Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Remove link from Talkartoon page?

There is an external link at the bottom of the entry on Talkartoons, called "List of Talkartoons" which does do that, but is really a swap site of an individual for trying to arrange swaps of copies of old cartoons.

Would something like this actually meet the rules of Wikipedia, especially as the link shown above it is a legitimate listing of those shorts as well.

I did not remove it, as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedure and don't want to get involved in someone's turf war over "who did what to my article." But I brought it up for someone more knowledgable than me to make that decision.

J. Kulacz 24.119.221.235 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate per the WP:EL criteria, as it does not add any substance to the article. You can be bold and remove it with that backing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

Hey, um, I need help working on the Sakura Wars: The Movie article. I am working on it in User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars: The Movie. Can you give me some facts on how to expand it and point out to some sources Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Americanfilmlist}}

Why do we have an incomplete list for every year of the United States' cinema? The lists will probably be perpetually incomplete, their purpose would probably be better served by categorization, they are magnets for non-free media violations, and so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (a) some of the articles listed within (b) this template itself (c) various internal Wikipedia pages (talk, WP:, etc.) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree and would support a TfD. As you said, it is already better served with categorization. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the template itself is actually pertinent, but only because we have all of these lists. It's the lists themselves that I don't understand. If the lists were depreciated into categorization of the articles within, then TfD the template itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, true. Maybe a PROD of the lists, or AfD if someone deprods. I really don't see what purpose they serve that categorization can't serve better. It seems like most of those are mostly the work effort of a single editor. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible "fake" film?

Could someone with some knowledge of Surrealist films take a look at Topsy and Bunker: The Cat Killers? I've done some research through Google and am not convinced the film even exists. It's listed at IMDB and about 15-20 other websites, but none of them can be considered reliable sources. On sites that aren't copies of here or IMDB, the movie is listed in conjunction with either Steve Gunderson (actor), Kathy Najimy, or Paul Robertson, almost always in bios (like "Najimy, the star of "Sister Act" and "Topsy and Bunker"...) Only on Robertson's personal site is there much information - [1]. The plot summaries here and at IMDB are virtually identical. No one has it for sale. IMDB links back here.

So can anyone prove the film exists? Truthfully, even if it's real, it's a candidate for Afd - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Hope someone has fun with this one :) If I'm needed, leave a message on my talk since I'm not a regular reader here. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's fake. A result like this shows the film. It could simply be a very small-scale film. I'll see if I can dig up anything more reliable to ensure this film is authentic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was either never released or never finished. Most films get listed at places like IMDb when they're still in pre-production, with the intended release year, and often not removed when they don't end up going into production or are never released. There was a film called Zonad by John Carney that I wondered about for several years, but couldn't get my hands on and couldn't find any information on. At one point, I found a clip on YouTube, and it looked very low-budget. Finally, when Once became a big success and Carney was getting attention, word came from Variety that the film was little more than a rough unreleased video, and now Carney is planning to make Zonad with a full-fledged budget. Yet Zonad was listed all over the place for years. Was it real? Yes. Did anyone specify that it had never come out? No. Because why would it get any press attention when it had never come out? So it may exist... but not be notable. --Melty girl (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it's not fake -- there's a review of the film at the Orlando Sentinel from May 29, 1993. An excerpt: "The truth, however, is that this peculiar organization has only two members: a demented soul known as Topsy and his loyal soldier, the kindhearted, retarded Bunker. In Topsy & Bunker - an unquestionably strange and often effective black comedy - these misfits live together in a rundown Manhattan apartment building plotting the death of the feline species... Neither has ever actually killed a cat, and Bunker secretly likes them. But to please Topsy - who has somehow gotten it into his head that cats are causing people to starve by eating their food - Bunker gives lip service to what Topsy calls 'the final solution'... Despite everything, these men seem to manage fairly well until, one day, a cat happens to wander into their apartment..." That's at least one reliable source with significant coverage of the film. Could be more out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New film group

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Film. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help review the article Golden Film

The Golden Film article is close to being a featured article. I need feedback (peer review) for the last improvements before (re)nomination for FA. You help is much appreciated. – Ilse@ 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Globes

As a heads-up to all editors involved with films, the Golden Globe Awards has its nominations announced. Perhaps we can collaborate on an award-nominated film drive for the films and actors in question. At this this gives us an idea of what will be looked upon during award season. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What have you got in mind? A quick run-through of the articles on these people and films to tidy them up to at least a basic standard? I'd be available for something like that, sure. Probably most only need a cursory glance, but I'll compile a list anyway. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A list of the Golden Globe-nominated films and people can now be found at User:Liquidfinale/Future/List. I've made a start with some basic assessments, and will continue later on this evening. Feel free to chip in. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 11:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Pixelface has implemented mention of the nominations wherever applicable, so that is covered. I was thinking more along the lines of providing background information for these films, which I believe is not always easy to accomplish. The Plot section is obviously easy to write, and the Critical reaction section can harvest reviews from Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'll see about doing a headline dump for these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I have been looking at the 65th Golden Globe Awards article and going to a few of the film articles and mentioning the nominations. Production information may be a little more difficult to provide, but the awards are about 4 weeks away. --Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I should have waited for a reply before charging headlong into it. What exactly do you mean by 'background information'? The usual development/production stuff? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I was thinking that all the film articles should be decked out with clean film infoboxes, external links, categories, and minimal critical reaction sections with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (as that's easy to pull off without having to see the film). I think that the biggest challenge for film articles in general is an in-depth production section. For example, a film like The Painted Veil (2006 film) (not related to this) is currently void of such information. Right now, I'm working on a draft at User:Erik/The Painted Veil which provides a lot of background information about the film than on the mainspace. For the nominated films' production sections, we could present citations on their talk pages for later implementation and focus on whatever film article may be to our liking. I personally think that a film like No Country for Old Men (film) should have a respectable production section as it seems pretty well-recognized as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Current fiction

Template:Current fiction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Year in film

