Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FrostAcolyte (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 14 November 2011 (→User adding the Internet Entertainment Database (IEDB.net) to film articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcut
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured article requests

Did you know

(5 more...)

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(17 more...)

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

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)[reply]

The Godfather
Full Metal Jacket
  1. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GRAPPLE X 15:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dazed and Confused page move

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

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)[reply]
Agreed, unless Timeshifter knows something I don't. Doniago (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per the reasons I've already listed, above... Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh well! You lot can sort it out then. Bye! Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Made a request as seen here. Live link here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm so pleased this project has a focus on the really, really important things! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move here: Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) - Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That san be included to bottom part of {{Infobox film}}. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks User:Karthikndr I will check that out!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film anniversaries

Just in case anyone's interested, these films celebrate anniversaries during the remainder of the year

- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:35 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiddler actually turns 40 in two days, FYI. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:38 1 November 2011 (UTC)
And Monsters is 10 today. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:18 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

List of films considered the worst for deletion - again

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"All films are fiction"

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

I've removed all the fiction cats for a better reason - they are parent cats to the relevant "set in country" cat (eg - France in Fiction is the parent to Films set in France). Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine --- I'd actually not even thought of that --- but, I would still like clarification on my comment. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the biographical aspect is just the subject of the film, the form is still fiction. Smetanahue (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All works of art are a form of "fiction", aren't they? An argument can even be made that most documentaries are a kind of fiction in that documentarians inevitably introduce some amount of POV and personal interpretation into their films, thus making them something other than strictly "non-fiction" or pure presentation of "fact". Shirtwaist ☎ 11:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Marvel Comics films

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

I would list the Marvel Cinematic Universe films at the top of the template, horizontally in chronological release order. The rest as they are now I guess. Possiby rename the template to Films based on Marvel Comics Universe superheroes or something to restrict something like Men In Black from being added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rearrange the entries by franchise, all X-Men films together, all Spider-Man films together and so on. Removing "Film series" removes a bit of in-universe perspective. Besides some series already have there own templates such as Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you have (for example) Captain America: The First Avenger on there twice - once under the Cinematic universe section, and once under a Captain America header with the other two Captain America films? That doesn't seem a bad idea. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally get rid of the "Cinematic Universe" section. It's irrelevant. It's better to just keep them in individual film series categories.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or could we organize them by decade? Seems easy enough and creates fairly distinct production era's. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the cinematic universe section. I would also support Darkwarriorblake's suggestion of listing the films by decade.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, am I right in saying that a majority of editors seem to feel that dividing it by franchise is the best option? And does this mean that it should be further divided into continuity, or is this unnecessary? And a number of editors are in favour of removing the "Cinematic Universe" section (meaning a link to the cinematic universe page should be provided in the "See also" section). Although I would rather keep it and list the MCU films twice, removing it is okay for me. However, with no acknowledgement of it at all, will probably cause frequent edits from others saying it should be there. And that argument has a point, as the MCU is treated as a film franchise everywhere else on wikipedia. So, I don't mind removing it, but if there was some way of acknowledging it, that would be great. Also, I would strongly oppose listing the films by decade, as only seven of the films were made before 2000. It would be ridiculously unbalanced, causing no organisation. Besides, other connections, such as direct continuity, occur over decades. And these connections are more significant than a fixed period of time that does not necessarily reflect stages of development in Marvel films. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above there is an MCU template, so you can add that template to the article directly below this template. In view of the fact an MCU template exists, this template just needs to focus on franchises and series, and I would model it on the DC one which is nicely organized and intuitive: Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the DC one is fairly neat and well-laid out. However, it has a lot of unrelated films, so the "single films" section kinda works. And because of this, it lists few franchises, and therefore, subdividing into continuity doesn't take up a lot of space. But, I don't really feel the need for a "single films" section on the Marvel films template, and I'm not sure continuity subdivisions are worth it either. And removing the MCU from it is also fine, but I have expressed concerns just above here. For the most part, I feel we should go with the format of the second template in User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox, so I propose we go with that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the two, I would go with the second one as well. But I was thinking something more on the lines as this. The single films sections makes the template more concise. I also used the term "multiple films" as opposed to franchise or series, to help convey the message that there might not be any in-universe connection to the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really don't like the "single films" section. We're using it for just three or four films, so we can fully lay it out, and it won't take up much room. And also, I would rather the other imprints films separated, so that it better reflects the article. Also, you are listing it by franchises there, though. And "franchises" shouldn't convey in-universe connection. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just about the template's current state but also about its potential, the single films section makes the template much more concise. However this is not a huge hang-up for me, and I would support the use of Osubuckeyeguy's second template if nobody else has any other objections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot vs. Premise

