User talk:Aussiepete/Archive 1

;
	Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4;

Deleted page "Jumba Interactive Group Pty Ltd"

Hi. A page you created, or image you uploaded, Jumba Interactive Group Pty Ltd, has been deleted in accordance with our speedy deletion policy, as it meets one or more of our criteria for speedy deletion. The relevant criterion is:

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

You are welcome to rewrite your contribution to comply with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines (you may find this page useful). However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 08:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the films

Hi Aussiepete, thanks you for adding the films in 1921 in film. One detail that is helpful is to ignore articles (A, The, La, Der, etc) in alph. sorting. Also very helpful, if you have the time, is to add films without an article additionally to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article. Happy edits. Hoverfish 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea the template. I see in your interest in films' box-office. I would appreciate any helpful box-office links, especially covering the 60s-70s films. Hoverfish 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a question in an edit summary: if an article is found to exist for a while under a different spelling, and the red link (the wrongly spelled title) has been checked to have no "What links here" to fix, please remove it from the list, leaving a short note in the edit summary. Newly started articles should stay crossed out, until all categories and sortings are over -in short, just let them there. Also if you are adding film from someone's filmography, it will help to note after the title ", directed by X, or starring Y. And no need to note the role an actor plays: it will get complicated. Hoverfish 15:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am currently compiling a list of notable films by country. However perhaps about 65% of films are not notable enough for differing reasons to make the list. Unless the film is of reasonable importance to the countryies film industry one of my criteria is suitability for wikipedia. If I am convinced that the film willl remain a stub forever I will not list it and it won't get an article. My sole aim on wikipedia is to provide information but these thousands of films and actors need starting first. If I find a film has very little infomration on the Inernet I will not add it to wikipedia so in the end I will have a refined list. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey great work pn the Australia list brilliant. If you could, could you also add parts of lists to the other countries when who have a couple of spare minutes. e.g Austrian films complete a and b for example. Any help in compiling these important missing lists would be great. Also could you tell as many people about this as possible, and notify anyone you think could help. All the best mate and thanks much appreicated the page looks so tidy!!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: before removing Australian films (found to have an article) from the missing list, please make sure they are also listed in Years in film. For the moment let's not add all non-English language films (having an article) there. I am trying to think how best to organize this, before we enter non-English films. I also noticed you have marked some Australian films (in Years in film) with (a). Why not (Australia)? Hoverfish 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think you might have the wrong person :) Idon't mark Australian films as (a)Peter 09:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how I got this impression. Yes, by decade is better for red links at least. But with all the new entries E.S.Blofeld is bringing in we have to see first what numbers we are dealing with. Also, since he started with this organization in mind, it's best we keep it so under Project namespace till a filtering is done, or the lists by decade will become unmamageable. Anyway, I am glad Australian films are coming in. A close friend has studied cimema there and has opened my eyes to a whole (new for me) school of cinema. I think we should have a main (non-list) article about Australian cinema and its developments. Maybe there is one and I just haven't found it yet. Hoverfish 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

For compiling awarded films without article. I've been too busy to notice lately. This list is very useful. Hoverfish 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more hand for your compilation of Australian films (actually take my comments as congrats by default). They must all be given among other Category:Australian films before removed. I will do a checking round for links and place some basic cats starting in about 4 hours from now. And YES, we will make frontlines in the next Newsletter. I had in mind doing it for this month, but with all the changes E.S.Blofeld initiated, I wanted to get a clearer picture where we'll end up. So we have one month's time to shine up this sub-project. Hoverfish|Talk 09:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to start another page for this sorting and checking. We still have a month to make it all proper before we hit the highlights. I will think of a name for it and start it soon. - What do you mean inconsistency with IMDb? IMDb is not always right and there was some talk about it in the project. I once went through a filmography of a producing company and the dates compared to IMDb were a mess. Yet since everyone's so happy with IMDb, I give it preference unless a more official site has it otherwise. - I started marking countries involved in the production of the films you have in the Australian list. Take a look too. I will ask if the categories of all the countries should be given. This will also be a serious problem for making lists by country. If we must enter each title to 3-4 countries it will be an awefull mess. Hoverfish|Talk 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep going as it is. At one point it will just be moved. When you see countries in IMDb, it's the countries that were involved in funding the production. It has nothing to do with nativity of director, actors etc. We follow country by production. Only in some award listings, where one of the producing countries nominates the film and gains the award, we give only this. Hoverfish|Talk 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By decade films