There is a discussion at the talk page of the numbers manual of style that will potentially affect all film articles. Wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007]] would be removed from all film articles (and every article it seems) and replaced with 2007. I noticed the Zodiac (film) article has already been edited in such a way. --Pixelface (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Pixleface. I followed the thread there about "surprise" date links, and, yeah, we may have an issue. I like the 2007 practice (or for literature, or baseball, etc.); it is much more informative than just 2007. I agree it shouldn't be used with full dates, since it disrupts the date format function, but as a reader of fiction articles, I found it useful (and even valuable) to place the subject of the article in a temporal context. It appears the proposal is going in the direction of permitting the practice where "compactness" is a concern, such as in tables and infoboxes. I'm going to argue that a Lead shares some of those same "compactness" qualities.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I try to use 2007 film. Would this be acceptable? The JPS^{talk to me} 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If certain editors keep using their script (which can do at least 8 edits per minute from what I've seen), wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007 film]] would be changed to 2007 as far as I know. You can see one such script here: User:Lightmouse/monobook.js. Lightmouse said " If the links are needed, you might want to put something like 'see [year in blah]'." --Pixelface (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Avriri Cinema

Hi. There is some film related article in question for deletion. its called Avriri, its a film manifesto and movement from Israel. Marina T. (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with an article

I recently started a page for Son of the Shark and was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me improve the article. Thanks! --Sharkface217 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a little work on it (infobox, stub, categories), but it still needs expanding. Jauerback (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for Once?

Anyone care to pitch in or at least advise on what Once needs work on in order to get ready for GAC? In particular, the Reception and Box office sections need something, but I'm not sure what. BTW, this was one of the most positively reviewed films of the year and it's up for Grammys. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python's Life of Brian

Hi folks, I'm not a member of this project, but recently I decided to start cleaning up Monty Python's Life of Brian. One of the first things I noticed was a large section devoted to "Romani ite domum", which was a very small part of the film. However, I have since been reverted by several users and I have been told that I can not win. If I am to have any hope of getting the page to GA status, the section has to go because it is overdetailing of a single sketch (per WP:PLOT) and has no real world context (per WP:FICT) and apparantly the reason it HAS to be in the article is because of a merge proposal from a year ago. Anyway, if people would like to comment on this, please do so here. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan Cumming‎: Mental breakdown?

In Alan Cumming‎: "In 1985, he married Hilary Lyon. However, they divorced in 1993" [Then suddenly, out of the blue --] "following his mental breakdown" -- "His mental breakdown" is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Is this vandalism or just crap editing or what? If the latter, could we please add a line or two on this elsewhere in the article. (And, you know, a cite - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources .) - 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for you, but I've removed the passage in question in its entirety per WP:BLP. It shouldn't be restored unless it can be cited reliably. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding an external link

Hello to the members of the project. I have a question regarding an external link that was added to several pages today. User:Animalz Records has added this link Universal Monsters Forum to many horror picture related pages seen here [2]. The link looks a little iffy to me per WP:LINKS but I wanted other members of the project to take a look. This user seems to have added only two things to wikipedia. Ads for this editors record label on their userpage and this link. If you are okay with this link then I won't worry about it, but, if not then maybe someone with the ability to roll back a large number of entries might take care of this. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate link. A good way to tell is if a single link is being solicited across multiple pages that does not have the consensus of the WikiProject (such as IMDb, AMG, BOM, RT, etc). I keep a sort of a linkspam blacklist for such solicitations. I'll leave a message on the editor's talk page and start removing the link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Tom Tresser cleaned up most of the links. If anyone needs to track down linkspam in the future, you can go to Special:Linksearch and type the URL of the solicited website there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

I would like to hear editors' thoughts about what should and what should not go into the Marketing section of a film article. I think that such sections have been a relatively new phenomenon, as I believe that the trend started with Spider-Man 3, which originally accumulated rather indiscriminate detail about trailers and TV spots for that particular film. That section has been re-shaped since. So my question is, what aspects of a film's marketing warrants inclusion? For example, trailers and TV spots are commonplace. What about other aspects, like toys or memorabilia or contests? For example, Cloverfield has a contest going, but I removed the information from the article because it sounded too promotional. My current thought process has been to report on aspects of marketing that may be unique to the film (and hopefully independently reported by a reliable source) -- viral marketing, controversial products (like the Rise of the Silver Surfer coins), poor release campaign, etc. However, all of this is pretty much tacit knowledge. Does anyone think that a description of such a section would be warranted at WP:MOSFILM as an optional section (not at all required)? Here's a list of films that have some form of a Marketing section:

1. Spider-Man 3#Marketing
2. The Dark Knight (film)#Marketing
3. The Fountain#Marketing
4. Cloverfield#Marketing
5. I Am Legend (film)#Marketing
6. Fight Club (film)#Marketing
7. Iron Man (film)#Marketing
8. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)#Marketing
9. The Simpsons Movie#Marketing

Feel free to review these sections and comment on what's seemed appropriate and what hasn't seemed appropriate. Also, if you have other examples to share, feel free to do so, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you forget Transformers, and Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End? They got a lot in the box office too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- Transformers (film)#Marketing and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End#Marketing. But my intention isn't to promote the blockbuster-esque films -- I think they just tend to get more coverage for their marketing because of what they are. However, I'm working on User:Erik/The Painted Veil#Marketing, which shows how marketing did not work out for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I always feel that when trailers or posters debut is trivial. But marketing is a major part of how a film is received, and I feel many of these sections are very well done. Alientraveller (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. An interesting question, to be sure. I know with TV articles, a merchandise-type section is commong, but that deals purely with products, etc resulting from the show such as books, toys, games, etc. For sections specifically on the marketing tactics on a movie, I don't think articles should be covering every last trailer and TV spot. That's just trivia data. I do agree, though, that unique or controversial market should be included, either in a section of its own or as a subsection of the production details. Looking at the examples you give, the Sweeny Todd should go (just a review of ads...not really notable and one I'd argue with since its pretty obvious to me that its a musical :P), Spider-Man 3 is a decent start, Dark Knight is doing good, The Fountain's graphic novel is good info but the rest needs to be axed (again, just yapping about trailers and what not), Cloverfield good and certainly one of the most notable marketing campaigns to date.

