipedia in any case. Works that would be of interest to those who are not using the applicable language wiki are covered by a-c

Gaijin42 (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−6)

I think that probably goes against the general notability guidelines. We can't preclude anything that would be allowed under general notability. Basically if someone created an article and we put it up for AfD because we had a guideline against Korean sources, then AfD would kick our guideline into the grass. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

good point. I had originally intended to do this as a general item, but thought that proposing in the individual projects would make sense. But I will make a similar proposal in the general guidelines. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the final sense of this proposal, having a English-culture-centered Wiki? And subsequently having a long series of national Wikis that exclude everything is "stranger" to them and to their language? and maybe, next step, a Texas-wiki opposed to an Alaska-wiki, and an Original English Wiki that reflect the European spirit of Britsh culture opposed to an American-Wiki for USA users? As English language is described as "the first global lingua franca, the dominant language or in some instances even the required international language of communications, science, information technology, business, seafaring" English WP is the Global, International WP, it is the resource that everyone, everywhere, could easily consult. If the question is "do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Bollywood/Japanese/Etc film and c-list star?", the answer is "no, we don't need it", but exactly as we don't need an article on "every English-Language film" and "every English c-list star". --Cavarrone (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the English Wikipedia covers the world. It's the English Wikipedia only in the sense that the articles are written in English. (The same, is true of the other language encyclopedias -- though they may emphasise a little the topics of their language area, they cover the world also, including the Anglophone countries). What we sometimes have is the difficulty in finding sources, because good sources for some countries are not readily available, but when we do have sources, and people who know enough to use them, they should be included on the same basis as those with English sources. People reading this encyclopedia will, after all, benefit from learning about things elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This would be the start of the thin end of the wedge if non-English articles were deemed to be less notable that English ones. Point A) goes against the basic policy of sourcing any article, point B) needs a definition of "significant" and point C) fails completly with a "higher standard". How is that defined? We have plenty of policies already that can be used if a non-notable foreign-language film article is created. Lugnuts (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "English Wikipedia" only means that the Wikipedia articles are in English. And this sounds like a terrible idea no matter what. What would be the gain of it? Smetanahue (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with the concerns by Lugnuts and Smetanahue; the proposal goes against the general notability guidelines. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose There are no Wikipedias especially for the USA, Kanada, Australia or New Zealand. So it occurs to me the so-called "English Wikipedia" is actually an International Wikipedia by nature. I know how it is to read here about a film or a TV show which is unavailable. I am really disappointed that neither "Matt Houston" nor "Houston Knights" have been released on DVD yet. Does that mean, because nobody can see watch these shows right now they are also notable for... nobody? I am afraid availibility and notability are different things. NordhornerII(talk) The man from Nordhorn 03:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I was making no statement on the nationality of an item. Merely the language it was written in. All english media, regardless of where produced would enter under the existing criteria. Foreign language would not be barred, just having a higher bar of notability. However, I do accede to WP:SNOW. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I would quit Wikipedia if this was ever approved. Wikipedia is supposed to be an "encyclopedia," a word whose roots mean "all-around knowledge." You can rename it "Anglo-centric Wikipedia", but that would go against the principles of our endeavors. Guidelines on notability are there to restrict what can enter the encyclopedia (since this is supposed to be collection of knowledge, not trivia), but not to restrict the culture or the point of view of the encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia is already as it is, because of its language focus, biased towards Anglo-American culture, even though that by no means represents human knowledge. It should be our jobs to help spread knowledge, even if it is not yet well-known in the English literature, not reinforce the cultural barriers that already exist. Michitaro (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose A writeup on Systemic bias specifically highlights the problem of not having adequate coverage of popular non-English cultures. If we invoke this requirement, then wouldn't this problem get worse? In addition, a non-English sources is not automatically less reliable than an English one. Conversely, by setting the bar higher, many of the important information on non-English sources that English ones do not carry cannot be included. This will seriously degrade the coverage of many articles, which I believe is not what we editors would like to see. Therefore, I propose that all sources, no matter what language it is in, should use the same yardstick to assess its reliability. This would be fair, since unreliable sources in any language (including in English) have no place in Wikipedia. We should not be biased against sources in other languages just because we do not understand them.--Lionratz (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose While this is the English Wikipedia and yes, the primary users of this wiki are English speakers, we are intended to be an encyclopdia that covers the entire world... and not "just" the English-speaking world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

RFC: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auteurs

Would appreciate some further input. Note that I nominated it after seeing it WP:REFUNDed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Lost (2012 film)

My favourite subject - films that have yet to enter production! Anyone have anything to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sin City

Anyone care to help in straightening this article out? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:30 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done my bit. Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment some time back on the article's talk page in regards to the plot section, which seems overly-long and -complicated. I think that could be honed down considerably. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 06:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films format

Okay, so after about a month of discussion, we've come up with the following template. Noone so far has any problems with it, so I figured I'd check with everyone here. If you have any feedback, yell out.

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Arabeem Ottakom P. Madhavan Nayarum in Oru Marubhoomikkatha

I cannot italicize the film title even after using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Can someone see through the problem? DdraconiandevilL (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The only way I could get it to work was by moving {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to the bottom, thus solving overrides from {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox album}}. jonkerz♠ 07:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Hey all, we could use some additional input at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)#Writing Credits. Essentially Thunderlippps (talk · contribs) is insisting that some of the credited writers on the film did not in fact have anything to do with it, and has resorted to edit-warring to get his way. Any additional opinions would be welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wings

I saw a sad sight today: the state of Wings, the first Best Picture Academy Award winner. How have we neglected this for so long, it's such a historic and legendary film. And it's 85 years old next year (another major film anniversary). Shall we all chip in and make this the way it deserves to be. RAP (talk) 21:58 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look at this later. I'm sure there will be some buzz about this film riding off the back of the current buzz around The Artist and its possible Oscar nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page for article not passing WP:GNG

I have created User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It is questionable whether the article passes WP:GNG. I started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Alfonso_Gomez-Rejon_.3F that has not gotten much feedback and none since I have done the sandbox creation. I need some more feedback on whehter this article is ready for article space either for WP:FILMMAKER #3 or for WP:IAR rationales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Push it into the article-space and see if any clown sends it to AfD. Nothing ventured... Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of upcoming films at AfD

Please see this and this. They smack of hoaxes to me, but I could be wrong. Both created by the same user, no refs given, nothing on Google, etc. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All of the new articles created by this person have now gone to AfD. Tags and notices have been placed on his talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Re Wrong Turn 2: Dead End. Recently, an editor, User:87Stone, has edited the plot summary's fairly good English into what is clearly poor English which appears to be written by someone whose native language is not English.[3] I have reverted him twice, but he persists in restoring his own odd version.[4][5] He has not provided a single edit summary to justify these changes. Since I originally rewrote this section myself (it was formerly not in very good English and contained a number of inaccuracies), and therefore do not wish to be seen to be laying claim to the section's ownership, and also do not wish to revert him three times, I would appreciate comment on the talk page on these edits. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

An Eye for Detail

Why is An Eye for Detail part of this WikiProject? It's a comic book story, not a film. JIP | Talk 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a mistag. I changed it to Comicsproj and WikiProject Disney. jonkerz♠ 17:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)