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 188.242.61.168 (talk) at 02:14, 11 November 2012 (→Edit war on Princess Mononoke: Addition). 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
Shortcuts
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

(6 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

Tron: Legacy Peer Review

Would anyone be willing to provide a review for Tron: Legacy so I can move forward with the GA nom? RAP (talk) 15:24 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Tron (franchise) cast table

Could someone lend me a hand? I recently added a cast table for the article that represented the cast of both films and it's currently untidy. I have it hidden as it's too much of a monstrosity right now. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:53 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorization

In the categorization of films, we request each film be put in its year category (i.e. Category:2012 films) per WP:FILMCAT. My question is, are we including those articles which are also included in its subcategories (i.e. Category:2012 animated films (with subcat Category:2012 anime films), Category:2012 horror films, Category:Indian films of 2012 (with subcat Category:Tamil films of 2012) and Category:2012 television films)? Also, should articles about broader topics that have subsections about films include these categories? There are several articles about film series, anime series, novels, etc. that include mentions of an individual film or a film adaptation that do not have an article and so the general article includes the category. BOVINEBOY2008 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Indian film category be Category:2012 Indian films and not Indian films of 2012? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that can be answered later. :) BOVINEBOY2008 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen an increase of year/genre categories being created. I'm not the biggest fan of them TBH, but if they must exist, then they should be included in the article with the three prime categories. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same film, two versions

Hi, folks. Cashback is a film that was originally created as a short, then expanded to a feature some time later. Today, one article represents both of these films. For notability purposes, I presume this is the appropriate decision. Do you agree? If so, should this dual-film article be structured like a normal film article, as it (mostly) is now—so that there is one infobox, one plot section, one reception section, etc., with descriptions of both films in those single units? Or should the films be described separately, as in something like a level two heading like "2004 film" with the relevant sub-sections about plot, reception, etc., above another heading like "2006 film" with the same sub-sections? And on these points, do you think the article's title should be changed? NTox · talk 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it should be one article. Compare with the Naomi Watts film Ellie Parker. Originally released in 2001 as a short, then expanded to a full-length in 2005. It might be a different scenario if the short film was released today, then a few years down the line, it was expanded (esp. if it was a very notable film director). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted a brewing edit war that's over my head

Over at Argo (2012 film). I think maybe if I'd had enough sleep I could figure it out but this sort of thing isn't my usual stuff and I know a lot of you are way more experienced. Short version of my interpretation: One editor removed some text in the historical accuracy section because the sources were from before the film was out and he/she doesn't find them relevant to the text anymore. ANother editor disagrees with that assertion. In any case, one of the reverts involved had an explanation that made me think perhaps the editor wasn't understanding just what WP:OR or WP:SYNTH actually meant (more the OR than the synth which seems a potentially valid concern on the content in question). I'm a little hesitant to weigh in there since this isn't my usual thing so I was hoping some of you could take a look and see if the text just needed a reworking, was fine as is, should be removed, whatever. Neither editor has begun a conversation on the talk page yet, I don't think. CHeers... and back to a plot summary and some cast pruning for me. Millahnna (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've only reverted a couple of times each so hopefully it will fizzle out. Our own guidelines cover this: WP:FILMHIST; just like like we don't list differences between films and books in adaptations unless there is secondary coverage of the alterations, by the same token we shouldn't list historical inaccuracies unless there is secondary coverage of them as inaccuracies. Most fact based films take creative licence, however not all alterations are relevant/important/interesting to the reader, so we require a source to justify their significance. If they start up again today, User:Wswears needs to be directed to the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm hoping as well. It looks like most of the section, including the disputed text, has sources talking about the various differences. As near as I can tell, the dispute is over the fact that the articles for the text being removed/restored were published well before the film was released. So the removing editor feels that their commentary isn't valid (which doesn't really seem all that logical to me, but I'm guessing he/she actually has a different issue with it and isn't articulating it that well). Honestly, I couldn't make heads or tales over what they were debating since the paragraph had known, reliable sources. Which is why I'm guessing it's a synth problem (if it's a problem at all)... maybe the editor who wrote the text to begin with got a bit interpretive with it? Shrug... at a glance the text seemed fine with the sources it had, but I didn't read either article in great detail so perhaps I missed something. They were just super snippy in the edit summaries and got to that point in only a couple of reverts, as you noted. So I thought it best to ask smarter peeps than me. Millahnna (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Score for Atlas Shrugged: Part II