All that yapping aside, I think some guidelines are needed to keep a tight control on it to ensure every last movie page doesn't just get glutted with listings (and worse, links to) trailers and "trailer reviews" and the like. Collectonian (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about merchandise? I think we can agree that it's not worth mentioning trailers and TV spots for the most part (with Cloverfield being an exception), but merchandise is a little trickier. It's not universal for all films -- you're likely not going to find action figures for No Country for Old Men (film) (though that'd be badass), but you'll find them for pretty much all the superhero films. I am thinking that if we have detailed coverage from secondary sources about a film's merchandise, that would be a threshold for inclusion. The other day, I was shopping for the holidays, and I saw calendars based on films and realized that I've never seen a citation that talks about calendars for films. I think appropriate examples may be something like Transformers in which it's reported that the toys for the film got a specific design, but I could be wrong. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise is very cool. Video games, novelizations, theme parks, all very encyclopedic, and sometimes films like X-Men 3 didn't get any toys out. And there's only one reason Hasbro are letting the film rights to their toys go... Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think merchandise should be mentioned, though not necessarily a detailed list. Like with Transformers, I think you are right and they made a new line of toys based on the movie, so that should be noted (though no need to list every toy in the line). Lunch boxes are common, especially older movies where the lunchbox may be a collector's item now, limited edition prints, etc. That kind of thing :) Merchandise would also be a nice place to put the DVD/VHS, etc info *grin* And, as Alientraveller kind of mentioned, it might even be notable when there is no merchandise (like X-Men 3...seriously??? be interesting to see if there are sources about why... )Collectonian (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, marketing does go hand-in-hand with the film's release schedule and its home videos, in it being how the product is presented to the public. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that video games based on films are generally encyclopedic -- there's a pretty big market out there, and most video games from the major consoles have plentiful coverage. For novelizations, though... I'm not really sure if they got as much attention. I think that it'd be OK to have an article about a novelization if it meets notability standards and all, but I've seen little interest in writing an entire article about a novelization. I've generally put information about the novelization in a "Further reading" section using the Cite book template. Sometimes there's some content about the novelization, like I included for Road to Perdition#Other media. I think the key here for most merchandise is to permit mention when there's substantial coverage. That's why I'm not so sure about action figures -- for something like Transformers and G.I. Joe is understandable due to the films being based on toy lines, but if this is not the case, how much mention do action figures and toys really warrant? I noticed that the Featured Articles for Superman and Batman have no mention about merchandise based on them. I think there's a line between the historical relevance of a film's marketing and reporting every product they make in conjunction with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should approach this the same way we approach the tag line. If it's important, put it in. Every film has a tag line. Every film has marketing. However, some tag lines are important. "In space no one can hear you scream." "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water." If the marketing is important, include it. It has to be covered in a reliable source, of course. It has to be original, or outside the box. On Transformers: They started as action figures. Then they became a TV show, and then the movie. A discussion of the action figures is actually a discussion of the films affect on the source material. That is important. It just so happens to be merchandise. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Recent film

As soon as Current Fiction was deleted, new templates were made for recent film and recent book. Both are now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Recent film and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Recent book. Collectonian (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing {{recent film}} has to do with {{current fiction}} is that the idea to create {{recent film}} came to me during the TFD for {{current fiction}}. The template {{recent film}} applies to all films, including documentaries. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet film directors' categories

Is there any reason why there are two categories for this - Category:Russian film directors and Category:Russian and Soviet film directors ? Should all entries in the former be moved to the latter with the former being deleted? Lugnuts (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How about having Category:Russian film directors and Category:Soviet film directors? There will be some overlap, but the Soviet Union and Russia aren't the same thing. If a director lived and worked in Russia during the Soviet Union, he can fall under both categories. If he lived and worked outside of Russia but still in the Soviet Union, the latter category would apply. If I misunderstood the background, excuse my ignorance and feel free to correct me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no I think you've got it spot on there. Russian/Soviet history isn't a topic I know a great deal about! Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The main thing which needs to be confronted is the attempt by many of Russian heritage or sympathies to deny there ever was a

Soviet Union or, at best, that uninfluenced "Russian culture" proliferated throughout the Soviet decades when, in fact, everyone, and especially those in film, worked for and were supervised by agents of the *Soviet* government. That the Russian language was usually promoted as a defacto official language throughout the Union's "autonomous Republics" does not alter the fact that there were for over 70 years wholly Soviet films and film personalities, along with a few who integrated from the preceding Russian Empire, and a somewhat larger number who transformed into the liberated Russian cinema when the USSR was disbanded. Revisionism is the greatest threat here: even for cases of overlappers (and there are an enormous number of people whose entire film career, and product, were wholly and even willing nationals of the Soviet Union), there is a distinct history for purely Russian (to the end of 1917 and not picked up again until 1992) films, directors, writers, producers, photographers, performers, etc., and a whole 'nother history with categories for the same types as "SOVIET film ........" Pretending none of the latter existed, or in so small a quantity as to not be "notable" by Wikipedian standards, is ridiculously anti-encyclopedic, anti-academic, anti-intellectual, and anti-reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.197.56 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate titles

Is there any guideline regarding actual titles vs. promotional ones? I notice that most articles that are affected by this (e.g., Goodfellas, Superman, X2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) give both versions in their opening lines. However, I have been involved in an edit war with an anonymous user who doesn't like the fact that Ghostbusters' on-screen title is in fact two words (and is listed as such on the IMDb). I haven't moved the article (since Ghostbusters is the most commonly used title) but I am following the style used in the examples given. Any thoughts? Chris 42 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you would go for what's on-screen (for example, Se7en, as opposed to Seven), and I would therefore tend to sway towards the two-word title for Ghost Busters. However, real-world context should also be taken into account, and Google hits for the one-word title (six million) outweigh by far those for the two-word (seven hundred thousand). Given that, I personally wouldn't be overly concerned about leaving it where it is, but definitely include Ghost Busters in the intro. Steve ^{T • C} 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. If the anon reverts again I'll direct him/her to this discussion. Chris 42 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Recent films

