Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 38: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.
Line 573: Line 573:
{{Resolved}}
{{Resolved}}
Could I get some other opinions [[Talk:Margin_Call#Budget_figure|here]] on what to do about a user who will not allow a budget figure to be included from The Hollywood Reporter? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Mike</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Allen</font>]]'''</span> 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some other opinions [[Talk:Margin_Call#Budget_figure|here]] on what to do about a user who will not allow a budget figure to be included from The Hollywood Reporter? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Mike</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Allen</font>]]'''</span> 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? ''[[User: Rusted AutoParts|<font face="Rockwell" size="3" style="color:#000000;color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></font>]]'' ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Erik|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. [[User:BlazeTheMovieFan|BlazeTheMovieFan]] ([[User talk: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... ([[User talk:NordhornerII|talk]]) The man from Nordhorn 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

== [[Template:Canadian film list]] ==

{{tl|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. [[Special:Contributions/70.24.248.23|70.24.248.23]] ([[User talk:70.24.248.23|talk]]) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:21, 25 November 2011

Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 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)

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.[1]
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.[2]

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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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:
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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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)

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? --Peppagetlk 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.

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.

  • 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)

Would some previously uninvolved editors care to weigh in on the discussion underway on this talk page? It would be a big help. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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:

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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 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)

{{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)