Well, the decades list is not the best place. put them please in the Years in film, and wait to see what we will decide about these lists by decade. Their selection is very partial, if not POV, and we will soon be doing a cleanup operation there. We plan also to remove the Category:Films by decade, and apply a new system. Have you been yet in the new categorization department? Hoverfish Talk 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, when we add the red links to the lists of missing films, can we keep bold text out? Hoverfish Talk 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they also going in the List of Australian films ? Have you cross checked that list? Hoverfish Talk 12:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) - Oh, now I see you have updated this list on the 15th. Good job! I think the way you are working on the Australian films is quite exemplary. Hoverfish Talk 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Excellent job. I don't know if you have noticed but the list of films by country e.g List of Canadian films and List of Argentine films wil be drawn up as chronology. It is far more useful thatn an A-Z which the categories do. If you could copy my template in User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Sandbox 3for [[List of Australian films this would be great. Keep up the great work! Also much better not having so many pages for the missing films easier to patrol!Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing director

I don't know if you like doing directors, but I found an interesting missing one: Ben Lewin. Polish-born, lived in Australia. He directed mostly for TV, but also films Georgia (1988 film), The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish (1991), and Lucky Break (1994). I've seen the second and I love it, I even got it on VHS. IMDb and Yahoo don't have his biography. If you know any Australian site, I could start it too, in case you have other things to do. Hoverfish Talk 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just saw you placed redirects in all separate letters. Do you plan to plan to create all these pages before we filter down to the really missing ones? If Blofeld does the same for every country we will draw general scrutiny. Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bat 21 redirect was good. If we don't really need (for the time being at least) the individual letters they should be deleted. If the two subgrouping get too long during work we could make some more, but not too many. What do you say? Have to do other things now, will be back later. Hoverfish Talk 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables

It was brought to my attention recently. It's a recent development. About sorting details (date format, etc) and usage see m:help:sorting. Be careful with the size of the page. Tables have more markup than lists. Make sure a page doesn't go over 50KB. Also, all columns end up sortable, so we shouldn't sort by anything irrelevant or silly. Hoverfish Talk 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI Aussie Pete. In response to those film lists - of course, the table will never be allowed to get too long. See List of Canadian films this is already split by decade. For the largest film producing countries the lists will become highly developed so each year will have a page connected by a similar navigation box. Having that additional category for the Awards should be used for countries such as United States - stricter criteria for the list. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published. January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Monsieur Sale.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monsieur Sale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mr. Christmas and Friends.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mr. Christmas and Friends.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mr. Noisy and the Giant.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mr. Noisy and the Giant.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 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. Nehrams2020 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