I created this category to go along with the {{recent film}} template. I think it will help editors find film articles they can work on that many websurfers may stumble upon. Many of the films currently in this category can be found at 2007 in film, but many wikilinks to that article are being removed by editors per discussions at WP:MOSNUM, which I mentioned earlier in the Year in film thread. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 27#Category:Recent films CfDed. Purely arbitrary and unnecessary category, and extremely inappropriate to create this category while the TfD is still under discussion. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. I created that category on December 23, 2007 at 15:14 UTC, one minute before I created the {{recent film}} template. The {{recent film}} template was nominated for deletion on December 23, 2007 at 18:55. The category existed before the template existed, and I certainly didn't create the category "while the TFD is still under discussion." Get your facts straight. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but both are still headed towards deletion and never should have been made. Collectonian (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I think you've already made your opinion known. Next time I'll be sure and get your permission first before I make a template. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a film

I'm not sure if Docudrama falls under this project, but I added the project tag to the talk page it could use some attention.... Dreadstar † 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mojo title

Is there not a version of Template:Mojo title which can be copied and pasted onto a film page, like there is for IMDb for example? 71.96.209.92 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there is -- {{mojo title}} with the parameters "id=IDNAME|title=TITLENAME" in it -- for example, {{mojo title|id=batmanbegins|title=Batman Begins}}. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote now for Golden Film's FAC

The article Golden Film is a featured article candidate now. You can vote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. Thank you for your help! – Ilse@ 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your efforts on the article and the FAC! I'll have a look shortly. Also, just to note, FAC is not a vote - it's a review and critique process. Keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And you are right, although de facto the system is similar to voting: popular topics gather supporters more easily. – Ilse@ 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

The article for one of the year's finest films, the Ken Loach Irish historical drama, The Wind That Shakes the Barley is currently in the midst of a mild edit war regarding the plot section. The few combatants are primarily non-film buffs who aren't familiar with WP:FilmPlot (and haven't heeded my prodding in that direction), think that spoilers must be avoided, and have trouble discerning NPOV. If anyone has the inclination, help is needed. --Melty girl (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Infobox re: Writers

See Template talk:Infobox Film#Writers to join in the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've shared my opinion there. While it's an interesting proposal, I'm not in full agreement with it because of the difficulties of keeping the infobox succinct. I hope others can pipe in if they have the opportunity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

UK cinema release dates

I have a 2-part question:

• Is there a database or something anywhere that gives the theatrical release dates of films in the UK?
• In the Internet Movie Database, if release dates for a film are missing for certain countries does that mean that they probably weren't given a theatrical release in that country? Or is it quite common for imdb not to be exhaustive when it comes to release dates? Anyone know?

Thanks, --BelovedFreak 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! There is! Please see the website of the Film Distributers' Association. I've found it to be very reliable so far. As for the imdb, the information is user-submitted, as it is here. If there's information missing, it does not necessarily mean that the film did not have a release in that country; it merely means that if it did receive a release, no-one has yet submitted the information to them. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I've had an IMDb login for years, but when I tried to submit filmography info sometime last year, it wouldn't let me -- I can't remember what it said, but basically I wasn't found trustworthy. I don't think it's as open in all aspects as people think it is. But I think industry users submit information all the time. Not saying it's totally reliable, but maybe more than we think. --Melty girl (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Liquidfinale (Steve) - looks good. Do you know of anything pre-2004? As for imdb, I know parts of it like trivia sections & biographies seem to be user-submitted, but I didn't thin it all was. --BelovedFreak 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be wary of giving too much credence to the IMDb. It's a good place to start research, but a bad place to conclude it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that IMDb is OK for basic cast and crew information for contemporary or well-known films from the past. I think that when it comes to more obsolete films, the information may not be so accurate, not being as independently reviewed. In addition, I agree with Girolamo -- IMDb is useful to begin research. For example, I think that there can be information worth checking out at the trivia pages to incorporate into the article. For example, if a major actor was considered for the lead role of a film, but someone else got it, you could Google the keywords of the actor's name and the film title to track down a reliable source that reports that information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Son of the Shark

I need somebody to tag Son of the Shark as part of Wikiproject Films. Also, it needs a rating so that I might have a point to build up from. Thanks! --Sharkface217 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. We're happy to help, but don't be reticent to add the banner yourself! {{Film}} is what you're looking for - if you click the link, it includes instructions for how to set the parameters. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

World cinema Userbox

Some time ago I asked at the Userbox requests page if someone would create me a World cinema userbox. It met with zero response, so I've put a basic one together using "existing materials". I know it's hardly important, and it may be inappropriate to mention here, but I figured a number of members of this WikiProject are working on World cinema articles and may be sufficiently interested to have something like this on their own user pages.

I noticed there are existing userboxes for "silent movies" and even "South Korean films", which is pretty specific, but no World cinema, so it spurred me on to try and make one. It could do with some work, I think, and perhaps an image better suited to film (such as a clapper-board or film reel with the earth on it, or some such?). Plus the colour scheme is perhaps a little dull. Please feel free to make any amendments! Gram123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This user enjoys World cinema.

just language check. cheers, Shir-El too 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Movie article lead

There is an RfC Lead section dispute for the article on the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? Your input would be welcome! Dreadstar † 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline

I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --MASEM 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you highlight some of the key differences between your draft and what currently exists, for those that have not kept up with the perpetual discussions regarding the guideline? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It streamlines what notability for fiction is defined as, though still requiring real-world information, considers "depth of coverage" issues and undue weight issues, and allows for non-notable summary style sub-articles of the notable work; it also tries to de-emphasize the rush to delete non-notable material by stronger suggestion of editor cooperation, trimming, merging, or moving material to another wiki over outright sending of articles to AfD. --MASEM 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if such clean-up steps really belong in a notability guideline. I don't disagree with the suggestions made in your draft, but there's an awful lot of after-the-fact steps. I understand that Wikipedia has had its share of extraneous and unsupported in-universe information for a while, but none of our major policies and guidelines take the step backward to explain how to clean up articles that do not satisfy the criteria of that specific policy or guideline. Would the clean-up steps not work better as an essay? I never had a major issue with WP:N in the first place, and modifying the guideline seems touchy. With an essay, there would be some ease in separating the straightforward notability guidelines for fictional topics and an explanation on how to clean up fictional topics that are on the fence or completely on the wrong side of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: WP:NFF explains that films not yet in production don't warrant stand-alone articles. At WP:FUTFILM under "Process", we explain how to address notability and structure of such articles. Actually, I just linked WP:NFF to WP:FUTFILM to make a stronger connection, but I hope you get what I mean. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see no problem with projects going further in depth than FICT for project specific guidelines, nor does FICT try to override and nullify any guidelines.