There's been some dispute over the inclusion of Rottentomatoes user ratings in that article. I think if we could find a RS for user ratings, both the side that would like audience ratings to be included and the side that deems RT user ratings unreliable and against MOS:FILM#Audience_response would be placated. So, does anyone know someone who has a subscription CinemaScore? I checked their site to see if Atlas Shrugged: Part II was one of the ones they freely provide a score for, but sadly, it is not. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a debatable point. IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes user submitted ratings are prohibited as per MOS:FILM#Audience response. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, that is a guideline, not a rule. And the top of MOS:FILM#Audience response makes provision for exceptions like this:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

WP is ruled by consensus, and the consensus at this article before WP:canvassing started was to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film, as multiple editors have put in various versions noting this. Even after canvassing, we got veterans like Collect who have well articulated how this inclusion is appropriate. See the Talk page. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILM reflects the consensus of the regular film editors. If you believe an exemption applies to this particular article then you should state your case and let the Film project decide whether there is a valid case. If you wish to invoke WP:IAR against the MOS then you should file an RfC and get input from outside the project, and then there would be a consensus overruling the MOS. IAR is not a free for all so editors can do what they want; it is simply a way of letting editors that guidelines aren't set in stone, and previous consensuses can be overturned, but you must accomplish this through the proper channels. Continual reverting against established project consensus is just edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page discussion is underway. Why are you saying "Post an RfC" when that's already been done? Why are you plowing in on the article and doing what you want instead of going to the Talk page? There's been no 3RR violation by me, and it seems to me the page should be kept as it was - with its previous consensus before this began - until it's resolved. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your justification for including user ratings that makes Atlas Shrugged a special beast? Cinemascore is not always available for every film, but it is a score developed from answers given by people who have actually seen the film. Rotten Tomatoes user score is not. The only reason I can see is that the rating the film has gotten (and I'm only guessing here) wasn't good, so you want to mask that with user ratings. I don't think you're going to find much support for that stance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to repeat everything here. See the Talk page. The wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film is clearly notable, and belongs in the article. Multiple editors have put in various versions trying to explain this. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with including an audience response, but it is well established that RT and IMDB user ratings are unreliable, another source for that information is needed. Hence why I was wondering if anyone has a CinemaScore subscription/if CinemaScore even polled Atlas Shrugged audiences. Also, I hardly think it is WP:CANVASSING to go to the Film WikiProject for a dispute over a film article. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section discussion at The Signal (film)

Please see Talk:The Signal (film)#Reception. More eyes on this would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actress category at CfD

Please see this discussion at CfD, related to the post I made above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Star Wars Episode VII

This is a neutral notice that there is an AfD for Star Wars Episode VII for those who wish to participate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling about this... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, isn't a parsec a unit of distance, not time? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather visit Mos Eisely Cantina unarmed than get involved in that discussion. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trap.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the Skyfall page

I have recently opened an RfC regarding the plot summary of Skyfall, the text of which reads:

Comments are invited on an issue with the Plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her surname is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end (and refer to the character by her first name throughout the rest of the summary)?