film to check

Hi Aussiepete, I've been busy info-boxing lately, but I do keep an eye on the missing films lists. In awarded, you made a list of films to check. What exactly must I check? Usually films I delete have: categories, mention of the awards you entered, infobox, talk page templates and I make sure they are in the Years in Film lists. Anything else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoverfish (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good pointing out: I'll also make sure they are in filmographies and have no disambiguation holes. The info you gather is of the most useful kind, so not one iota should get lost. But of course the missing film lists are just for us to check, so checking them thoroughly and getting them in main namespace fulfills our efforts. There are some users who delete films just as soon as they turn blue. But I keep all the by year and by award on watch, so when I see a film gone, I do all the checking and updating. Excellent organization in missing Aussies! Hoverfish Talk 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to have your opinion on reorganizing the List of Australian films in the way the List of Canadian films: 2000s has been reorganized. I must admit the early years look somewhat empty, but we are still at a stage where suggestions for improvements are highly welcome. Maybe the decades that have fewer films can be kept in one table. Hoverfish Talk 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with you on list format. I love the simple type of listing as in, say, 19xx in film (#Films released in 19xx). But there are those who love tables. I did some discussions and found out they take it very seriously. So, I try my best to save the day, at least display-wise. Code-wise it's a nightmare and many users have a lousy time trying to add films. It's an Ed Wood feeling trying to please everyone, but that's how Wikipedia goes. Motivated from your comment, I did some column fixing in the Canadian lists. I hope it looks better. As for which films "belong" to which country, it is a mess in many cases. I'm also not sure what the basis is. I've heard it's where the money came from and which production company is involved. But I'm not sure it's always the case. In IMDb, I often think they follow nationality of director as well. Categorizing, it was decided we give each country separately. I don't like the idea, but I don't see a much better alternative. I wouldn't worry too much if a co-poduction appears in two lists. If a film has some prominent Australian element, I would include it as Australian. As for the award, it's just a way of saying: your work is very appreciated. I'm also not fond of congrats, but what the heck. :) Hoverfish Talk 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well deserved, belated award

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Hoverfish, hereby award Aussiepete the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Congratulations for your excellent and detailed work on Australian films and for your general help in organizing and filtering missing film articles. Keep up the exemplary work! Awarded 07:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Superb work related to Australian cinema I love!!!!!! the List of Aussie films now its looking great -I thought I was having to do it myself!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really good work. Once the lists are filled in I aim to create all the missing film redirects to the lists- they can serve giving brief info until the full article pages can be created - I beleive this an excellent way to do it -this way the missing films doesn't seem so vast .

Also I know it sounds trivial in relation to your great work but if from now on the release dates can becaome Jan 1 Feb 4 etc rather than 1 Jan etc..It reads better when reading. But your tables look tidier than mine I'll give you that!!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Films creation

Just noting that you may be better off considering creating categories rather than creating lists unless there's some information to be contained in the lists that makes them clearly more useful than categories. Auto^cracy 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on hiow many films there are judging my the missing list MANY!! eventually you may want to branch it off by year as with the List of Argentine films ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... don't know why I posted on your particular page to begin with... must have mistaken you as the page originator? Either way, excellent work on that list sense then! Please let me when you get the listing up to current. :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. Good work so far if you can please use e.g List of Australian films: 1990s now as a disambiguation page to list the List of Australian films 1990 1991 -1999 . The decade header should be a disamb for the year pages rather than connecting to 1990s in film -cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also is there any way to shrink the fixed width of the tables a bit so they fit at the top next to the template. (On the decade pages I agree with you the fixed looks much better but if they are split by year the table will automatically be fixed anyway and fit the contours of the page Anyway I am amazed at how quickly you work!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be pleased to know that as with all cinema countries I have created the Australian cinema template to be used at the foot of all film and actor/director articles (unless they are minor stubs).

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footrot Flats

Hi, I've removed the "Cinema of Australia" template from Footrot Flats: The Dog's Tale, as it's a New Zealand film. I'm sure there's some tenuous technical or financial connection to Australia, but you know what our Kiwi cousins are like when we "claim" their films and actors as our own! :) --Canley 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian lists

Have to run. I am correcting column width and break free from the top right navigation box. The empty space looks terrible. I will think of something latter today and answer also your question. Till later. Hoverfish Talk 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, today I haven't been able to do much what with the deletion story. First of all the top right list navigation shouldn't have a flag icon. It's going to be in the AustralianCinema anyway and it's making the navigation longer and therefore the empty space bigger. But this empty space is a problem, since we can't have the first table narrower than the others and even so at a narrower browser window they will still collide. So, either the navigation has to be given horizontally (I can already hear complaints from the designer), or what? I will be correcting the rest of the years to make space for the links column, so if you have any idea/solution drop me a line. We should be as tidy and good-looking as we can afford because the cleansing team may get us. Hoverfish Talk 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just mentioned to Hoverfish, the chronological listing of the films actually still remains.