I'm not sure if it happens much with film articles, but there is a large problem with TV shows, video games, and works with large in-universe details that some editors have taken on themselves to remove/merge/request for deletion in mass scales that gets other editors involved in those projects upset because the information is being lost too quickly - and thus WP:FICT as it was was seen as a "bad guideline" that allowed for that. The addition of those steps is to help provide a better mitigation process for non-notable articles. --MASEM 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that; I've reviewed the ArbCom. The point I was trying to make, though, is that WP:FICT sets precedent that has not been followed everywhere. I daresay that the precedent is followed less for fictional topics than most other topics on Wikipedia, and such transgressions are not easily challenged. For example, people may be familiar with the name of a major character in a specific film (example: Tyler Durden), but it's not easy to determine whether a stand-alone article is appropriate if the film covers his characteristics in detail. I think that the expansion to the guideline seems to delve a little too much into the responsibility of clean-up for the boundaries of this notability guideline. The precedent is presented, but it seems a step too far to cover how to fix up existing articles that may not satisfy this precedent in the very same guideline. How one would set up an article about a TV episode would be different from an article about a comic book character. Basically, my thinking is to make the language more concise: "Articles with questionable notability should be brought up at the WikiProject(s) related to the topic to review how the content can be handled," or something to that degree. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I want to set some level of requires for fictional mediums that we have yet to have a project/that we have envisioned, but I can see making the language simpler and deferring to WProjects for that. We were also considering a "fiction notice board" that would be a catchall as well. I'm make sure to point out this suggestion once more input comes in. --MASEM 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Erik (though he said it better than I did)...though might help if these comments were all centralized over in FICT's talk :) Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A noticeboard would be an excellent idea. I understand that WP:FICT has received a lot of grief and that the drafts are an attempted solution. I think that beyond the scope of the notability of a fictional topic, responsibility should be delegated to the respective WikiProjects, basically giving editors some control. (I think that the early difficulty with WP:FICT is that editors felt helpless, and we're coming up with alternative solutions a little late.) Of course, such clean-up steps under a particular WikiProject would need to work within the limitations of the notability guideline, but nesting articles under a particular fictional topic would ready it for collaboration and constructive criticism among those interested in that topic. It happens here at WikiProject Films -- though we don't worry so much about WP:N or WP:NF, we worry about WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. My only major concern is that there are steadfast attitudes that cannot put themselves above their topic of interest. I know that TTN pushed hard against some of these attitudes, and there was a lot of resulting dissent that probably was not necessary. I believe in leading my example, and I think that there are some WikiProjects that do this well (The Simpsons comes to mind). Hopefully, the noticeboard, the respective WikiProjects' responsibilities, and the availability of Wikias could introduce a more Wikipedian mindset. (And I apologize if my spiel has already been repeated in previous discussions!) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion--MGM cartoon characters infobox template

An editor, FuriousFreddy deleted the infobox from the article Droopy on the grounds that the template is intended for a film, singular. What we need is a MGM cartoon character infobox template, analogous to the one that already exists for Warner Bros. cartoon characters (trying to determine if there is indeed one, I couldn't even find the WB toon char. one in the lists of templates/infoboxes!). Certainly, the "career" of Tom and Jerry has been varied enough to justify one. I hope this is the correct place to post this suggestion. I asked Freddy to discuss his deletion, and he explained on that article's talk page, including in his post there a link to where the idea for an infobox for film series (an interesting-sounding idea, but not applicable to the situation at hand) could be suggested. It led me to this page, and I could find nothing in the contents box to indicate further information on making suggestions might be found on this page. I certainly do not have the time to examine the lengthy article line by line to find something, sorry. Ted Watson (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean {{WBToonChar}}? If so, I think the better question is why that template is reserved for WB characters - it would seem practical to simply use one template for all cartoon characters, period. Perhaps that template could be renamed to a more general title. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A very good point (and I was already well aware of the existence of the template you linked in; I meant that trying to confirm the lack of existence of a similar one for MGM toons should have but did not uncover the WB one in the lists of existing templates--which told me I had failed to accomplish my goal, but I can not imagine where else I could have looked). If this Talk page submission has not submitted that idea for consideration, how does one go about that (see above for why I don't know)? Ted Watson (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd mention it in the template talk space. If you don't get response after, say, a week, maybe be bold? Also, it might be worth trawling around the template categories and whatnot to see if there are any other similar templates. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As my second posting above says in no uncertain terms, I've "trawled around" for that purpose already, and could not find any indication of the existence of the WB toon characters' infobox template, which we both know does already exist, and that I could not conceive any place else to look. Nor do I have any idea of just what specific "template talk space" you are referring to, as there are a number of template-related pages, each of which has its own discussion board. Ted Watson (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actor Filmographies

Hi. In connection with Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I've been working on tabling filmographies, as outlined on the project page. If anyone is interested in spending a bit of more or less busy work time to help with these, please see the project talk page for an update on what is on the list for work. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The President's Daughters is up for deletion.

