Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Template:Infobox Film

I want to add more elements to the Template:Infobox Film, like "style" and "time making". For example:

• Style: 2D animation
• Time-making: 2 years

Is it possible? Appleworm 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Those don't really seem necessary for the infobox. Instead, they would go under "Production," "Post-production," or the lead paragraph of the article. Volatile 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox should have only a minimal amount of important data so it doesn't get too big. The first one has little variation across films which would mean a lot of redundancy in infoboxes. The second one would be very difficult to find and even if it were as useful as budget would probably go widely unused. gren グレン 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

French films

I was looking at the Category:French films, and I noticed that some film titles are in French and some are in English. It's inconsistent. Shouldn't we come to a consensus here? I suggest English titles since this is an English Wikipedia. --Crzycheetah 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The lack of replies is probably because this has been discussed several times in several different talk pages. Besides using English, there are other factors that need to be looked into, such as what is the most common title, if the English title is official or unofficial and/or if there are several well-known English titles. I suggest we continue case by case. Prolog 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the reply. --Crzycheetah 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see the foreign film bit at WP:NC(F), which basically just repeats the information at the two links already provided by Prolog. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Film directors

I see that screenwriters have their own project. Where do directors go ? If part of this project, shouldn't there be something on their talk pages that indicates that ? -- Beardo 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If a sub-project for film crew (or a specific one for directors) is not created and adequately manned, our template wouldn't mean much. Note that the screenwriters sub-project is a one member effort (or was so when I last visited). Also please don't add the talk page film template to biographies, as in stubs it will expand to film article upgrading. Which is also true for all general film articles. Could we find a solution for this? Maybe a special film template for non-film articles? Hoverfish Talk 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create WikiProject Filmmakers which incorporates all actors, direcotrs, cinematogrpahers, editors etc and also screenwriters unifying a two man project ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whose fetus?

The article states that Homer performed an abortion on Rose, but it is unclear who the father was - it says (paraphrasing) that "Rose became pregnant by him" - apparently either Rose's father or Wally Worthington, but it is ambiguous as to which (I would edit it but I do not know who the father was).

Proposed categorization for Soviet and Russian films

Note: Discussion has been moved here. Esn 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually this issue should be posted in our categorization sub-project page, but I will answer here. IMO Category:Russian Empire films should be created again. We need 10-20 films to justify it in terms of size (I think). The users that CfD'd it have nothing to do with Films and it's getting to be a problem lately with film related deletions with no one notifying us here. I support your proposal. The language category is an independent one from the country categories, so it shouldn't substitute any period. Maybe we should put a request in the German category pages to notify us before CfDing any of them. After we straighten up the present mess, we must also clean up the overlap. Hoverfish Talk 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've partially translated a fourth article for the category. Creating a total of 10 articles should be doable, but it'll take some time. Anyway, good point, I'll move the discussion there. Esn 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films and WP:Indian cinema infobox divide?

Due to our large influx of new infobox requests, I was wondering if there would be any objections to creating a new infobox request template just for Indian films and Persian films which WP:Indian and WP:Persian cinema could use, while WP:Films retains the {{needs film infobox}}. By doing this, each project could better focus on their individual infobox requests instead of having them all clustered into a large collection of requests. We have so far done a good job on fulfilling many infobox requests and I commend the efforts of the editors who have added so many requests to many of the films that do not have infoboxes. Perhaps we can add a programmable distinction in the {{needs film infobox}} template stating something like "project=Films", "project="Indian", "project=Persia", for example. This could then be divided into new categories for people to better edit articles pertaining to each project. I would prefer consensus on this first before we do anything that we may have to redo later. I'll post a message on both of the other projects to join in on the discussion here. --Nehrams2020 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. I think automation might have problems, but I'm not the best to judge this. We could add a field to the request infobox that simply assigns another request-category to it. For example {{needs film infobox|WP=India}} (if no WP= entered then proceeds as usual) would assign category [[Category:WPIndian cinema articles that need a film infobox]] or something more concise. Maybe this could be combined with automation, but we have to make sure no undesired side-effects happen. Hoverfish Talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Really, even after tagging all of the country films categories I suspect there are still thousands of uncategorized, unbannered film articles out there. If someone's willing to do this, it could be done for all of this project's descendants, which would make it easier to enlist their help. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I kind of see this as a waste of time. It doesn't help further organize and clarify what needs to be done. I maybe see the argument that doing this will get the word out to members of the subj-projects but... I think they can easily browse the list and pick out films from their own cinema not to mention that I don't believe the editors on either of the subprojects have been very active in doing infoboxes (I may be wrong) so it won't even enlist more help. I fear that to an extent this is because users want to be done doing a huge backlog of infoboxes... and I don't think putting them in another category gets us any closer to that goal. If you don't want to do Indian films then don't, It's pretty easy to see which ones they are. So, if you really want to do this... go ahead but I don't see the good in it. It's just compartmentalizing work which is far removed from expertise (which is why stubs are split) since infoboxes are just copy and paste jobs with no expertise required, just some effort in tracking down cast and crew. gren グレン 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing it by hand would be crazy but bots, and I have no experience in using them, but it should be possible to have a bot do all the sorting. It's hard to say how much good it would do but if it's easily accomplished it's worth a shot. And it might come in handy if we attempt to tackle needed pictures and synopsis's at some point... Doctor Sunshine talk 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm so busy doing infoboxes that I could wait and see how it all develops, before doing anything about it. It's just that every day I have to scan several columns to see if any non-India film was added to a cleared letter and it's not always as clear as you say. Often it's Cantonese, Albanian, or other titles that might or might not belong to WP India. But you are right (Gren): even this daily searching is faster than going into all Indian films and adding a field. As for bots, I don't run one, but I don't think they can tell by themselves if the film is Albanian or Indian. They improve speed but someone has to be there and do considerable semi-manual work using them. Hoverfish Talk 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off an article on production history

I am currently putting The Devil Wears Prada through peer review with the hope of eventually reaching featured status. The main problem has been how to shorten up an article that at one point reached 91K and is probably still (at 80K after the "differences between film and book" section was prosified) the longest article on a single film.

It grew because, as I said introducing the article at peer review, there is just an unusual amount of information available about this film. I found a great deal of it to be relevant to the article, the sort of thing the project guidelines say we should include (i.e., actors and crew explaining the creative decisions they made, often in their own words) and much of it is in the production section, currently accounting for a third of the whole article.

When I was working on this, I realized how big it was getting and considered splitting off that section as a separate article, perhaps to be entitled Production history of The Devil Wears Prada. Essentially this would be a "making of" article and I could see how other films might benefit from having this possibility available (the Star Wars series, for instance).

Reading through the feedback I've gotten from two reviewers, both of whom seem to have read the article thoroughly, with one small exception no one seems to have found anything in that section to be unencylopedic. So I'm even more strongly in favor of doing so now. I've had the proposal on peer review and the talk page for a couple of days with no comment. If someone here has any reasons why they don't want to see this set as a precedent, or why this is a lousy idea, this is the place to say so. Daniel Case 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice article. It was bound to happen that a production history of some film would become this large. Making a seperate page is a good idea. I would leave a condensed version of the prod hist in the page, with a link to the larger article. - Peregrine Fisher 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment (this article dominated my editing in December and January). Of course there'll be a link and summary, per standard practice. Daniel Case 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think production history articles are that useful. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to this type of content. If people want to learn the history of how the movie is made: they can go elsewhere. I would think there is some kind of guideline against this. RobJ1981 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't think these are useful? I don't know a single film where there isn't something from the production history that knowing doesn't enhance your appreciation of the finished film — that the screenwriters for Casablanca were a couple of scenes ahead of the actual filming for most of the shoot, that Dustin Hoffman ad-libbed that "Hey! I'm walking here!" line in Midnight Cowboy when that cab unexpectedly came into the shot, that The Blues Brothers cost as much as it did to make not only because of the car chases but because they lost whole shooting days waiting for Belushi to either come down or get coked up enough to shoot (actually, I just learned from the article that they really dropped a Ford Pinto from a plane at the end, and had to get a special certificate from the FAA to do it).

