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)