Comments are welcome regarding the above at at the relevant talk page section. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved until I've seen it, but just tell them that cast are linked in the cast section. We discussed this a few weeks ago and its perfectly valid to not be linking in the plot, cast and characters when they are linked and discussed in further detail after the plot, and in the context of the plot and what is essentially a series reboot, redirecting someone to another article in the plot is not a good way to deal with it either. We don't want to be sending readers to another article unless there is specific gain in doing so, especially since it is apparently a newly introduced character, even if an old one, where the information provides no additional information whatsoever in the area of this specific film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers DWB. I think this should close relatively soon anyway as it's moving in one direction, but there's still not quite enough agreement just yet. Hope you get to see it soon, and if you don't want to know the plot, don't look at the extensive plot section! The Chicago Trib seems horrified about the spoilers, but I guess it wouldn't be a story without the affected affront! (ps, there's no spoilers on that link, so you're safe to read on!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it yet either (so won't be paying a visit to the talk page itself), but you don't need to be Einstein to work out who we are talking about from the description of the dispute! To address the issue in general terms, the plot is an 'internal' description of the movie's universe: if it is likely Bond would have been aware of her true identity at the start of the film then it is probably acceptable to disclose it at the beginning of the plot summary (since it would not impact dramatically on the plot, and is just a wink to the audience's knowledge of Bond); if Bond himself would have learned the nature of her identity at a later point in the film then her identity should probably be disclosed later in the plot summary (like Darth Vader/Keyser Sozer etc). There is nothing to prevent a piped link either i.e. Anakin Skywalker pipes to Darth Vader in The Phantom Menace plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Betty: I have the piped link at the beginning (where the first name is introduced), although the surname isn't revealed until the final scene 9and makes not one iota of difference to the course or plot of the film). This appears to be a problem for a number of people, unfortunately. I'll leave the RfC running for another day or so and will probably have to change what there is now, although I suspect once the film is seen by the US audience, a lot of the complaints about the positioning of the link will die down! - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you do it but tehre is a template to add to articles that says it was mentioned in the news. I will hopefully be seeing it in...2 hours or so, probably 2h30 with trailers -__-. I'm really not a fan of linking characters in plot, especially when there is tangential relation beyond a name. Most recent example is Silent Hill: Revelation, linking to a bunch of characters that are little if anything like their game counterparts in the plot AND in the following cast section. Unless it is a term that requires explanation, I don't see a positive in directing a reader elsewhere in the middle of reading a large chunk of text. In regards to Betty's response, I look at The Dark Knight Rises where one of the characters is revealed to have the same name as a comic character at the end, but its a nod to the audience and not a part of the plot. So if he doesn't find out until the end and it is just a nod, its debatable whether it should be in or not, but I fall on the side of not linking, and of course you can also argue EGG if they're clicking on Bob and being taken to Superman, which would just leave them confused. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to hearing further from you in about 5 hours then! The whole discussion will make much more sense to you afterwards. As I said, unless there are a few others who come down on one of the sides then I'll probably close in a day or so. We've got the press reference on the talk page already (3 of them at the moment, but I suspect there'll be more to come). Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the only consideration I suppose is where the information is best placed in terms of its relevance to the plot. If editors are simply complaining on the basis of it being a spoiler then that isn't a legitimate concern in terms of a plot summary, since by their nature they include spoilers. In regards to linking character names (personally I can take it or leave it), but I guess you either do it for all of them or do it for none of them. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from getting into a fight with another patron I enjoyed the film Schro. I will head over to the article in a bit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that - I hope it didn't spoil it too mcuh for you! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it was all good for me at least. Bit long but a lot better than Quantum of SOlace. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC now closed: too many people trying to edit without discussing (the protection lifted off earlier today) and it was largely heading in one direction anyway, sadly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabox

Does Megabox (movie theatres) need to be disambiguated? It seems like there are different companies with that name:

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Now Redux merge discussion

There is currently a discussion underway considering the proposed merger of Apocalypse Now Redux into the Apocalypse Now article. Editors involved here might be interested in said discussion. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The horror. The horror. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pe de Chinelo ban discussion

Hi, everyone. A community ban proposal for the user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is taking place at AN: WP:AN#Community ban proposal: Pé de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now closed, since Pe de Chinelo is de facto community banned already. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American actresses at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the Film WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article Vigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement.

Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese films by year

Can anyone see a reason why this category exists and the sub-cats beneath it? Why are Japanese films being catergorised by the year of release? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reduces categorization by eliminating the need to place articles in one of the Category:Films by date subcategories and Category:Japanese films in accordance WP:OVERCAT. Furthermore, with respects to anime films, it eliminates an Category:Anime by date of first release subcategory and in some cases an additional Category:Animated films by decade subcategory as well. On top of that, both Category:Japanese films and many Category:Films by date subcats are very large and nearly impossible to browse through. So these categories would benefit greatly from diffusion as it would make them easier to navigate. That isn't something that is just limited to Category:Japanese films, but goes for all categories for countries with prolific film industries. I was actually surprised to find that these categories have been created by now. —Farix (t | c) 14:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can get a consensus first to diffuse these categories, instead of picking off one at random and going in all guns blazing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why bold actions cannot suffice. What you appear to be saying is that editors needs "permission" before taking a rather obvious actions, which smacks of ownership. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is to with a long-standing way of doing things here. I'm not saying don't do it, but a change of this scale would benefit everyone's time with a pre-discussion regarding the change. If it was so "obvious" it would have been done years and years ago. Now off you go and crack on with the 70,000+ film articles this affects. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthmore, the template in the infobox for film release date forces the year category into the article anyway. How do we get around that then, professor? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in it. We do genres by year, given people's interest in slapping nationalities on films it makes sense to pair that up with a category. GRAPPLE X 11:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to copy-paste what I've already said about this on my talk: "Per WP:DUPCAT, "there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purelybecause of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory". Because there are only limited number of subcategories and their exact further subcategorization type (ie by country, by genre, by format, etc), it does not make sense to remove them from the main category. [For example, why] would Category:2007 films contain all 2007 films except Japanese films? And there are discussions pertaining to this topic, albeit not about year and not using the terminology. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Australian film categories,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Splitting categories." There is good reason why each film year category is non-diffusing. It is the only location where all films released in a certain year a located. It does not make sense to remove films from a certain country from the category. BOVINEBOY2008 12:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat's GAR