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

My understanding is that "Premise" has on occasion been used in cases where there wasn't enough information available (i.e. pre-release) to develop a full "Plot" section, but there was enough reliably-sourced plot information to put something in place. In other words, "Premise" would be a holding section until it can be "upgraded" to "Plot". Doniago (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Canadian film list

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

Question on linking to characters

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

Maybe delink and add a see also section, with a note on how close to the actual person the character is? Lugnuts (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly link to the section on media depiction as in Wyatt_Earp#The_Earp_legend_in_film_and_television. That way readers can read up on the background of the real life character, but it's made clear it is a fictional portrayal? Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely how depictions of the Earps and other historical characters of that type should be dealt with in my opinion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with linking an actor's role to the real person that role is either meant to portray or is based on. It's a depiction of that person, even if the depiction differs in some ways from the real-life person. In all likelihood the article on the real-life person is going to discuss various depictions of that person in films, books, etc., so that's where the reader can learn more about the differences between the portrayal and historical fact (this ties into the "All films are fiction?" thread above in that respect). For works of historical fiction, the film article should probably have some discussion of the historical background and the creative licenses taken in the portrayal. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with "George C. Scott as General George S. Patton", or even "Ian McShane as Blackbeard". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, that's the editor I'm having conflict with. I'd like to assume good faithm but perhaps he's singling out this film to make a POINT? As far as I know BHD is the only film depicting the 4 characters with wiki articles in question. I don't see any depictions as over the top portrayals that clash with any historical accounts, except perhaps the MOH Citations, which is addressed in the articles on the two men who died.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've looked at the history - the reasons being given for removing the links is a bit wrong. It doesn't need to be a documentary film, it's a dramatisation of real events, and dramatises real people. So you're perfectly fine to link to those people, just as the article also links to Battle of Mogadishu - its depiction of the event is as accurate as its depiction of the people involved, after all. GRAPPLE X 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is not the equivalent of Tombstone or Patton. In both of those cases, the people depicted were historically important outside simply the events portrayed in the film. The Wyatt Earp depicted in Tombstone is not necessarily historically accurate in every way, but he is recognizable, as is Patton, by comparison to other depictions. In this case, the individuals had no historical importance outside the events depicted, and there is no way of knowing how accurately they are depicted, and in some cases, "characters" are composites of multiple people who took part in these events. As such, the events and the people involved should be discussed in a section that deals with historical accuracy, with references to show what is true, and where the filmmakers altered the events for the sake of drama.
On another matter, Mike Searson should not have restored the information while discussion was still ongoing (both here and on the article talk page), nor should he accuse me of an "anti-military" bias, which is untrue, utterly irrelevant, and offensive. Keep your comments on the content and on policy, not what you perceive to be other people's thoughts, feelings, or motivations. As he did above, when he accused me of being POINTy.--RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC) -[reply]
And the four or five individuals in BHD are historically important as well: 2 Generals, a Pilot who was POW for 11 days, and 2 recipients of the CMH; which is why they have their own wiki articles. I would agree with you if there was a wiki piece on Norm Hooten and Hoot's character played by Eric Bana linked to it as Hoot was a composite that just took the name. I apologize if your feelings were hurt by comments I made.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I love it. User:NordhornerII The man from Nordhorn 23:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the example given, it does not seem to add anything not already offered by the other common ext. links. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's rather unspoilt by advertising, isn't it? I call that pleasant to the eye. NordhornerII The man from Nordhorn 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is run by "friends and family" doesn't bode well on the RS front. Are its scores quoted in any secondary sources at all? If not they should be removed from the articles; we already have RT and Metacritic, there is no need to compromise the articles with a questionable source. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Betty that was a red flag I picked up too. I haven't been able to find this site being quoted in any reliable sources. I also can't find how they calculate the scores. @Nordhorner, explaining why you "love it" would be beneficial to this discussion.—Mike Allen 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Mike. "I love it" and "pleasant to the eye" are not very helpful comments and are, frankly, irrelevant to the matter at hand. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on a few things:

  1. The aggregation process is explained on this page: (About the aggregator) which is a link in the footer.
  2. Each review and score on IEDb is clearly marked under the "reviews" tabs.
  3. I found this site while searching for reviews on a movie a while ago (I can't remember which movie), but I spend a lot of time searching for movie reviews for the movies I watch.
  4. I spend more time on BOM, MC & RT than any other sites, because I love review aggregation, and found IEDb to include a lot of reviews not found on the other sites.
  5. Metacritic seems to add a lot of reviews in the beginning and then not follow through after release with new reviews (you'll see many of my posts say "Metacritic scores unchanged"), so I argue that it's a more reliable source for aggregation than Metacritic.
  6. I don't only add IEDb. I've added BOM, RT & MC to film pages where they are missing (and I WILL add them to movie pages wherever I see they are missing), and every time I edit a page, I've opened all 4 sites, BOM, RT, MC & IEDb to compare and I check all sites & scores and update them all. (I added RT to movies like the The Debt (2011 film) & didn't add IEDb)
  7. MC is more focused on US sites (about 90% US sites), while I found IEDb to include reviews from a much wider range (UK, Canada, Australia, Europe, Asia etc.) For instance, MC doesn't include reviews from IGN Movies, possibly because they are owned by CBS Interactive, owners of Gamespot which is a rival to IGN. So you have a biased aggregator who hasn't added reviews from it's rival.
  8. I love the concept of review aggregation and I've spent more time improving the content from BOM, RT & MC than anything else. I often spend hours checking and making sure everything is as accurate as possible.
  9. For movies like Warrior, I added both MC and IEDb.
  10. I haven't added IEDb to other movies like Contagion because I didn't feel it added much more than Metacritic. Usually when the review count was very similar. But I just checked and now I see IEDb already has 53 reviews for Contagion while Metacritic STILL only has 38.
  11. Aggregation is really a simple process, take reviews and derive an average from the scores (you can do it from both MC & IEDb, with the same reviews they will give the same scores, I know because I checked, basic Math), so I don't feel comments like "reliable source" are valid in this situation, because the "sources" of the scores are the reviews themselves. FrostAcolyte (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, RS does come into this, because if you were just directly quoting the reviews you would not have to go though an aggregator site, you could just quote the reviews directly from the newspaper/magazine that published them. With scores on an aggregator site, you are quoting from them because they have assigned a score and combined them in some way. Even if it is done in an intuitive manner, they are still publishing an opinion not held by the original reviews: they have combined the reviews in some way to advance an idea of critical consensus. Basically anyone one on Wikipedia could set up an aggregator site, and select which reviewers we are going to track, and set our own formula for scoring with radically different results. Selecting reviews and assigning a score is basically an opinion, and for us to include that opinion here on Wikipedia then it must be established as a reliable source in the way it is used i.e. principally, other reliable sources most quote the scores from IEDb like they do with RT and Metacritic; if not then it falls down on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. I have an open mind on this, I don't take the view that we don't "need" it simply because we already have RT and Metacritic, but I take the view that since we have RT and Metacritic we don't need to compromise on source credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add American cinema task force under WikiProject United States

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

It's active as much as it is a part of the overall project and the vast majority of work on here is for American films. I have no objection for it to become part of the US WikiProject though. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=460607302"