I have been putting the film titles into an alphabetical listing, keeping them within the chronological ordering of years as the films are now listed, in each of the articles. There were a couple of film titles (on separate articles) which were slightly out of order, which I transferred to their correct positions within the pages.

For the film titles beginning with the word "The", or beginning with the single-letter "A", the alphabetical ordering has been taken from the second word of the title (as is customary for such titles). All the best. Figaro 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also moved some of the film titles into 'alphabetical order' on the pre 1920 page — on those sections which still remain to be put into the chronological order.

Would you like me to set up an independant alphabetical-order pages for the films, which can be used in conjunction with the chronological-order pages for the films, so that both types of listing is available? The alphabetical page would have links through to the relevant chronological film pages. As I commented previously, film titles beginning with the single letter "A", and films beginning with "The", would be listed under the second word in the title (i.e. the film, "The Man from Snowy River", would be listed under "M" for Man, and the film, "The Dish", would be listed under "D" for Dish, etc. etc). Figaro 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing. I will leave the situation as it is at the moment (in chronological order). All the best. Figaro 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CInema templates are up for deletion

Unbelievably a nasty user has put all of the cinema templates up for deletion. I beelive they serve a great purpose for establishing a better understanding and connection between articles. But in totla haste he has gone ahead and proposed the lot. If my hard work is deleted I swear I am leaving wikipedia for good. I am willing to limit the use of the American template but not the others.

Please leave your view at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 13 THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THankyou very much for your solid support, especially coming from a wikipedian who is clearly also very knowledgeable in this field. What annoys me is that people who haven't got a clue about film just make a rash decision to delete everything - a similar thing happened with a Russian film category which was deleted by people who have no idea about it all. I have worked hard on them to try to connect articles in each of the cinema I believe it is very useful for presenting it. It allows to browsw between all the articles far more efficiently and I would hope it would help to improve an understanding of the cinema. If they are deleted it will already affect over a thousand articles from Argentine cinema etc. The template is even used on the main Argentina page which many have commented is very useful. I can't beleive he couldn't show me an ounce of respect for my efforts. The have a clear function . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that if for instance you go into any Australian film article that after reading the article you would immeditately have access to the entirety of Australian cinema and can look though actors, directors, producers, periods of film history created by the lists etc at the touch of a button. As you said it would also attempt to rid of inconsistencies with link and remove alienation. THe same purpose for the Australian template is for the rest of the cinema industries and articles 80% of which don't have particularly great connection. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in stub articles which have only have an infobox -the templates still looks fine and in longer articles is barely noticeable. Yes rather than having seperate pages my overall idea is to make pages flow into one another to get a greater understabnding of the cinema. After reading one page click the link , select the next article etc. and so on. THis is why I amazed at the proposal -many have showed great support including Indian cinema -even awarded me a barnstar so I figured most would see their use. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie list disamb