Title says it all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to mention every AFD for every film article. A good place to look for this listing is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. Maybe we could make this a part of WP:FILM somehow? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to it on the the project front page. Could maybe add to the side menu, along with the possible AfD links. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a great fit. Is the template easy to edit to implement this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its just straight text. I was bold and popped it in there :) Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add it to the watchlist then, what's the name of the page? I'm tired now if I won't get answer by the time I wake up I will look for it myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the deletion sorting? Erik gave it a few responses above: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

• Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
• Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature Problem

Back in late 2005-early 2006, the term Film was stabilized as Wikipedian for both the medium and the product with which this WP is dealing, with "Cinema" referring to the place of exhibition only. Yet I am finding innumerable article names, category names, and text references all of recent vintage, which utilize "Cinema" for the film product, and also "Movie" or "Motion Pictures". Obviously, text is open to revisionism of terms which anyone can edit and revert, but how are improperly-worded article and category titles making "end runs" around the administrators and jumbling up the section, especially since these "end runs" can only be interpreted to represent either functional illiteracy about Film at Wikipedia, or deliberate, POV-based ignorings of the rules by those who create and save them to the site? Only certain people can fix these article titles and category names, and there is clear need to form a janitorial team to clean up the rampant revisionisms and a security system to prevent others from committing future breaches. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.52 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could cite some specific examples, we could address the issue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"international" receipts

It has been brought up here that it is inherently POV to use the term "international" when referring to box office receipts outside of the US and Canada. One editor seems to be against changing the use of the term, while a couple others think it makes sense for the term "international" to include all nations receipts. Has this project addressed this issue in the past? Murderbike (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One term that we try to avoid usage is "domestic" because this is the English Wikipedia. I imagine that the proper way to refer to nations is either individually or call them "other territories". For example, "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 in other territories." Hope that helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Other territories" sounds like "colonies". Keep common usage: "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 world wide." Lets be realists. Shir-El too 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to earn less money world wide than you earned in two countries? "World wide" includes the United States and Canada. Just say "other countries", as we don't specify box office takes in specific states or towns, but countries as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. 'International' is how the industry uses it, it's how all the wikipedia pages that use it apply it, and it's fairly obvious to any reader who actually reads the pages. 'Other countries' implies selective counting, 'International' is inclusive of all non-singularly identified countries. We're not listing every single nation, there's no way a table could support that with a reasonable page layout. The categories are fine as is. This belongs on BJAODN or one of the other top stupid argument lists. ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious at a quick glance that "international" means something other than its plain English meaning, which is "across all nations". Whether this is in fact how the film industry as a whole uses it, or for that matter even the American and Canadian film industry, is a matter that has not been settled -- burden of proof is on ThuranX. If it is so, then this non-intuitive usage should be explained in each article that uses it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BUrden is on those seeking change to find good reasons to ignore the actual, often cited information and vocabulary. I suggest that instead you all write up an article on the applied use of 'international' so the heading can be linked. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that "international" would not mean non-US markets, but rather non-domestic markets. So US receipts for Amelie would be part of that film's international receipts, for example. As far as I'm aware, that's usually the meaning of international: non-domestic areas. Worldwide would be the completely inclusive term for all markets. Just my 2 pence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong with the whole table. As an example I shall use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a joint UK and US production.

• I get the worldwide profits in US dollars, fair enough.
• I then glance at the US/Canada column, again in US dollars. Nothing wrong with with that.
• Then I see the column international. Huh? I already saw the worlwide profits. I haven't got a clue what this column is supposed to mean, but oh well.
• I then see the UK column. Now this is weird. There's a dollar sign in front of the amount, yet the little note at the bottom says it's in British pounds, which have the symbol "£". Furthermore, it's not exactly easy to compare the different earnings in each country when they are in different currencies.
• I finish off with the Australian column, the different currency throws me off again.

Here's my suggestion:

U.S. and box office gross figures are listed in U.S. dollars.
U.K box office gross figures are listed in U.K. pounds, Australian box office gross figures are listed in Australian dollars.

#	Title	Studio	Box Office Gross
			Worldwide	United States and Canada	United Kingdom	Australia
1	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	Disney	$961,002,663	$309,420,425	£81,415,664	$29,085,288
2	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	Warner	$938,450,062	$292,001,817	£101,360,911	$29,409,933
3	Spider-Man 3	Sony	$890,871,626	$336,530,303	£67,049,819	$19,667,403
4	Shrek the Third	DreamWorks	$794,561,223	$321,012,359	£78,790,741	$28,500,981
5	Transformers	Paramount	$702,927,087	$319,071,806	£48,603,202	$23,885,803
6	Ratatouille	Disney/Pixar	$612,190,493	$206,435,493	£49,836,496	$13,240,587
7	The Simpsons Movie	Fox	$525,468,939	$183,121,527	£78,259,436	$26,511,779
8	300	Warner	$456,068,181	$210,614,939	£27,994,700	$12,304,031
9	The Bourne Ultimatum	Universal	$441,802,915	$227,471,070	£48,142,337	$18,396,410
10	I Am Legend	Warner	$409,534,000	$228,055,662	£21,974,780	$8,499,825

A summary of my changes:

• I deleted the "international" column. I don't see it as useful in anyway, it's just "profits outside US and Canada".
• I changed the abbreviations (US;U.K.) to fuller names (United States; United Kingdom)
• I changed the dollar sign to a pound sign in the UK column.
• I linked the currencies to their articles, before only the Australian dollars had been linked and it looked kinda weird.

If anyone agrees with this, we can put it in the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense. I'd prefer the USA and UK abbr. again since the columns are wide otherwise, and how about linking the currencies in the top film's totals only?:

#	Title	Studio	Box Office Gross
			Worldwide	USA/Canada	UK	Australia
1	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	Disney	$961,002,663	$309,420,425	£81,415,664	$29,085,288
2	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	Warner	$938,450,062	$292,001,817	£101,360,911	$29,409,933

-- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t21:37z

Update on The Film Portal

• Template:FA-icon -- Update: Portal:Film has recently become a Featured Portal. There is also a featured version at the French Wikipedia, called Portail:Cinéma. All of the articles at Portal:Film in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of Featured Quality Status. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material! Cirt (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Wow, Cirt, congratulations! You really did a great job putting it all together. We're all very proud to have such an excellent portal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Couldn't have done it with out all of the great Featured Content to utilize in the portal - so much of the thanks goes out to the WikiProject Films participants. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I'm a newbie: other than cudos what does this status entail? Thank you, Shir-El too 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, and it gets listed at Wikipedia:Featured portals. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

List of Western actors up for deletion

Apparently it's already been deleted once. Post comments for keeping/deletion Here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian task force

I would like to announce the creation of a new Australian cinema task force. All interested editors are encouraged to sign on as participants, and article tagging is currently underway!