Top Hat, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. GamerPro64 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming lists of films by year

I have proposed the renaming of over 850 pages which list the films produced each year in a particular country. All these pages appear to fall within the scope of this Wikiproject.

The discussion is at Talk:Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move, where your comments are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When is the film accepted as a source for the film's content?

Once again the plot description in a film article of mine was flagged as unsourced. I have got this film at home and I watched it nearly ten times (either the dubbed or the merely subtitled version). I also read the French and the German Wiki article before I wrote the plot description and I watched it while I wrote the plot description. Some time ago I used to add references to the plot descriptions until I was ridiculed for that and told that the film itself was a sufficient source for the plot. Well, obviously it is not. Or is it? NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 02:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film is a primary source, and as per convention we don't reference the plot (since the infobox includes the relevant bibliographic details). Provided you only relay the events of the plot and don't interpret it. It's difficult to judge the situation individually unless we know what the film is and the specific circumstances for its tagging, but WP:FILMPLOT coveres the general case. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Betty, it looks to me as if encapsulating the plot (or a part of it) is already considered an interpretation. Well, at least the English Wikipedia tags don't accuse anybody of "freies Fabulieren" (which means that an author allegedly makes up fairy tales as he goes)...
NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 04:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Betty, of course. Plot sections are verifiable by watching the film. The section should describe the action taken by the characters, with a minimum of context:
Bear and the girl run through the room, diving through the closed glass patio doors, shattering them in slow motion. They collapse within a few yards. In closeup, an eye looks around frantically, slowing to a fixed gaze to camera. The camera slowly ascends, revealing the shard-riddled couple, in expanding pools of blood, as the film ends.
Anyone tagging a plot section as "unsourced" needs to be gently educated about WP:FILMPLOT. If a plot section is wrong, as the above one is for the film Mary Poppins, the template {{failed verification}} might apply. Better to just watch the thing again. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit films and redirects

Hi. I've raised a point here about the current status of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey which is currently a redirect to the film series. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Country for Old Men (film)

No Country for Old Men (film), an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for Creation - Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

There is currently an elimination drive at AFC, which reached some 1200 articles last month and direly needed addressing. We've fought it down to the 200-500 article level, but could still use some more help. At any given point, several dozen of the submitted articles are about films or actors, so may be of interest to folks in this project.

The Drive is awarding some cool barnstars for participation, even as low as 5 articles reviewed, so your participation could really help chip away at the backlog. There is also the handy Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, no download required, you just turn it on in Preferences, which makes reviewing an article very quick, intuitive, and easy. I hope a few of you can come and help us out before the drive ends! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some advice, please

Some while ago, I created four movie articles: Best of Faces of Gore, Faces of Gore 2, Faces of Gore 3, and Just Can't Get Enough. What's troubling me about this is that I doubt that any of these films is genuinely notable. I'm not about to nominate an article I started for deletion, but I'm not sure at all that any of these articles would survive AfDs. I'd appreciate it if project members could give me their opinions about the notability of these films. If anyone does want to nominate any of those four articles for deletion, I don't resent that at all, BTW. In fact, I'd encourage it if people think that they aren't notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Faces of Gore films into Faces of Gore. Not sure about the notability of Just Can't Get Enough, but in marking film articles at Stub-Class, I've seen worse. And the fact that you created the article is irrelevant, if you think that it should be nominated for deletion, you should go ahead and nominate it. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I probably should, but I'm only human, dude. Anyway, thanks for dealing with the Faces of Gore films. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've Prod'd them. Notability clearly hasn't been demonstrated. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting someone to write more about SAG-AFTRA.