I think also of how, in the vein of productions shutting down because actors get sick, how Kubrick stopped Full Metal Jacket cold for a couple of months so Lee Ermey could recover from his car accident. We all know the story of what Lawrence Olivier said about Hoffman's staying up all night before a scene in Marathon Man The article on Heaven's Gate would be greatly enhanced if edited by someone who's read Final Cut (like how only midway through production, the studio learned Cimino was making money on the side off them by leasing land he owned to the studio for the production.

Film critics and historians spend lots of time trying to talk to actors and filmmakers and research this stuff for a reason. If it wasn't important we wouldn't have production sections at all. Since it is, if one gets too long, we split it off. Daniel Case 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Most people like to know about how a film was made. WikiNew 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with splitting it off as long as independent opinions can verify that the subsidiary article doesn't go into unnecessary detail about the production history. From what I've seen, the content seems fairly acceptable and comprehensive. Lord of the Rings has its own split-off articles because of the mountain of information available in regard to its own production. There's nothing wrong with a split-off article if the information is notable to the film's production and not something like, "Filming was cancelled on so-and-so date because the main actor was sick." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a whole new article going into unnecesary detail? It seems to be the excuse on Wikipedia (sometimes at least): if the article gets too long, then it's split into seperate articles. While this is helpful sometimes, other times it just makes crufty articles. At times, condensing should be the key. Long sections can be condensed in correct ways, without ruining the section and/or article. RobJ1981 20:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Many articles on main subjects often have subsidiary articles. For example, a country would have a "history of", "people of", etc articles. Film articles shouldn't be any different as long as the information is encyclopedic and not just an indiscriminate collection of information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Luckily this page is so well referenced, we can discuss this on the merits of splitting long articles, and not on what's cruft or not. It seems to me that Production history is the most encyclopedic info about a film that there is, beyond cast, dates, and maybe cultural influence. We're not talking about splitting off plot summary or something. If the resulting page attracts referenced editing, that's a good thing. - Peregrine Fisher 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to turn away such high-quality writing and references, but this just doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic at this level of detail. I feel like the section could be cut by a third or half without affecting the overall level of informativeness. There's a whole paragraph on the personal feelings of one screenwriter, for instance, which I see as review or interview fodder, not critical to the history of the movie. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to cut once it was in a separate article, perhaps, to trim that down. Right now my priority is just to get this article to manageable length. It seems to me there's a consensus in favor here. I doubt the separate article would get much longer, other than discussing why a few scenes were cut (something helpfully cut from the main article by someone here.

I'll let this go a day or so longer before I split and condense, as long as the discussion continues its current path. Daniel Case 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language film title guidelines

I have attempted a rewrite of the naming conventions guidelines for foreign films in order to make them less vague. I would appreciate feedback; please offer opinions on the talk page here. Thanks. Cop 633 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to give this link - yours doesn't work. Esn 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images...

Use of posters or DVD covers to illustrate the article on the film is legit, right? elvenscout742 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, yes.--NeilEvans 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure to include a descriptive fair use rationale, a proper movie poster or DVD cover license, and the source where you got it on the image's page. Otherwise, it may be deleted or removed from the article. --Nehrams2020 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Swordsman image has the basics. Although this may not be absolutely necessary, you can also add to subsequent uploads "for use only in (name of article)". If you don't see any mention that copying/using a movie poster needs a special permission, it's all legit. Hoverfish Talk 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an image today for the film Cry, the Beloved Country (film) - the image is Image:CryTheBelovedCountryFilm.jpg. I then received a message saying it might be deleted. Can anyone tell me what exactly to put for a "specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use". I have put the source and that it is a DVD cover. What else do I need to do? Thanks, Belovedfreak 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The image needs a fair use rationale on the description page such as what I have at Image:Meet the robinsons.jpg. Make sure to include one on each image you upload (you'd have to reword it for DVD covers or screenshots). Let me know on my talk page if you want further clarification. --Nehrams2020 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nehrams2020, that's the kind of example I was looking for. Belovedfreak 12:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also just found a useful template here: Fair use rationale guideline. Belovedfreak 12:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Film characters comment and question

I believe I posted something about this a while ago (and didn't get many replies). So I'll try again. Is it necessary for all major (and some minor) film characters to get articles? I can understand for long running series such as Star Wars, Nightmare on Elm Street, James Bond, etc... but what about animation? Example: Category:Cars characters. Cars was popular, but it's still a one time movie. It might get a sequel (one could be even confirmed now?), but either way: articles for each character seem like a bit much to me. A list page for the characters would work better. Cars was 116 minutes (and even counting extra things that weren't part of the movie and so on), it's not much material. I'll use the Lightning McQueen article as example. 3 paragraphs about the movie, a little over a paragraph about the game (which wasn't that notable: many movie games come out all the time and flop.} Then there is an international names section, and a huge trivia section. When you remove alot of the cruft: the article would be a couple of paragraphs at best. This doesn't just apply to one time films, it applies to things such as Ice Age as well. Ice Age had 2 films: and it has crufty articles that would be suited for a list better. What does everyone else think on this matter about character articles? RobJ1981 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FICT. Characters should only have articles if they are recognized and notable outside of the fictional context. Most times, characters taken from a single fictional source have articles that regurgitate information already found in the main article, so they have little reason to exist. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well from the looks of the Cars character articles: they do regurgitate information from the movie. This will need to be looked into more, before a list page is made I believe. RobJ1981 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is a list of the Cars characters, found at List of Cars characters. I think in the past, the list was even longer than it is now (don't know how that's possible), and some people suggested splitting these characters off. Then later they had merge tags on them to bring it back. So either they merged and split again or never merged. --Nehrams2020 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

YIKES! That list page is a mess. Does it include all characters or what? In my opinion: list pages like that should be major characters and supporting characters only: NOT a massive guide to everyone/almost everyone. To reply to Nehrams: my guess is the merges didn't happen once the tags went on. I've seen plenty of times where people don't discuss merges, and then the tags just vanish due to lack of interest. The list page has had tags on it since July and November 2006...that's not a good sign either. RobJ1981 08:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In a Cars related note: Cars Diecast Line is a listcruft of another matter. Is it that notable to list each car in the series? I somehow doubt collectors are using Wikipedia as a source to find out that information. As I looked at the talk page: it was in AFD (and basically got kept by default: everyone said keep except for one, if you don't count the person that nominated it). AFD isn't about votes: but in this case I think it was. RobJ1981 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I cannot find an archive of Gene Siskel's reviews (been to his dot com, and chicago times where Ebert is), and I'm working on a film that was significantly panned by him, and it's subsequent sequels. I have two official books that discuss his review and quotes him on several things, but I don't have a source to the literal review. I was wondering if I can use the books as the source, or if I have to scrap him altogether because there doesn't seem to be an archive of his film reviews (at least not that I could find) since his death.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing the books rather than the original review, as long as the books are reliable sources.Cop 633 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just wasn't sure if that was going to be a problem. I'm still looking for Siskel's reviews, but it's good to know that I can fall back on the books.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article under review at FAC

Hello. I recently self-nominated the article on the recent Academy Award winner for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan at WP:FAC. Please read the article and comment, as well as copyedit if you wish. It's a fascinating read.-BillDeanCarter 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One movie, five articles

In the process of adding infoboxes, I came across When Lincoln Paid and When Lincoln Was President, both marked as 1913 films. I merged them and redirected the latter. Now I've just found The Reprieve: An Episode in the Life of Abraham Lincoln, which is another almost identical article - with two changes, different year and imdb number. Now there's a fourth article Abraham Lincoln's Clemency with a different year and imdb article! I left requests there for clarification on which is the "real" date... any information from here on which is the right one?