Some editors may also have noticed that this task force was created without a request. This is because the "en." encyclopedia is already biased towards English-language cinema; I have no doubts therefore that the task force will do well. I will also likely be creating task forces for Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US in the coming months. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actor templates redux

Do we have any guidelines under WikiProject Films that state that it's inappropriate to create a template for actors? I keep seeing a new one every once in a while, the most recent being {{Bale}}. Such a template is a bad idea since it has usually included every role, minor to major, of an actor in an entire career. This is in opposition to a director template, in which there is only one (sometimes two), and the director is consistently one of the most important people involved with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated {{Johnny Depp films}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 15. Is there some kind of precedent we can build into MOSFILM regarding this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just propose it at MOSFILM talk; I can't see it facing terribly much opposition. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The conversion of films materials is something that I've run across on a few pages, which requires a bit of work to revert to a filmography table. I'm not sure who started that precedent but it is something that has been brought up at the sister project Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I revert them as I find them. I'd actually be most grateful if anyone who finds these templates would notify me so I can salvage the material, which did take a bit of work to compile. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Project

A new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Terminator have started. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the WikiProject guide first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created the project as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. There's absolutely no good reason to run yourself into the ground with project admin overhead for the small quantity of articles the project would cover. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Terminator series have various articles, and it is a ground breaking film in film industry, in the history of film. The series is going on, many new suquels are coming. This project will help to co-ordinate all terminator related articles, articles on the characters in a good manner. The project will be dedicated for betterment of a specilized subject. Please add your membership (it would be good if you take the responsibility of project co-ordinator there) in the new project. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, he was just trying to be helpful in pointing out that the amount of work which goes into coordinating a Wikiproject can be overwhelming, especially if only a few people sign up for active participation. You'll be creating work for yourself, taking up time which could be more usefully directed towards making improvements to the articles. I wish you luck, however. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have since edited your comment to ask Girolamo Savonarola to take on that responsibility. Seems a bit cheeky, but you might get lucky I suppose. Steve ^{T • C} 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. So if you don't think that the project will not be so helpful, you can delete it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am taking your arguments. Now how can I delete the project? By MfD? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No-one is being an arse about this; we're just trying to help. Should you wish to continue with the project, that's up to you, and I genuinely wish you luck. Steve ^{T • C} 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The project have been speedy deleted in request. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC re previous discussion about revealing unsubtitled English translation in Plot section

Pasted from Talk:Once (film):

A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section. Would it be inappropriate to include the phrase I love you into the plot because the phrase was spoken in Czech language and was not subtitled in English but a reliably sourced translation has been found. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic has been ongoing long before the above editor joined the conversation. Please refer to the long discussion above and to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F, where editors reached consensus that the information, if sourced, should be included in the article, but outside of the plot section, since the English translation was intentionally withheld in the film (other Czech dialogue was subtitled; this was not). The non-Czech character being spoken to and the non-Czech-speaking audience of this English language film would have received a completely different meaning of this scene and the movie itself, had the English translation (of "I love you") been provided. But it was withheld by the filmmakers and therefore should not be presented in the Plot section as if those words were given by the film. It is in the article, but in the Production section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think that it'd be inappropriate to detail the Czech phrase, which would require specialist knowledge to know. I've seen the film with English subtitles, and it does not translate the phrase. For whatever reason, it's not a detail intended to be readily acknowledged by audiences. I think its placement in the Production section, with the citation, is sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the article's talk page, I disagree that a clear concensus has been reached in the above mentioned discussion. Furthermore, I do not think it to be innapropriate to insert a unsubtitled phrase in a language other than English if a verifiable translation can be cited, which it was, so long as it is clearly stated that it was unsubtitled. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My issue with this is that there is an established division between the plot summary and real-world context across film articles. The plot summaries are primary sources -- the film themselves -- so a plain description is always used to avoid subjective and interpretative language. If scenes need to be analyzed, like with this certain phrase, then it can be done so in a real-world context section using independent coverage from reliable sources. The scene can certainly be explained briefly in relation to the phrase used in the real-world section, but I'm not sure if embedding secondary sources in the plot section is the best idea. Including one seems to take us down the road of analysis, which should be reserved for the other sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was probably unsubtitled because it was an ad-lib on the part of the actor, who also tried out other ad libs in that moment, and the director didn't want the meaning of his film radically altered by that ad-lib. As it is, it's kind of like an Easter Egg for Czech speakers, which is fun. --Melty girl (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Easter Egg for Czechs. But the main point I was trying to defeat was your statement that if it's not presented on screen in English, it's not a part of the plot. I disagree that the plot is different for us than it is for Czechs. It can be verified, and, therefore, it is a part of the plot. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone knows the Czech language. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we can easily assume that people who come here will be versed in the English language. However, take a look at WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The sentence is indeed verifiable, but if we're looking at the primary source only, Czech language is the specialist knowledge needed to understand that. I think that implementing the secondary source in the article starts changing the section from a basic description of the film to what the film means. For what the film means, that content should be covered in real-world context sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is much more suggestive of explaining what the film means to say that a line of the film "must" be kept out due to "intended ambiguity" on the part of the filmmaker, which is what was suggested before, then to list it translated and verified, clearly state it is unsubtitled and not delve into what it could have meant. Hypothetically speaking, if, indeed, the film makers wanted to keep a secret or be creatively ambiguous, why wouldn't they have worked in their own version of the final scene from Lost in Translation rather than put something out there that can be understood by an estimated 12 million speakers worldwide? Of course, if that information is to be made available on Wikipedia, it has to be sourced and verified. However, from a point of view of a filmmaker trying to keep a secret, one would know very well that the secret couldn't be kept due to the number of people who both speak Czech and have internet access to parlay to the rest of us what was said. Hence, if a secret is known to not stay a secret, it ceases to be a secret. SWik78 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think leaving out the translation would be suggestive. Here's how it's broken down:

1. Everyone can acknowledge in their viewing of the film that the Girl utters a Czech phrase to the Guy that she won't translate.
2. Those who can speak Czech and watch the film know what she's saying on the account that they are familiar with the language.