This article, SAG-AFTRA, really needs to be expanded if anyone is up to it. RGloucester (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Princess Mononoke

While I am improving the Princess Mononoke article to Featured Article status, there is unfortunately an ongoing edit war regarding the plot's length between me and 188.242.61.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am trying to keep the plot concise, but the IP has been adding in details which he feels is important to the plot despite my efforts in trying to help cleanup the section ([1], [2], [3]), which unfortunately exceeds the relevant 400-700 word limit guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. I am trying to reduce this plot summary to keep with the guidelines, but the IP is on the verge of violating 3RR and has repeatedly added to the expanded plot summary against the recommended 400-700 word limit. As it stands now, the plot summary is 819 words (and appropriately tagged) and as I do not wish to be blocked for edit warring, I am taking this discussion here per WP:BRD to see if anyone can voice their opinions on this matter here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sjones23, you are the one who making edit wars, because you are the one who destroying consensus version. And after that you blaming me in war edits?! Lol. What the nonsence. And this starts long time ago, in the september. And it is important that other members explained this to you too in the past. But now you thought that I'm no longer in WP and you may push plot section again... not ashmed? Not beautiful. I explained many times to you that there is more important things than your beloved film plot rule. Common sence. Look WP:5 and WP:IAR. You prevent to improve Wikipedia and in particular this Princess Mononoke article. I warned you, so, now I must adress to administrators. And just like at that time I ask another experienced members to explain to Sjones23 that he is not right and to help with article. Thanks for attention and sorry for not perfect english. "Anonymous with IP" 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus version" you were referring to was probably this passage, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus," but I think this does not really applies here, since this article has not gotten much good attention historically. As indicated in my last difference, TheFarix tagged the plot section for excessive plot detail. As a rule-abiding editor, I am trying to improve Wikipedia to comply with the rules and the guidelines. Unfortunately, you were already on the verge of violating WP:3RR, and I are trying to come up with a good discussion with other users of the project to weigh in on this matter. Plot summaries in film articles are immutable and can be changed at anytime by anyone, but the rules are that WP:FILMPLOT states that the plot summary's length should be between 400-700 words and to summarize the article, simple as that. I do know the the five pillars very well, and I am also being civil while maintaining common sense in applying the guidelines and policies when editing film articles, but please note that anyone engaged in an edit war is automatically wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again the same. I think now I truly see that it's useless to talk to you and explain. But I will say anyway. Historically there was consensus. Other Wikipedia members explained to you in the september that you were wrong. You admited that. But now you again on the wrong way and trying to push your vision and make it looks like I'm wrong here. It will not works. Not worked at that time and will not work now. ... And yes, I'm glad that in the last sentence you completely admit that you are wrong. But why then you continuing all this? Interesting... Maybe like rule-abiding editor you really and sincere trying to improve Wikipedia, but in that case you are working just as barrier in the way of improvement. Make more constructive things, not this absurdity, just as I told you monthes ago. Stop acting like bull. "Anonymous with IP" 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMPLOT is an excellent guide, rather than a hard and fast rule, so there's no need to count words. The two of you should discuss the best summary. Anyone who can describe the plot of Princess Mononoke in 700 words is doing well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elen. Since the Princess Mononoke plot summary is very complicated, we should discuss the best summary to use among the editors here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this film has a great plot. Quite complicated? Well, maybe. And becouse of that it can't be so briefly described. Really I wanted to write more, there are very important things and moments that are not writed in plot section at all. And after that Sjones23 wanted to delete critically important text in plot section. It's nonsence. I just don't understand - why you are so attached to those 700 words? Common sence is higher than this. After all, always there is exception. Just CAN'T write plot so briefly of this film. If you will delete something you will delete plot itself. It's equivalent of deleting plot itself, again. So, please, think about it. Don't let WP:FILMPLOT beat you from commoon sence. "Anonymous with IP" 02:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget:"The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as...", well, after dots I really can add "Princess Mononoke". You can't? Why? Again, you are right, plot is complexity enough. So don't delete important text that discover plot itself. I hope I will knock to you after all :) It is called logic. Nothing more. So, please, listen to me. I suggest to write plot section of Princess Mononoke even more. There are a lot of things that are not described at all. So... Sjones23, are at last agree or stil not? What about others, dear Sirs members? "Anonymous with IP" 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=522418247"