• When Lincoln Paid
• When Lincoln Was President
• The Reprieve: An Episode in the Life of Abraham Lincoln
• Abraham Lincoln's Clemency
• The Sleeping Sentinel

SkierRMH 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also gone through the IMDb search when I came across Whem Linkoln Was President. They have also different directors. My impression is they are different short films shot at various times. The info we could give in various infoboxes would be minimal and I doubt the articles would ever grow beyond a few lines. Maybe it would be best to forget the infobox and merge them all in an article (Abraham Lincoln in film?) Hoverfish Talk 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems they're all listed in the Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln article. Perhaps that could just be expanded upon to include what little information there is? Chickenmonkey 12:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My first inclination was to do a merge, but looking at Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln, it appears that this already does this, albeit in a more generic manner. As they seem to have minor differences (although the 1914 doesn't have an imdb listing), I'm just marking them as such and doing redirects if there's identical articles for the same year. SkierRMH 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

Can an senior-type editor or admin mosey on over to the film article? Seems a couple groups of editors are bickering about the inclusion of a statement that one wants included in the article, while the other doesn't think it belongs in the article at all. The two editors are faced off against each other, and little else is getting done. Maybe some impartial help could step in and lend a judging hand? (although, not a hanging judge, coz' that would be a bit on the severe side).Arcayne 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the need is somewhat urgent, as an editor who is not really impartial is weighing in on the matter. Please come and lend a hand.Arcayne 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne has gotten his impartial admin and is unhappy with the result. I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A film's 'year'

My recollection is that somewhere we have a guideline saying that a film's 'year of release' refers to its first screening, not to its first wide release, so that a film screened at festivals in 1996 but not widely released until 1997 would still be called a 1996 film (following IMDB's policy). Am I right? and if so, where is this guideline and can we make it easier to find?! Cop 633 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for release year slightly differ between Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), {{Infobox Film}}, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Release_dates. --PhantomS 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, it's best to state first screening. We should fix the guidelines accordingly. In some cases where a cut version was released and later the film was re-released uncut (like in some Soviet Union cases), it's best give both dates (see Andrei Rublev (film)). Hoverfish Talk 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with Hoverfish, but would lean more toward first public screening, rather than say at a film festival, as sometimes there is a long period between screening at a film festival and a film going on general release.--NeilEvans 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a film festival a public screening? Hoverfish Talk 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes a film festival is a public screening, but what I meant was general release, as I said sometimes the time between film festival screening and general release can be few years, so I would go for the date when it was distributed on general release.--NeilEvans 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope we get more opinions on this soon. For one, we will not be in line with film databases (imdb and amg tend to give earliest screening). For another, more important reason, keep in mind that in our major film lists (by letter, years in film, by country) we have been meticulously giving first release in all ambiguous cases. We can clear this out in the article, even in the lead section, we can enter both dates in the infobox, but as far as naming, categorizing and listing, I would keep it by first release. I have also seen in the years in film a few double entries with mention of type of release in each year entry. Hoverfish Talk 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to stick with earliest screening, as per Hoverfish. It's a bad idea to get out of sync with IMDB and All Movie Guide on this, it would cause endless confusion. Also, as far as I can tell, there aren't any film articles using the 'general release' year, so if we settled on that we'd have to go and fix them all. Nightmare. Cop 633 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the style guides listed above to make them consistent with the 'first public screening' approach since that seems to be the normal state of affairs in articles. Feel free to stop me if you disagree! Cop 633 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK never mind, it turns out the infobox styleguide is protected ... hopefully it can get updated soon.Cop 633 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Olsson

Does anybody else think that Sandy Olsson should be deleted? Kris Classic 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Danny Zuko redirects to the Grease musucal article. But Betty Rizzo has the start of what could be a good article with a bit more expansion. If someone was interested enough one could discuss the different interpretation between the musical and the film versions of characters. So really it could go either way.--NeilEvans 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter (March 10, 2007)

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Un chien andalou.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Add professional reviews to {{Infobox film}}?

Someone asked about this at Wikipedia:Requested templates. I looked through the talk archives here and all I could find was a consensus against linking to community-created reviews like IMDB and RottenTomatoes, but nothing about professional reviews. These are often linked in {{Infobox album}}. I will relay the proposal and let you guys comment. —dgies^t_c 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't there a "Reviews" option for the film infobox? The album infobox has one, and when viewed, it appears as "Professional Reviews," where you can place the name of the reviewer/review site and the number of stars. This is how the "Reviews" option looks on the template in the edit pane for AC/DC's Back in Black: | Reviews = * [[All Music Guide]] {{rating-5|5}} [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wzaxqjkboj6a link] Now, let's say we added this to the template for the film infobox. The box for the movie Halloween would look like this: | Reviews = * [[Roger Ebert]] {{rating-4|4}} [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19791031/REVIEWS/40823003/1023 link]

Sounds like a great idea to me. It's actually one of the most important out-of-universe types of information that we could include in a film article. Make it optional, of course, so that we can slowly add it as we feel like. Imdb numbers will still be a no-no. - Peregrine Fisher 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean Imdb ratings will be no-no, to which we have agreed over and over again. Rotten Tomatoes does offer a rich variety of professional review links mainly (including Eberts as "Cream of the Crop", see [1]), but it was voted to stay in external links instead of the infobox. Imdb and Amg are given instead, mostly because of the data (cast, crew, tech) they provide on the film. Hoverfish Talk 07:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposal is to add a new variable to the template for the purpose of listing only those reviews which satisfy WP:RS. —dgies^t_c 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the infobox may become overly tall. See below. - Peregrine Fisher 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It sound good to me too, but is this for Robert Ebert in particular, or for ANY link that could satisfy RS? And a question: does Ebert provide reviews for MOST films (even most foreign ones) or will this remain a field for few films? Hoverfish Talk 09:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ebert was just an example. Most newspaper or TV film critics meet WP:RS. This would be an optional variable to be used when a professional film review is available online. —dgies^t_c 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. The film infobox is already drastically long. Reviews belong in prose, not a list. I also need to add one man like Ebert or Travers et al is undue weight to one opinion, especially if they may not represent a consensus. Ebert is known for hating the original Godzilla and Gladiator. WikiNew 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is a site that offers plenty of links to such reviews and it has been decided that it stays out of the infobox and into section "External links", where also any other acceptable reviews can be given. But surely prose benefits the article (and Wikipedia) much more than listing external link. The value of seeking films in Wikipedia rather than Rotten Tomatoes, is that we have (or should have) our own presentation of each film, with references to professional reviewers where necessary. Now, some may think of the infobox as the big highlights, but actually the article is the main bit. The infobox is given only as a quick reference to identify the film. Even the very disputed links to imdb and amg serve merely as a cross checking accommodation. Any further data in the infobox (even budget IMO) is beyond its purpose. Hoverfish Talk 14:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that this should not go into the infobox, but should be in it's own section within the article as an "external link". I've removed several of these that were in infoboxes as "website" and put them into the external link section. And as others have said, the infoboxes can get a bit overly long at times! SkierRMH 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox can get really tall