I am restoring the big disamb on the List of Australian films but structuring it like List of German films ok? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. It should be structured looks more accessible and tidy. Are you happy with this? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 10:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the duplication, The side plate should stay but so should the decades in the bottom plate which are very useful on all other articles. I actually only intended the bottom plate to go on the main List fo Australian films page - I didn't expect it to be at the foot of all the individual list pages too. Other than this we could modify the side template to incorporate actors and directors to be used only on the lists ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it, Peter. I am sure Blofeld is doing his best, but he goes a bit too fast for me (and I don't need this copied to my talk page). If it is a disambiguation, it has to follow dab guidelines, without subheaders for entries and without additional template navigations. I must admit each solution has is cons. If we let people in with a title List of Australian films" and they come to a page with only early films, it's a bit of a turn-down. If it's just a dab page, it doesn't look as presentable as one would expect, and it's still not the promised list, but a step before it. But I like more a solution which is closer to the dab opion. There is a good example in Years in film, which was intended only as a dab/navigation, but which became a very interesting page. I have made a start by simplifying the page to this format. We can add useful information to each entry as in the Years in film, when and if possible. I agree that we turn "Notability into "Notes and put there all you say. Later today I will start the List management department, but hopefully we will not have to spend endless talk about this particular issue. please, tell me if you like my change and proposal for further development. Hoverfish Talk 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am working on the List of French films, in a more condenced format. The page is becoming big, but not too big. The reason is that I am only adding film which have an article (I select the rather notable ones from the category). I see no reason to duplicate the list of French films without an article, which could be a link given as "See also" at the bottom. I will insist in keeping every decade in one table, as this makes the code much simpler. However if all other lists take a final form (with everyone's consensus clearly leaning to this format, I will also split. Right now I am following the Featured list of BAFTA Award for Best Film, which is quite worth considering. Hoverfish Talk 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made one effort to formulate as well as I can the lead of the List of Australian films. I'm not so good in such formulations, so if you help me with perfecting it, I will use the same formulation in the French (which finally became so large that a split cannot be avoided). Hoverfish Talk 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't cause any problem at all. It's just that in countries with many films, one will have to access the list(s) via a common page and I'm trying to make that presentable, correctly formulated and free of redundancies. It isn't really a disambiguation, as it doesn't link to different topics (they're all Australian films). It's a navigation page and it's an entry. But it has to look good because it's the first thing one will see as "List of Aus. films". Also I wanted to ask you if you have covered all of Category:Australian films entries (plus Aus. stubs). Hoverfish Talk 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a todo list. I'll start clearing the cat and stub-cat tomorrow (the French cat was more than double in size and I compiled it all from scratch in 3 days). However there are too many red links. I thought that's why we made the lists without article. So many red links in a mainspace list is not a good thing. Blofeld also does it and I think we'll be facing red cards soon. Anyway, I'm off to sleep now, but my next move is to help cross films /alt.titles /stubs and what not in the Aussie films. Hoverfish Talk 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, actually I worked first on improving things, reducing code size, and I have a proposal in my User talk:Hoverfish/Notebook. I did the 40s mostly and have 2 more decades in one page to check for overall size. If we could fit more on one page without going oversize, the dab problem will be reduced significantly. The only thing that I notice strange, is that for the 1960s we have quite concise data, whereas for the 1920s we have a bigger load. Tell me if you like the way it's going. I have not taken away anything except from red links and useless code. I'll start checking the cats now. And don't worry about me. I respect every second you put into it and wouldn't waste it. Hoverfish Talk 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and in my User talk:Hoverfish/Sandbox, I have reduced the columns to two and will be compiling from the ctaegories there. Please, let me know if you find this model better. Blofeld has also started removing the release column in the Argentine lists. Plus the Notability and the Links will be now Notes (which can take release date too). Hoverfish Talk 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I will keep compiling as per Notebook and when I'm ready I'll change the whole navigation to the new system. Hoverfish Talk 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll adjust to cast. Do leave me a note please, on your predictions of whether the 1900-1970 is bound to get many more films. I will think of a limiting lead text to apply in all country lists. (I said that already didn't I?) Hoverfish Talk 09:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done up to the 1980s and sreen-measured the length. I come to the approximate equal lengs at: 1890s-1930s, 1940s-1970s, 1980s, so I guess 1990s will also be a unit and 2000s also. So we can have 5 pages instead of 36. What do you think? I still feel that the list is either a bit thin at the 50s and 60s and also I have seen several entriey at the later years that sound like little TV animations (on the lines of "See spot run"). But in the worse case we may have to split one more segment. What do you think? If you think it looks decent and the segments not overlong, I am ready to change to the new system. Hoverfish Talk 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb seems to have lots of unrated and undeveloped entries, and not only in shorts. For some shorts, like the Spot series, we could create one article and mention all the films. WP Television has "series", I don't see why we couldn't do something like that too. My guess is that there will be some pruning, when we find enough info. Have you checked Aussie film archives? For example there's a war film archive. I haven't yet looked into it, but we could make a general article about it and mention several shorts, for which we might never find enough info to make articles. We could redirect there instead. And what about this database? I think if we search right we might be able to sort some more important films from other that may never grow to articles. I'll keep searching later today. Please, let me know if you think the lengths I mentioned above sound reasonable. Hoverfish Talk 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you see, I started the changes. I am still compiling the 1990s and will do the same and then the 2000s. The only thing that's not working right for me, is when I go to the first list (1890s-1930s) I see the link to the second red (1940s-1970s). I think this shouldn't happen to others and it's just a freak mistake of my cache, but if you check it, I would feel more on the safe side. Hoverfish Talk 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the very long decades, we can split them in separate tables. That's easy to do. There is no way I know to edit sections within a table. The main thing is that we have them now in a few pages. I will edit the 1990s now and get some sleep. Hoverfish Talk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw the links you gave in the index page. Wow! Amazing! Now we have an informative entrance page. In the morning I will split the 1980s and the 1990s in year tables. / And something irrelevant to all this (but relevant to Australia): have you read Nick Cave's "And the Ass saw the Angel"? For some reason, reading some of the titles made me think often of this book. Hoverfish Talk 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one detail: when a film has an article, we don't need to provide in the lists the IMDb (by the way, please, don't capitalize the last "b"). The article provides the link (or should) and we save lots of code from the page size. And another detail I could look into, but it may be faster to ask you: did you delete all the red links from the Australian list of films without article, or did you move them to the "reds" by years? I ask because we will need all the red links there to control newly created articles, and to watch for aka titles too. If you did, we can revert or copy-paste. I also added notes with links to the edit histories for the pages that were integrated to avoid copyright problems. Hoverfish Talk 12:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am removing the reds from the main namespace lists, as it is generally recommended, but I just wanted to make sure we still have them in the project namespace. However, for films that have been highly awarded (AFI winners and above), or very well known worldwide, or representative of Australian cinema, we can put back the red link (I didn't have time to check which is which, but I will and I will also add notes on awards). This way one can see that a particular film is "encyclopedically missing" and may want to fill up the gap. / I am in doubts of how to proceed with the 2000s. All in one page will make a HUGE page. Any suggestions very welcome. As you see I changed to the new format up to 2003. It's bedtime here now, but I'll be back in about 7 hours. I promised to start on the German list asap, so I will do 2004 tomorrow only and start the German list. Hoverfish Talk 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to delink the last years and decide how many should get intergated in one page. I see two possibilities: "2000-2003" and "2004-Upcoming", or "2000-2004" and "2005-Upcoming", which leaves more space for future developments. My thoughts about 2007 and after: we should keep in 2007 all the films that have been released only, and after this name the rest "Upcoming" and put them in a single table with blue headers "2007", "2008" and "Other". To me this seems "proper", so we can tag the section/table with the {{future}} tag. What do you say? Hoverfish Talk 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is mine too, especially so that others can see how all these major changes came about, so I copied all our discussions in the main list talk page. Let's take it from there, from now on. Hoverfish Talk 15:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film list managment

