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 Rilech (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 17 April 2014 (→Development of (insert film here) pages). 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


Did you know

(4 more...)

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(20 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

  • 31 Dec 2024 – The Simpsons Ride (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion
  • 28 Dec 2024 – Wings (1927 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
  • 19 Dec 2024 – Temper (film) (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by AirshipJungleman29 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
  • 18 Dec 2024 – Fantastic Four in film (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

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
Israeli 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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

List of fiction works made into feature films

These lists could use some tidying up (they don't link between one another for example), but before I take a look, what do we think of the title? I'd prefer "fictional". Also the brackets and ampersand at the end of "List of fiction works made into feature films (0-9) & (A-C)" don't sit quite right to me, but not sure how to improve these.

Noah page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And see this related deletion discussion too. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomie de l'enfer

Someone has been vandalizing the Anatomie de l'enfer article for some time now. I suggest semi-protecting it. 89.139.186.69 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can log a report here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the request. Let's see what happens now... 89.139.186.69 (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now semi-protected for a few months. Let's hope the vandal won't return when the block's due. 89.139.186.69 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Beauty and the Beast (1946 film)‎

An IP is claiming that the UK title for this film is the same as the French one. I can't find a source to back this up. If anyone can please add it to the article in a way that doesn't remove the language template. Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that can be provided. MarnetteD | Talk 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I got my wires crossed on what was going on. The confusion is over the structure of the opening of the lede not what the title is in various countries. I have tries to explain my mistake here Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1946 film)#Disagreement about structure of first sentence but maybe one of you can straighten me or the IP or both of us out. MarnetteD | Talk 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this does need straightening out. Can I ask what difference it makes whether or not the language template is used? By the way, I have proven the UK title with simple links to BBFC, Amazon and The Guardian. 123.243.242.213 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Noah (1998 film)

In light of a requested move for the 2014 film Noah, I looked over the 1998 film and found it not up to Wikipedia standards. I've nominated it for deletion, and all opinions are welcome on its AfD page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films shot digitally at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User-submitted reviews in e.g. MetaCritic

I searched the archives and I perused Wikipedia:Review aggregators but I didn't find an answer. What is the current wisdom on using audience reviews (as opposed to critic reviews) from MetaCritic and other sites? I thought we avoided them as more or less useless and irrelevant, but I've been reverted at Ender's Game (film) so if I'm wrong then I need to back off. Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, see MOS:FILM#Audience response. The IP's argument is flawed: we wouldn't use a reader's letter in The New York Times as a source even though the NYT is a reliable source. Aggregators are used specifically for quantifying the response of legitimate film critics and only for that purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Jurassic World page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant RM

The current RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move has some relevance to how we title filmographies and similar articles. Your input there would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variety archives

Does any editor have access to the online Variety achives? There are three articles I'd like to get hold of, and unfortunately they do not offer a single article purchase. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I think I have access, but it depends on how old the articles are. Let me know the headlines and dates on my talk page, and I'll see if I can pull them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, These date back to 1942, if your access goes back that far!
  • On 1 June 1942 there were two articles about the death of John Barrymore, one was on the front page, one on page 4, but I can't get the headlines form the archives;
  • There is another article on page 4 of the 2 June edition too.
If you're able to get hold of these I'd be much obliged—if not, then thanks for the offer and for trying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and it does not go back that far, unfortunately. :( If anyone else here has access to a university library, they can search for Variety and see how far back that access goes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shame - but many thanks for the effort anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to a university library. Is there any more info you can provide, or where this might appear (ie a journal versus a database)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Favre1fan93, thanks for the offer. I don't know is there is another data outlet for Variety, but the one I've used before is here, on the magazine's own site. From what Erik has said above, I suspect there may be a different outlet too (I can access very recent stuff through a Lexis postal, for example, but not far enough back, unfortunately)! Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I found that I had access to Variety archives via ProQuest, but they unfortunately only have June 10, 17 and 24 1942 issues scanned in that database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lol - what bad luck! Thanks for your efforts Favre1fan93, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Good luck! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development of (insert film here) pages

It seems as though I've seen a growing number of these articles popping up. I wanted to approach the project and see what other's opinions are on them. How eager should editors be to create this type of page for films (say as done with Star Wars Episode VII, or potential superhero films such as future Marvel Cinematic Universe films or the upcoming Batman/Superman film), instead of developing the info in a "Sequel" subsection or (incorrectly) on the actual page before it passes notability guidelines. If it is something the project thinks is feasible, should the MOS be updated to reflect this option, and when it would and would not apply? Thanks for the opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, only saw this thread just now! I hate to admit it but I probably started that micro-trend. There are going to be some yet-to-be-produced film adaptations with an extensive enough development history to warrant a separate article. The problem is that a separate article will gravitate toward looking like an actual film article, especially if development news is very recent. We tried to use the disambiguation term "film project" on a few occasions but I find it clumsy. I'm in favor of a "Development of" prefix if there is too much information to be had in a broader article's section. Looking at Batman vs. Superman, perhaps a separate article is warranted with such a prefix. I see the prefix as clearly establishing that we're following the development of something, not the thing itself, which is not guaranteed (especially when it comes to Batman and Superman film history). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding Erik. I'm not necessarily against the creation of these page; I think they could actually become quite useful. As such, is there somewhere in the MOS we can amend or add that the project could decide when it would be appropriate to make such a page? My thinking is if people have started seeing these pages, they may jump the gun to creating one, when it would be better suited as a subsection somewhere or even in the Draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree and I would definitely support a possible update to reflect this trend in the MOS. Rilech (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

Quick question. I'm going through all the RKO films, and I'm noticing that in some articles the "release date" is the date of the premiere, while in others, it is the general release date. AFI, differentiates between the two, with the release date being the date of wide release, rather than date of the premiere. In the RKO releases, I've been conforming it to the release date (trying to be WP:BOLD), but was wondering what other editors think. The premiere is technically not the release. Perhaps in those instances two dates are appropriate?Onel5969 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere dates are included per Template:Infobox film:
Though not necessarily film festivals, premieres in specific cities are widely regarded as being the same, across numerous film articles. This is probably something that should be clarified in a separate discussion for the documentation page. As it stands, it's widely interpreted that premiere dates are included. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Corvoe, at least as far as common practice: premieres and general,releases (even in the same territory) are treated separately. A brief line in the documentation to clarify would be a good,idea. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These have been very helpful suggestions. As I go through the films by RKO (my current project), I will make sure to identify both the premiere and release dates. We might consider adding a note that this should be done on the guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Budapest Hotel genre

Hello, there is discussion about the genre for Grand Budapest Hotel that could use a second look. If anyone has a minute, It'd be great! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. —sroc 💬 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on how to fix an error

how do I fix an error in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie13b (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, make sure it's an error. Preferably, you'll have a citation for the change (or else it'll most likely be reverted). Second, at the top of each section, you'll see an "edit" button. Click on it, and you'll be brought to the edit screen (just like when you posted this question). Third, you'll make the changes. Fourth, at the bottom of the screen, you'll see a white field labeled "Edit summary", write a brief description there, and click "save". Onel5969 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jet Stream (film)

The article Jet Stream (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1. Just one sentence. 2. Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=604605476"