I've seen a number of infoboxes that are longer than the accompanying article, which doesn't look right. Alice in Wonderland (1903 film) is one example. Have we had a discussion about how to deal with this? Template talk:Infobox actor has a bit about it, but I think we should really start thinking outside the box. Off the top of my head, maybe a template that goes at the bottom of the page? I know we can just add this stuff in prose, but I'd like to hear ideas other than that. You can say "just add a reviews section" but I don't see it happening that often, or being done that well. Another idea; a template that would go into a reviews section. How about a cast template that would go under a "Cast" section header. Something that would look like { {cast|actor1|actor2|...}} and expand into something that doesn't look like a table, but looks like prose. I think templates that people can just fill out, without having to think about complete sentences, would be good. - Peregrine Fisher 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been firmly established that an infobox should not replace the article. What is given in the infobox, should be in the article. In the case of Alice the article should normally grow to include all the info. As soon as a cast section is created, the cast should be moved there, and only 2-3-max.4 top actors should remain in the infobox. A review section would have to be created too, if we add the field in the infobox. Much better if we add a separate template for it (IMO), as the infobox template is obviously getting to be quite lengthy. As for this template for cast, don't forget the format should be *[[Actor]] as Role and this seems easier done without a template. Cast given in prose is also acceptable, but it happens mostly in more developed articles. Hoverfish Talk 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Film

There is an important updated regrading this template. Please read the talk page and comment on it. Thank you. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is being discussed, is to reduce the box to a one line box with a hide/show, which also applies to the stub upgrading info. We need to get all concerned members on this, please take a look at the model that has been worked out and give opinion. Hoverfish Talk 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dukes Of Hazzard The Beginning

Under Trivia, the user adds in a useful fact along with his opinion. Should this be edited or kept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daboss94 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I fixed it. --Nehrams2020 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenwriter/editor stubs

After consensus I closed the case on the long awaited stub categories and set them up Category:Screenwriter stubs and Category:Film editor stubs now exists. Sceen-writer-stub and film-editor-stub is the mode. If you could spread the word I would be grateful. I'll categorize the American-screenwriter tubs in the main cat above now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Actors and Directors

I don't know whether you agree or not butI have always beleived that actors and directors and cinema characters are tied to our Film Project. Nobody can dispute the fact that they are part of cinema and films and I beleive we have at least some responsibility to upkeep them if they are directly linked from our film articles. However rather than setting up a seperate project what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Actors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Filmmakers. THis way they are a part (or at least tied) to our film project. Each page would highlight the articles that require most attention, missing articles etc for better project coordination. WikiProject Biography is so enormoous and I see hundreds of actor and director articles in very poor shape and neglect -Biogrpahy cannot work to effectively concentrate on hundreds of thousands of articles at once!!. The cinema characters would be a part of both projects. Ther is no obligation but it would certianly help to organize it all better, However if nobody wants it as part of films then of course they can be set up independently. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography needs to separate actors and directors from the arts and entertainment workgroup and place them into their own separate workgroup. --PhantomS 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be within the scope of several WikiProjects. I would suggest perhaps creating a Filmmakers work group to this project, which would focus solely on biography articles for those in the film industry. Girolamo Savonarola 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Girolamo -WikiProject:Filmmakers would incorporate direcotrs, cinematographers and editors and producers etc. But do mean include Actors into this? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmakers (there is already Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors, but as PhantomS says, these projects have to be dealt with starting from WPBiopgraphies. If such in-between projects are started, they have to align with both projects. I don't think they should be created as Film sub-projects (WP Films/Actors). My guess is they will grow fast and should stand in their own project namespace. Hoverfish Talk 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My idea would be to unify Screenwriters into the Filmmakers project ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Year in film delinking

There is a user going around hitting many film articles and categorically removing the year in film links from the articles, stating the MOD on dates disallows it when it says no such thing, and causing much disruption to the work of hundreds. The user in question is User:82.3.252.147 and they appear to have a real grudge and point to make with these edits due to the fact they are the only edits made from this IP address. Ben W Bell talk 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what we say as project to this (from discussions I have followed). The film infobox has it in its guidelines to link "year in film". The year in the lead, does not need to be linked as "year" or as "year in film". Any subsequent mention of year should be linked to "year in film" only if this link is in context and somehow helpful to the sentence (which is usually not the case). As for the fact that this user comes as IP with no account and states that there are "thousands of editors who don't want it" is another problem. However his/her edits cannot be considered disruptive, unless there are other cases beyond the year link. Hoverfish Talk 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm against the delinking. If the lead describes it as a 19xx film, then a link to a summary article about film in that year is appropriate. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now that I checked, I see even the instructrions in the infobox have been changed and in a way not as per our above discussion (see section A film's 'year'). So someone has removed the instruction to link to year-in-film. Hmm... Hoverfish Talk 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I went into several archives but can't find the last discussion. As per JPS and Ben W Bell, there is a wish to link year-in-film in the lead and probably further into the article. Please, offer further opinions, including if we should have a poll about it. Hoverfish Talk 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

These were the instructions from the old Infobox Film Syntax Guide:

• Release date (Variable: released)

When was the film released? Or when will the film be released?

Use: if possible, the exact release date. ("May 18, 2008") Use the first public non-festival release in any country. This means any limited releases or openings before opening wide should go by the limited release date. If multi-country entries are necessary, you can put the flag icon before the release date for each country (see the 2nd Wiki).

Wiki: [[May 18]], [[2008]]

Wiki: {{Flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[May 18]], [[2008]]

--PhantomS 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was discussion on this, but never anything conclusive (one place for the discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive#Intro_format, that's the first archive of this talk page). However, the discussion was always whether to link to 'year in film' or just 'year' in the opening paragraph, not having a link at all wasn't ever really an option, so there really is a consensus to link to something. I always put a link to a 'year in film' in the opening paragraph, full date for the release date in the infobox (and a link to a plain year if I can't find a full date), and don't link random years mentioned at other places in the article. You can't use 'year in film' for full dates (ie. the release date), since as far as I know, it breaks the date formatting from user preferences. - Bobet 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how I do it too and how I see it done most often in film (and otherwise) articles. Doctor Sunshine talk 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's also the same method I've been using for the last year when I went through tagging articles or adding infoboxes/images. --Nehrams2020 20:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be added in the Style guidelines to avoid further confusion.