I don't know anything about Lost in Translation, so I don't know what to make of that example. What I mean to say is that #1 is agreeable on a descriptive level for all filmgoers, even those who know the Czech language. #2 is not as applicable because of the specialist knowledge of the Czech language. A lot of things could be pointed out by independent sources in the plot section, such as the fact that the Guy's flat was the actor's flat. I know what you're trying to say, but I think the way to approach elements in the film that are not universally clear is to leave it to independent sources. This observation just isn't clear-cut for all viewers, IMO. There's no hiding that's being done because the plot summary is intended to complement the film article. The real-world context is the meat of the article -- it can exist with or without the plot section. It's just that the plot section is included to provide a stronger background to the entire context. Now, I think I've really argued my points (and have repeated some, sorry about that), and I hope others can weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being very honest and fair by saying what you just said so I will do the same and let someone else have a say on this. Thanks for the input. SWik78 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the article talk page. I'd like to request all interested parties to continue the conversation there. (Re-copy and paste as need be.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Juno: Canadian? American? Canadian/American?

I'm a novice at determining the nationality of a film. I see all over the web that Juno is Canadian, but seems to have been funded by Americans. The director is Canadian, the writer is American. It seems to have been shot in Canada. Etc. How is the determination made whether it is Canadian, American, or a co-production? Where should I try to find the information. Variety wasn't helpful, and IMDb lists it as USA/Canada/Hungary! --Melty girl (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Canada/USA to me. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on your criteria. Nationality of director/writer/producers, where the money is coming from, where it's filmed, etc? There's no hard answer for this, but since we also don't require there to be a single country per film, there's no reason to be overly restrictive, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks y'all. Seems like Canadian/American is the proper adjective for the lead. --Melty girl (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template change request

There has been a request to change the {{Infobox Album}} that I think needs a bit of input before it's done. Your input at Template talk:Infobox Album would be appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this was meant for the Film project? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help in fixing an item

This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for Alison Steadman where you will see this {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of film templates

There's a discussion going on here about the deletion nomination of a number of film templates. I've added in my thoughts as well, since I personally find them useful. Esn (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on application of trivia guidelines

I was reading through the guidelines on trivia, and was wondering if I could get an experienced opinion. A few months I reverted some vandalism for EuroTrip, and found it on my watchlist a couple days ago. When I saw the trivia section, I tried to remove it, but it was reverted by an anon. I read through the policy here on trivia, and with the exception of the first two entries, nothing appears to hold any encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the entire trivia and errors section appears to be OR and unsourced. I spend my time with video games, and have dealt with trivia before there, and I was wondering if I could get some opinions on what to do. I was thinking of removing all but the first two, put those two in a "production" section (to discourage trivia in this amount from returning and encouraging more development of a section like that) with a fact tag. This is not really my area of expertise, but I can spot a bad article when I see one. Thanks.--CM (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it and the errors section. Both are unsourced, OR and have no place in the article. For the two good items, move in as you suggested and give a few weeks to be fixed. The anon user who put it back gave no justification and doesn't do much editing so they hopefully didn't realize it was inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Collectonian's suggestion above. This article could use some form of real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of my original plan, but any help watching out for the inevitable revert by an anon would be helpful. Further problems exist, however; I have never seen this film, so I lack the ability to adequately summarize the overly long plot, and you already mentioned the lack of real-world content. Could I get some help with the formatting of the cast section? It appears to contain too many characters, but I am not familiar with how to properly structure it.--CM (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Knocked Up/Judd Apatow/Katherine Heigl

I'm sorry if this sort of thing doesn't belong here, but I've noticed something worrying about a small collection of articles all pertaining to the 2007 film Knocked Up. A single anonymous user has contributed a disproportionately high amount of content concerning supposed 'sexist'/'discriminatory' themes in Apatow's work; in Knocked Up particularly. The content is relatively well-written and well-sourced, although it seems that the sources are being misused: for example; as is clearly stated in the article, an "online survey of 927 individuals was performed by lifestyle publication Buzzsugar (a media product of Sugar Publishing) in which the majority (59%) of movie-goers agreed that Apatow's film was sexist or could be viewed as sexist (while 38% were not personally offended) and 37% of viewers saw the film as devoid of sexist aspects". I followed it up, and, well, frankly, the results are nothing like that.

Of course, I would like to Assume Good Faith. With 100% of his/her edits concerning this 'controversy', however, the user obviously wants to give this undue significance. The female characters in 'Knocked Up' were a bit uptight, but surely all this isn't as notable as these articles, as they are now, would have us believe. Knyght27 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the section is a back-and-forth between both sides about sexism or lack thereof, it should be re-titled to encompass both arguments. In addition, I notice bits of synthesis like the poll you mentioned, the unrelated aspect of Heigl being conservative, and the Queenan review that does not explicitly talk about sexism. I also see the same context copied over to Judd Apatow, and seeing the user's contributions, there may be undue weight as you say. The matter should be brought up at WP:BLP for Judd Apatow in particular -- actually, I'm going to remove it because it's film-centric, not director-centric. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards

The nominations are out, and can be found here, for those of you who are interested in adding the information to the relevant articles. I'll do a couple myself should I have the time this afternoon. Here's a quickie citation template to use:

• <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.oscars.org/80academyawards/nominees/index.html | title=80th Academy Awards nominations | publisher=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]] | accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref>

All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the setup! In case some people haven't seen them, there are also nominations by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, which can be seen here. Here's the template for it:

• <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html | title=Film Awards Nominees in 2008 | publisher=[[British Academy of Film and Television Arts]] | accessdate=2008-01-22 }}</ref>

I mentioned a while ago that we should focus on these nominees' articles due to the heightened visibility, and from what I've noticed, a good portion of them have pretty solid real-world context. Cheers to those who were able to contribute, and let's keep up the good work! I think some articles that could use more context are Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Michael Clayton, and Away from Her. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! --Melty girl (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)