Your thoughts are mine, except I doubt such a subproject would keep conversations contained. I can't think how many times I have suggested that talk on issues that concern the project happens in project space. Some seem to prefer personal channels. I will suggest right off (in WP Films talk) starting the subproject. I would appreciate any suggestions there. Hoverfish Talk 07:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we set the Talk page:Film lists or something? THis way we can discuss it as a project but not clutter up the main film talk page. I would suggest a section in the main talk page directing to this page where we can disucss the matter and avoid too many detailed personal discussion? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is on the main Film talk page. Pete do you think the film would look tidier if the first column was the Title in alphabetical order and the second column was the date of release. THis needs to be decided before the lists are worked on and expanded so save time later. We need to set up that discussion and planning page asap ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing release column

I have begun removing the release column from List of Argentine films:1936 looks much better like this with the titles first table looks much less bloated and accesible. I suggest we devise a way to put release into the notes column so it looks tidy. e.g after notes on the film just put e.g Release:March 10 . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. WHy not just remove the release columns and dates which bloat the table and add a new section underneath for releases ? This way the films are in alphabetical order and also the films which do have the release dates can be ordered below. The ne section could also give details about the studio etc. Sound good? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. Well my idea was you see that section on the List of Argentine films:1936 about the release. Well me idea is to expand on this and add details of the studio and film specifics such as 35mm etc. All this info though can't go horizontally in the first section so why not add a section down the pages on such details?. It would be a section named Release and specifications or something -my idea also with the images and maybe an intro is to make the less like lists but more like documents or minor cinema articles. Hey I've been all over the last two days check out my contributions!! I've just expanded Assamese cinema and Nepal cinema adding details and the list of films as they were connected in the main list template. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi good morning. I personally prefer it List of Australian films:1960s. Probably it is more correct to have a space but I don't think it really matters its just if I was going to search for a list I would be most likely to not have a gap. I shouldn't be too concerned with it though.

THese lists are developing well now. I feel the next stage is to completely fill the tables on every Aussie list page adding in all the details on the direcotrs/ actors awards etc even for allthe titles which don't have an article yet (Over many weeks of course!!!). THis is what I have just started on Argentine films but I have another 70 years to go!!!!! I feel this is a good way to get the titles onto wikipedia forming a basis in which the articles can then be started. The encyclopedia looks much better with at least some recognition of all these films even if many don't yet have an article. Keep up the good work! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis process will also identify many of the missingactors/directors from Australian cinema which wil be a useful tool also for the new WIkiProject Film Biography. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the links. They are useful in connecting to imdb. I also aim to fill in all the details and notes columns on the Argentine lists as soon as I can. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it that the list of Australian films is completely screwed up all it need was to remove the navigation plate!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the talk page too but you see many users may regard a page with about 30+ external links to the same webiste as spamming, encouraging users to look at imdb rather than wikipedia. HOwver if you hide the cinsistent IMDB name and just reference it as a 1 2 3 4 etc then this might not seem so bad. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer up mate. You are doing a terrific job on it. Seriously if it wasn't for you wikipedia would not have a List of Australian films. How ever empty the lists may be initially , even the list of titles is far more useful that no pages existing at all. Remember nobody expects wikipedia to be perfect or indeed complete. It is supposed to be a combined effort of millions of people and nobody expects you to the complete that entire list in severla days!!! One useful tip might be to use the incomplete list {{ }} tag on pages you will are not yet up to scratch -this way users can see it is a work in progess. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alos the columns notability should really be notes. They should include details of awards, cultural significance etc but if it doesn't apply I plan cram other details to fill up the spaces. Each Shot on 35mm etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be careful Pete how many external links you add. We are trying to attract people to the site remember not direct them elsewhere!!! E,g on List of Australian films the spamming people will come along and wipe it all off immediately!! Two or three external links at the very most!!! All the best. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. How are you? I do agree and think the links act as references and they do dupport the article when of course anybody could just jump in and add a bogus title to mess it up and no one would really know. However I can't really think of a way around this. Maybe just include the links on the lesser known films or something I don't know. Its just I know I have encountered trouble in the past with WP Spammers who are obsessed with removing every external link they can get their hands on and have put several of my lists up for deletion with the excuse "we are not the imdb"!!!! If you feel it is the best way to secure the lists you have my support 100% and I personally don't have a problem with this but I am slightly concerned the lists may create unnecesary attention by such users who find any excuse to get their own way. User:Calton for one. Keep up your good work anyway! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's Biggest Loser 2007

Hey, i provided an explanantion for the "both" comment on the Biggest Loser Australia 2007 page. It was for Chris who both had immunity and was the biggest loser. Sorry for the confusion, i just noticed some unregistered users trying to have both in the one square but it doesn't work. Survivorfan101 11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new entries...