• A [[2008 in film|2008]] film released on [[May 18]], [[2008]]. --Crzycheetah 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but stating it in that form would be redundant, plus I don't think the release date is usually relevant enough to be included in the opening sentences. How about you say "Use a link to 'year in film' for the first instance of the release year. Any further years should be left unlinked, full dates should be linked normally according to WP:MOSDATE". - Bobet 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That was just an example. I wanted to show how to wikify. --Crzycheetah 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing article status

I've been doing some work on Will Hay movies today, creating articles for those without any and tidying up existing ones - particularly Oh, Mr Porter!. This is currently listed as a stub, and I wondered what the procedure was to get this changed to Start class or even get some feedback on what is needed to get the article to a position where a move to Start class would be possible? StuartDouglas 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When to change an article from stub to start is up to whoever wants to make the change. You can read about the criteria at Category:Film articles by quality. I would say the Mr Porter article is start class, myself. - Peregrine Fisher 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The simplest way to determine if it is a start class is to look at the Stub to Start template on the talk page. It lists all of the criteria the article needs to reach start class (infobox, image, cast, plot, good intro, proper cats, and two other sections). If the article meets the criteria, you can reassess the article yourself to start class and the template automatically goes away. We added the template to help improve the quality of the articles, and have achieved some success so far, even though it is at a slow rate due to the large number of articles that are added each day. If you also don't agree with a particular assessment you can ask for a proper review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. The article mentioned above is definitely a start, so I'll change it right now. Good job and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of new subproject

For reasons of keeping conversation threads in one place and relieving this page of the extra load, I suggest starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management. Like this we could also decide on some guidelines and coordinate better the activities of several members working in film lists, and associated navigation templates. Please offer opinions. If there are no objections, the subproject will start on the 20th of March. Hoverfish Talk 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea to help set some parameters and clear guidelines for creating and modifying our film lists and prevent the continuous cycles of editors outside of WP:Films who like to remove them (although at times, they do remove some really bad lists). This will help to organize the lists and determine if there are any we should get rid of based on approved guidelines. Who knows, maybe we can get a list or two featured. --Nehrams2020 08:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support THis is a very good idea -wise words again! It would help very much to have such a page to involve other members of the project rather than conversations dominated by Hoverfish and myself. WHilst I do like personal discussion from time to time the majority of film list talk should approprirately be done here. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Some recent discussion and deletion review of the film country templates resulted in talk being spread out over many talk pages. A project like this would hopefully consolidate that and provide a reference for editors outside WP:FILM. — WiseKwai 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a proposed policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, that may or may not have some impact on this. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting proposal. In this case all our activities will be completely within the WP Films scope. If you understand better than me the notion of tiers and task forces, how do you think we should organize this best? As for extra tags, we don't need any. Basically, we will be taking care of all WP Films Class=List articles. And by the way of Nehram's comment, it seems to me a list is destined to remain class List (no chance for GA's or FA's here). Hoverfish Talk 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably don't understand it any better than you—I just skimmed it. The gist I got is that it's to reduce the amount of time people spend setting up project pages and replace project banners with tags such as WPBiography's work-group tags (as well as streamlining efficiency). I just didn't want to see people pour too much work into this or the filmmakers projects mentioned above only to see them gutted or overhauled should the policy become official. I think making it a subsection of this project, such as .../List and navigation management, is fine and what they're getting at. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, task forces and work groups are set up to cover specific articles by content. Maintenance and style groups would be considered departments. Girolamo Savonarola 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Girolamo for putting things where they belong. So, that will be a department, just like the categorization one. And by the way, I just discovered I am wrong about lists: there ARE featured lists !!! Hoverfish Talk 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New WIKIPROJECT FILM BIOGRAPHIES

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals I am proposing a new wikiproject which if it was allowed to develop would become a major project. I have noticed that as a member also of WP Films that articles on actrors, film directors, producers, cinematogrpahers, etc are often to much for Biogrpahy to deal with and are often neglected with no real focus for improvement. I strongly beleive we need an institution on wikipedia to take care of all Film people. I propose Wikipedia:WikiProject:Film biographies. If I created the tag for this project each time you would mark it as WPFilmmakers it would automatically put it is Biography articles and maybe film people as well . Please let me know what you all think. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, and I see that you've already posted it on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. However, IMHO, it should probably be setup like WP Musicians. --PhantomS 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - standardizing Category:Years in film

Just a heads up, so people don't panic if they notice the changes. I'm in the process of standardizing the format and expanding and cleaning up the subcategories for Category:Years in film. I noticed that while Category:Films by year is pretty well organized, Category:Years in film seems to use a slightly different set up, was missing a number of subcats and didn't use templates for boiler plate syntax.

What I've done is create a new template Template:infilmyr which is similar to Template:filmyr for the Category:Films by year subcategories. I am changing or creating each subcategory of Category:Years in film using the standarized format in Template:infilmyr, and am also moving each Year in film list article (eg 2003 in film) to the corresponding category (eg Category:2003 in film). When my work is completed, you'll have a subcategory of Category:Years in film for every year for which a film related article exists. Individual films will still appear within the corresponding subcategories of Category:Films by year. Finally, as a minor note, I'm removing some of the redundant categories from articles to make sure an article doesn't appear simultaneously in both a category and one of its subcategories (eg an article shouldn't appear in both Category:Years in film and Category:2003 in film since "2003 in film" is a subcategory of "Years in film").

What I'm doing is fairly straightforward, but will take a little time to complete. Any feedback or questions, please feel free to let me know, but in the end this should make "Years in film" better organized and more consistent in style to "Films by year". It will also make it easier to change the format of these categories across the board by allowing an editor to simply edit the template. Dugwiki 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this issue belongs to the Films categorization department, so we'd better get all relevant threads there. I will copy your message there, so we can take it from there. Hoverfish Talk 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Stooges

I believe that there is a need for a Three Stooges WikiProject. Three Stooges information on Wikipedia needs significant improvement, and an organized project to help further this goal would be helpful. Is anyone else interested? Fleagle 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom, as we are used to look here for new messages. In Category:Three Stooges I see about 90 articles only. It's not advisable to create a WP for such a narrow scope. Please, see also the new WP reform proposal, particularly section "Scope and critical mass". Hoverfish Talk 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast list for foreign language dubs

It seems unnecessary to me to list voice actor for foreign language dubs in the cast section, even if the film is animated and the original actor isn't apparent on screen. See The Incredibles#Voice cast, for example. It creates an unwieldy table that's probably irrelevant to most readers. How should it be handled? Leave as-is? Fork to list-type article? Move to articles on corresponding-language Wikipedias? There has to be a better way than making an exhaustive list in the main article... I checked the archives, and this doesn't seem to have been discussed here before, though. --Fru1tbat 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is worth noting. It does seem that this is in need of a standardization, though. Just look at the articles for the many Studio Ghibli films. Even those don't have a standard way of doing this. Chickenmonkey 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In a film article notable information is about the original work, and since this is the English Wikipedia, it is conceivable that for foreign films we could mention some additional info about the English version. In this case the film is American and how it was dubbed around the world is beyond the scope of a film article. This huge and mostly irrelevant table within a film article is a catastrophy for the quality of the article. Now I understand someone spent some time doing it, but even a forking to another article wouldn't be advisable as the information will be considered irrelevant. Please, remove the table. Hoverfish Talk 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the table should be removed, but the information is good. I think it should be placed under a seperate section "around the world" or something; not completely removed. Something, in prose style perhaps, that mentions the more notable dub cast members (if they're are any, such as Shah Rukh Khan in the Incredibles dub cast). The point is, it is encyclopedic. Just like it's encyclopedic that some of the Japanese articles include the English dub cast of Studio Ghibli films. Chickenmonkey 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Casino Royale (2006 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsorted stubs

I've trimmed the unsorted stubs down to about 50 or so, if others would mind taking a look at the rest to see if they belong to another sub-category, or if there should be another sub-category made... perhaps "film terminology", as that's what the majority of them seem to be! Thanks!! SkierRMH 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lil' Pimp

I've finished expanding the Lil' Pimp article, and I believe it should be ranked as Start-Class now in the quality scale. Could somebody see it and tell me what do you think?--Orthologist 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally this should be brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment, but I think it is very close to a start class. I'd recommend expanding the Criticism section (maybe a RottenTomatoes ranking or a few quotes from some notable reviewers), any possible awards, or any other information you think is pertinent. Also, the cast section looks like it needs one of the columns removed, you may have have an extra formatting piece in their somewhere. --Nehrams2020 03:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I started Love Conquers All (film), any help/suggestions would be very nice! --Ari 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Criterion Collection as a category

Just wanted to make the project aware that the Criterion Collection as a category has returned. User:InnocuousPseudonym has begun making edits adding films back to this category that has been deleted at least three times in the last year and a half. Now if this category has been given approval then that is okay. But, if it hasn't then I wanted to get this taken care of ASAP. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reverted and all cleaned up.zadignose 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for consensus on links in lists of films

As the lists of films by country are being compiled by several editors lately, there arises the problem of red links present in the lists. I have to admit, I am not sure what is preferable: link all films and have lists full of red links, no links on films without an article, or some selective linking (and if so by what criteria)? Please, offer your opinion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management, so we can proceed in a way agreed by many editors. Hoverfish Talk 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the criterion as to when these lists are considered too big to actually remain lists? Girolamo Savonarola 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the issue of what should be included in the lists and what not (as this is very decisive about their length), there is an effort to define it. Please, help us with your opinion (see above link for discussion). Hoverfish Talk 12:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Is it alright to simply use a film as a reference for its synopsis? It's sometimes difficult to find good plot summaries for movies. --Wasted Sapience 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, using the film itself is acceptable. Take a look at the project's guidelines for the plot. In my experience, the section should be written in a fairly neutral, indisputable tone. For some films that are up for interpretation, this can be a challenge. For other films, it's straightforward. Hope this helps. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks.--Wasted Sapience 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help shortening a plot synopsis.

Try though I might, I can't get the Dreamgirls synopsis under 1000 words (I suppose it doesn't help that the film is essentially two pictures combined into one as it is). Can anyone assist me and attempt to help me get the summary down to the recommended 800 or 900 words? --FuriousFreddy 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

Trying to help out a new editor here; he's posed an interesting question about the style guideline's approach to release dates. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release dates. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging questionable film articles

Would it be a good idea to create a film-specific tag (main or talk page) to mark film articles of questionable notability? This way we could get them all in a category which can be checked by more users. There is the general notability tag, but we could make a milder one for films. Hoverfish Talk 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. Chickenmonkey 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New film stub sub-category

Just to bring to the group's attention that there's a new sub-category for the "film" stub: {{film-term-stub}} & Category:Film terminology stubs. Hopefully the name is self-descriptive! SkierRMH 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed fair use policy change

The a proposed policy change at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" that would affect our project. It's to prevent any fair use images whatsoever from being displayed on the main page. Meaning, any FA film articles on movies from the past 70 years, which are largely unlikely to have any free images, will be presented without an image, or a cartoon clapperboard—as Gremlins 2 was for a short time early this morning. It looks like they're having a vote over there but it is an attempt at discussing the policy. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the cartoon clapperboard that was presented? Maybe we ought to be pre-emptive about this, seeing that Jimbo is on board with this change and all. What would be some acceptable substitutes? Anyone an amateur cartoonist in here? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Horrorfilm3.png

It was the image used for Horror stubs, which is decoration and won't ultimately work. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship so Jimbo isn't the end all. Even drawings of copyrighted images and characters are fair use and would be barred. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think on the one hand we're not going to have a fair use image for say, a person, but I think films would be exempt on the grounds of common sense. Alientraveller 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems they have closed discussion. I think we should avoid fair use where possible... but sometimes the needs of an encyclopedia come first... and since it seems that it clearly doesn't violate the law we shouldn't be paranoid about it when there are no free alternatives. gren グレン 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jimbo dictates Wikipedia, it's clear that his action was significant enough to help close the poll. Should be fun to see how the Main Page looks for Scooby-Doo on April 12. Maybe a nice, free picture of a Great Dane with a similar-looking leash. I look forward to the reaction to that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New Category - 2010 films

I was looking at the 2009 films, and noticed that there is a redlink to 2010. Out of curiosity I clicked it, and there is already one film for 2010. For the life of me, however, I couldn't get the dating on the page to work out (but did get some quite interesting years for films (210, 2100, 20010 to name a few) :) It was the {{filmyr|200|*}} that just wouldn't cooperate, and I didn't want to mess up that essential part. Kudos to whomever gets that to work!SkierRMH 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - "D'oh" got it figured out, new year is now there with a whopping 1 film! SkierRMH 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A question about the new filmography boxes

I have recently noticed on Michael Caine's and Peter Sellers pages that the way the filmographies had been listed has been replaced by a template box. These may exist in other places it is just that these are the two that I have seen.

While I don't really have a problem with them there are a couple of things to point out.

1. Due to the nature of how a box is made, the font size is somewhat reduced from the way they were listed before and, speaking as an editor whose eyes are no longer young, they aren't as easy to read. Also, a films title may be split over two lines which did not occur in the old list which simply went from top to bottom.
2. The rules from the MoS seem to have been flipped as the films are in normal print and the year of release is italicized.

I know that all of this may have already been agreed on, but I thought that I would bring these items to your attention so that if any improvements can be made that those of you who take such good care of these pages can come up with something. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like them either. They're done by Machocarioca, who's prone to revert wars. My run in with him was on François Truffaut and his template excluded quite a few films that were included on the original list (which is now restored). Doctor Sunshine talk 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought these filmography templates were supposed to go at the bottom of the film articles they contain. I don't agree with the idea of placing them in the middle of a page where actually a list, table or prose should be. Hoverfish Talk 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer a list over this template. The template is not so easy to read as a list. If a reason for the template is that lists can be too long, you can always make a seperate filmography article and link that from the main article. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This template layout is not a good way to present filmography information. It is not standard and seems bad usability-wise. Everything doesn't have to be placed inside a box. Prolog 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, at least within the article a list would be the easier and less disruptive to the flow of reading. These templates are great at the end of articles for navigational/further reading. But as placed within the article, it really doesn't work. SkierRMH 23:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I prefer the tables as it is easier to group the years in film and include the roles plus any relevant information. Should we then begin moving these? --Nehrams2020 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail: If tables, then could it with border=0? It looks more decent IMO (unless there are rowspans/colspans involved). Let's get moving then. Hoverfish Talk 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Probing reactions for a move

Cott12 has given me good reasons why Cinematic genre should be moved to "Film genre". Not being familiar with procedures he tried it by copypasting and was reverted, so he has asked me for advice. I adviced to first check here on whether the move is contested or not, as I am not sure in which category of move requests it belongs. Reasons given are: 1) per USC film school there is no real term in film theory called a "cinematic genre", 2) film genre has 500,000 hits in google compared to 20,000 for cinematic genre, 3) the category itself is called "category:film genres", 4) most Wiki articles link to the term "film genre". Please, give us your opinion. Hoverfish Talk 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the proposal and you can see the discussion at Talk:Cinematic_genre#Requested_move. Cott12 Talk 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival

I've been in touch with organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival, asking for a press pass so that I could take photographs and cover the event for Wikipedia. It's uncertain if they will do this, but I'd like to know if anyone else would like to work on this with me, or if anyone has suggestions/advice as to what they would like to come out of any successful press accreditation for the festival. Currently I plan on taking a lot of photographs (which is kind of my thing on here) and starting stubs for the films. Ideas? Is anyone interested in collaborating on this? --David Shankbone 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also want to note that they asked if we have done something like this before, and I couldn't really point to where Wikipedia people went out and, in DIY spirit had comprehensively covered an event like the festival, or the Academy Awards, etc. This might be an opportunity to show what we are made of on this site, and serve as a blueprint for other Wikipedians to cover similar events around the country and world (Cannes, Venice, Aspen, SxSW, etc.). --David Shankbone 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has asked for any kind of official status before, but I think it's a great idea. I think the greatest problem is to claim you 'represent Wikipedia'. And, from my scant knowledge or press passes you need to represent a legitimate source to get one. I think what might be a good idea for Wikipedia is having an WP:RFA type process of legitimate representatives... maybe through Wikinews since it would deal with this more. Then you upload it to the commons. This way you won't have a 12 year old with 20 edits trying to claim they represent Wikipedia. It's definitely a great idea and would be a huge boost for our free content. If you think that claiming yourself as a legitimate representative might be a problem then you will probably want to bring this up in a bigger forum like the village pump. gren グレン 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't try Wikinews for press accreditation. I tried that, and I was summarily and unceremoniously given my hat, shown the door, and told "Wikinews is for Wikinewsies." But it shows a conflict we run into here at WP: How to take the site to the next level? We have a lot of influence; we should be able to get doors open for us when we represent that we are working for WP, not representing WP (or the foundation, or what have you). I take a lot of photographs of celebrities, and I always let them know that I'm doing it for Wikipedia - I upload them to the Commons, make them available to all the projects, and put them on the page, and then move on to the next subject (be it a building, neighborhood, or person). --David Shankbone 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Spider-Man 3 will premiere at this festival on April 30. Pictures related to the event would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige: comments invited for dispute resolution

This is a request for help with a content dispute regarding The Prestige (film) article. A list of differences of details between the storylines of the novel and the film has been added to the film's article under the section titled Adaptation from novel. For the past two months this content has been the subject of sharp disagreement between primarily two contributors (one of them me), resulting in multiple reverts and fruitless attempts at dispute resolution. (Those interested in the gory details can find them archived at opening rounds and temp page dispute.)

• The original contributor believes the list to be "quite substantial and very important to the article," and that it should be left in the article "as-is" so editors can work incrementally to improve it.
• The other editor sees the list as trivial "differences in events [that] might be important, but only in the context of their relationships to larger elements," and had suggested including any significant adaptation changes in the context of the existing Themes and Production sections; he sees none that still remain in the list that are appropriate for inclusion in the article. Other editors have expressed concerns about WP:TRIVIA as well, and WP:OR.

We sure could use a third-party to provide an opinion on the Talk page and help put us out of our misery. Thanks.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I searched for films that I knew had been books that are FA and here are the results at the time they were featureed. Lord of the Rings (1978) and V for Vendetta both have decent sized sections... so there is precedent for it. I would say a list is a bad idea--it should be written into a pragraph as the two FAs are. So, I don't think it needs to be merged into other sections, but it should obviously be well written, sourced, and put in a larger context than "In the novel, the story opens and ends in contemporary England. In the film, all events take place around late nineteenth century London" which is incredibly choppy. That is my quick view on what I've seen. gren グレン 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These are good examples to look at (thanks). First thought is that both works deserve a "differences" section more so than The Prestige based just on the much greater popularity of the novels alone. With Jackson's LOTR films, for instance, a significant portion of the fan base expected exact dialogue from the novels to be used, and the success of the film efforts could rise or fall on fans' expectations of this level of faithfulness to the originals. The Prestige novel, however, does not enjoy such a blessing/curse since its fan base is much smaller (and less rabid), so a detailed "differences" treatment is not of similar interest. Additionally, how the material is handled for both Bakshi's LOTR and V for Vendetta is done well (although the 1978 LOTR has some superficial detail in it). Vendetta, especially, focuses on development of the major characters and is well-written. I just don't see being able to do something similar with The Prestige trivia (you should have seen it before it was pared down!).

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but I think a good start would be "write it in decent prose and then we can see if it's more reasonable". I have added Template:list to prose (section) because... it seriously needs at least that. gren グレン 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

XXX in film articles

The article Skyscrapers in film recently survived WP:AFD with "no consensus", another editor is threatening to nominate Bridges in film for deletion. Does this wikiproject think these sorts of articles are worth having and keeping? Carlossuarez46 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with these two articles is that there is a mix of both encyclopedic and trivial information. For example, the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center seem to be pretty prominent skyscrapers in films, so I would not mind detail about how these two buildings have been involved with production. My problem, though, is with the more insignificant listings, such as the U.S. Bank Tower being destroyed in two films -- what's the significance? The list of fictional skyscrapers is worse because it does not seem to have real-world relevance. A list like this is easily subjective and has the potential to be indiscriminate. Maybe I'm biased toward useful prose, but there doesn't seem to be any proper guidelines to maintain the list of skyscrapers or the list of bridges. "Hey, I saw this building in the background of this film, let's throw it in there!" What is the criteria? The concept of skyscrapers being used in film has potential, but I'm not sure if a list is the best way to present that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the title "Bridges in film" implies quite a broad scope and this makes it vulnerable. If it was something like "The biggest bridges of the world in film" and if the bridges had some central place in all the films given, it could be protected as "informative". As it is, the article contains mainly 3 bridges and in the article of each, there is a section about films they have been in. The Golden Gate Bridge list is overdoing it (The protagonist, during the opening sequence, drives south along the coast and the bridge becomes visible. She then drives across to San Francisco.) and has been tagged for cleanup. FA San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge have quite contained lists. The skyscrapers list was kept, but most keep votes agreed the building must have a central place in the film. (Did anyone see to it since?) For more hints, see the reasons of "Keep" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Statue of Liberty in popular culture. I will let it for others to say if it's worth having this article. I don't think your question can be answered generally (for "this sort of articles"). Hoverfish Talk 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The first problem is you don't have citations. Even on bridges where you have a reference you don't give page numbers and so it does not help. This is a problem because references would help to clear up that the inclusion of a bridge or skyscraper in a film is important. Any work filmed in New York will have a skyscraper--so we could have a huge and meaningless list. The point of references is in how many do the skyscrapers matter? In An Affair to Remember meeting at the top of the Empire State Building is a large part of the plot but Heat (film) where you see some shots of the L.A. skyline I don't think any of them matter. And it's not that I think An Affair to Remember is so important... but it shows how arbitrary your choices are. You chose Sleepless in Seattle which was a clear reference to An Affair to Remember without even mentioning it. I believe a good article could be written about this... but what we have now is a jumble that gives no real sense of what should be included. I don't know if I'd delete it... but, it serves little to no purpose unless improved and sourced. gren グレン 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 plot dispute

The following addresses potential spoilers from the film. I'm requesting some objective perspectives for the ordeal at hand. Template:Spoilers On the film article, the Plot section currently says that the symbiote is brought to Earth by astronaut John Jameson, with Empire film magazine cited as the source. However, a picture emerged that showed a meteorite impacting the ground behind Peter Parker's moped. Some new editors came in, saying that this was proof that this was how the symbiote arrived. Due to the lack of immediate verifiability (in merely looking at the picture), the alternative explanation was rejected. Now, the novelization for the film has arrived. It indicates that the symbiote arrives to Earth via meteorite. However, Bignole and I consider the novelization unreliable to cite for the film, as the novelization often takes creative liberties in adding or detracting material. This was the case for a key scene in Superman Returns.

It seems that the synthesis of the novelization and its photo qualifies as original research, and should not be superlative to the film magazine. While it's acknowledged that the film magazine could be wrong, we're willing to welcome reliable sources that indicate the symbiote's actual origins. The synthesis of the aforementioned sources did not seem to qualify. The dissenter also contests the film magazine on reporting that Harry Osborn would be called the Night Surfer a while ago, when he is actually called the New Goblin. I don't know if the Night Surfer was a mistake or an early name for the character, but that's something we've corrected in the film article with the more recent reliable source. It seems like further original research to dissect the credibility of a source like a film magazine in order to replace it with the synthesized sources. The discussion is underway at Talk:Spider-Man 3. Does anyone have anything to add? If you respond to this here, please insert your comment before the {{endspoiler}} tag. Thanks.

This is for a film not released yet, right? Well, why not simply state both versions? Say that Empire magazine says an astronaut brought it, but that the novelization says it was a meteorite, and that the accuracy of both is uncertain until the film is released. There's no need for this to be an either/or situation. Cop 633 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's being written through an in-universe perspective, so it seems odd to say all of a sudden, "This magazine says this will happen next, but this other thing says something else." It's not a bad alternative, though I'm not sure if it'll stop new editors from removing the magazine citation themselves anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the Manual of Style's rules is "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." This section in particular is worth reading. In my opinion, it is illogical to write an in-universe plot description of a film that no-one has seen yet. Cop 633 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have worded that wrongly. I meant writing the section in the style that is the same as what FA-class film articles have practiced. I'm not sure if I recognize the difference, even though I write in the appropriate styles for the respective section anyway. I've made a proposal at the talk page to scale back on film detail for reasons that are mentioned there. Hopefully it will be agreeable to all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Crew listings?

Are there guidelines/discussion about listing crew on film pages? The style guidelines are silent on the issue. I know the data is generally available from IMDB. Does it have a place here? For instance, on an animated film, I would be very interested in the entire team of animators, not just the director. I haven't found anything clear on this subject and wanted to get a sense of the right thing before I add anything. Thanks! 76.202.63.233 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say team of animators, do you mean the key people who lead the team, or even specific people such as assistants? I was thinking that it might be best for prominent animators to be presented in prose. For example, when I write about cinematographers or visual effects supervisors for certain film articles, I detail their actions to reflect their prominence. Perhaps the same can be done with the members of the animation team -- explaining how they used the software to create the characters and environment, whether they came up with ideas themselves or drew from a separate department, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable, though it's not what I was considering. I was thinking less of something that might lead to the usual POV problems ("the most inventive key grip ever!") and more just something like what you get here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097814/fullcredits . It seems like there's room for that sort of encyclopaedic listing here in an encyclopaedia. Especially as WP begins to subsume a lot of what IMDB used to be good for. 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why editing involves a neutral point of view that avoids weasel wording. You can back the prominence of a certain animator with a citation, and it's usually ideal to quantify their accomplishments (such as creating 10 out of 12 major animated characters for a film). However, though, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that there's an issue with IMDb following a film's release (though I have issues with its accuracy before a film's release). If you're looking into making a list of prominent animators, you might want to take a look at WP:LIST and WP:FL to see criteria and examples of lists, respectively. Hope this helps. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a peer review for I Not Stupid.

Please leave comments at the peer review to help me improve the article to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting categories

Unfortunately somebody is messing up the Category:Canadian films by creating all sorts of sub categories. If we made the decision to only have one American film category then we should definately only have one for this. Do you think we should propose the categories for deletion? THe category is supossed to list all Canadian films A-Z not be split into many ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization, where a discussion about this has already been started. Bearcat 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

MERGE PROPOSAL: WikiProject [Country] cinemas --> WikiProject Films/[Country] cinema workgroup

I'd like to place a formal proposal to integrate into policy and actively (but progressively) start working on merging the national cinema WikiProjects. Namely WikiProject Argentine cinema, WikiProject Chinese cinema, WikiProject Indian cinema, and WikiProject Persian cinema. All of these pages will retain the majority of their content; the main change will simply be that of their page name. However, this will also alleviate the need for redundant project sections, style guidelines, and policies - for the most part. (I can certainly imagine that there may be certain issues specific to the articles only within the project which may need specific coverage.)

My reasoning for this is as follows:

1. All content within these projects has 100% overlap with WP Films and no overwhelmingly intrinsic differences from film articles as a whole.
2. Streamlining and consistency within all film articles in terms of general policy regarding film articles.
3. Workgroups allow articles to have more sub-coverage without controversy - it is far more acceptable for an article to have a WP:FILMS banner in the talk page with indicated scope in, for example, Portuguese cinema workgroup, 1930s films workgroup, and Comedy films workgroup; rather than the alternative of separate banners for WP Films, WP Portuguese cinema, WP Comedy films, and WP: 1930s films.
4. Local specialization with global guidance. The aim is for less micro-projects and more micro-groups working within a single general project overview for giving overall guidance. The idea being that we generally leave the specifics to the workgroup(s) interested in any given article while resolving disputes and recommending a general template and set of guidelines for all articles regardless of workgroup coverage.

Now if any of these are already affiliated with or wish to be affiliated as a workgroup with their respective WikiProject [country]'s, then I think that's a fine idea and should be perfectly encouraged to link to us as well. But I must insist (as this has been debated before) that actual workgroups be located within WP Films under the principle that priority needs to be given to the workgroup content - ie, the article is ultimately about a film and therefore is primarily responsible to WP Films for layout and guidelines. But the WikiProject [country] may also claim the WP Films/[country] cinema page as a workgroup and tag all workgroup articles with their own banner as well. This is also consistent with WP:COUNCIL discussions on the matter.

My first two workgroups I suggest be merged into WP Films would be Persian cinema and Chinese cinema. This is based on the fact that neither has been particularly active as of the last few months, from judging the page histories and discussion histories. I would also ask ESB if, as a principal member of Argentinian cinema, he'd be willing to help do the same for Argentinian cinema.

Indian cinema will likely prove at least somewhat more contentious, based on prior "turf wars". However, these have mainly been a problem between WP India and not the members of WP Indian cinema themselves (in fact, I believe Zora, one of the project leaders, is rather amenable). I'd rather not move that one without some clear concensus - at least from within Indian cinema.

Thoughts please! :) Girolamo Savonarola 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to have a WikiProject part of Films which concnwetrates on countries in world cinema and also unites them in the same project. However note that WP Argentine cinema is not a formal project like indian cinema and is intended to be a part of films and argentina equally anyway. I was considering setting up a small page for each country like Argentina with a page just showing the work that needs doing on each country each Austria then Brazil etc. If there is an outlet that can provide us with information and work that needs doing for each major film producer this would be great and existing seperate projects may be best organized as Girolamo suggested. In my view every cinema project should be a subproject of films anyway. I would regard Argentine cinema as a micro work group rather than a micro project and I would definately like to see each cinema producer with a work group within the WP Film framework.I don't however know whether Indian cinema would agree with though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that WP InCin would agree if it were already implemented with most other national cinemas. Again, as mentioned above, I have no intention to divorce the country projects from the workgroups - all that would change is the page namespaces. They would of course retain linkage within their frameworks and would be able to place project template within the pages, as appropriate. If that's acceptable to you, may we start doing this with Argentinian cinema? Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. I also think it will be beneficial to have workgroups for country/cinema within WP Films. However, I would go one step further and ask Girolamo to stand by and help us organize all this, as I am affraid that without proper coordination a big mess may result. It definitely sounds like a coordinating group should be formed, mostly to decide on what belongs within a workgroup and to take over decisions which will affect all workgroups. One example for this would be the need to monitor how each group goes about categorizing and arranging its lists and templates and make sure things remain consistent in all countries. Hoverfish Talk 13:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)