I don't know if you noticed new User:Woonun trying to enter films and breaking the table code. I asked for sources, since I couldn't find the films and now we have some references (see 1970s). This is what I meant that we somehow have to define a limiting factor in the lead section, or we'll keep getting just about anything. Hoverfish Talk 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reverting doesn't discourage her/him we may have to drop some info in the user's talk page, plus some info on table-making. By the way, I have a mixed feeling about removing all the red links and I think you too. So, I (and Blofeld) have started a discussion about it to get some consensus on what is best to do (in all the film lists eventually). I would be somewhat relieved to hear from you there. Hoverfish Talk 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we integrate the whole 1990s in one page, which is desirable for practical reasons, we still have the problem of data size. The less (characters and formatting code) we enter in each line the better. In this case we add 11 characters for ref code and the name of the film again! What I've seen done in the German list is give the link without piping it with IMDb. Also for 300 entries, we'll get an additional 300 lines at the bottom, which makes it look endlessly long. I don't say that these are terminal problems for your suggestion, but both data size and page length are a serious factor when we try to integrate so much. Else we will be back to 36 split pages again.

Oh I just saw the extra info you added on line one. In this case you can be sure the size will become too much for a page. Let's not overdo it, Pete. Basically one needs to find the title, director, one or two starring actors (if their names helps any) and our all beloved genre. Some argue about studio too. Runtime, crew, tech details... it can become endless. Is it really helpful? We have to set some limits to what we are attempting to do, and the included part should be the "cream" part. The rest one can find if one is interested. If we have a link to IMDb, the information is there, just like if we have a link to the wiki-article the info is there too. Hoverfish Talk 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for each film without an article in Wikipedia and with some more info in IMDB (as I have noticed that many entries just give director, writer and a couple of actors and some not even that), then a link to the IMDb or to AMG would be good, as people can get a quick idea about it, plus editors can see if it's worth starting an article. So your work in getting all these links is quite valuable IMO. Studio, if possible in an abbreviated form, is quite OK. Did you see the List of Austrian films? Otto, who's compiling there, started studio too. If we have a considerable amount of studio entries, we could also rename the Aussie header to Studio/Notes. It would also be a super idea to give abbreviation for studio with a ref, so that at the bottom we can give full name and possible a bit more info about the "studio" (which, strictly talking, is the "producing company"). It would add a bit to the code, but so would the full name of the studio. For example: "British Empire Films" = 20 characters (incl. spaces) while <ref>B.E.F.</ref> = 17 char., "Cinesound Productions Limited" = 29 char. while <ref>C.P.L.</ref> = 17 char. What do you think? Hoverfish Talk 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't let anything get lost, as all this is very useful. But it's better to pre-discusse a bit, so by the time we announce our issue un the project page we know what we are talking about. I have no problem with studio (but not distributor as well) being a steady item in the last column and renaming the column to Studio/Notes. A 6th column, however, would become a problem in outlay as it will condence too much all the other columns. If we have it in the last column, preceding all other notes, then at the most, the line may break, which is not a big problem. Have you seen it implemented in the Austrian list? Hoverfish Talk 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made searches for the entries Woonun brings in. They are aboriginal made/related. I guess such entries might only be known via some remote festivals (like I am looking into http://www.dreamspeakers.org/ but they display no archives before 2003). I think we have to help this. Maybe we should find an appropriate keyword to display in Genre or Notes to all films of Aboriginal origin or as main topic. Or maybe Aboriginal films could become an additional list by itself, since it's a culture per se. And by the way, my warmest support for your cultural/alternative hero [1]. Hoverfish Talk 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film

hi, well you should give the work to a Bot. I think it's a strain on the users. --Bohater 11:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Template

Greetings! It's an ongoing "battle" to get these tagged as such. About a month ago we finished going country-by-country (category-wise) to make sure that they were tagged for infobox, image, synopsis, etc... Just when we thought we had infoboxed them all - a couple of us realized that not all were tagged for country - and as you can see, have found about 3,000 so far that were not correctly categorized (in the article) or tagged (on the talk page). C'est la vie!

A couple handy suggestions... After looking at the article, I cut&paste from a .txt file my "generic" add everything to the talk page and take out the unnedded stuff. My generic template looks like this (look at the source file for the layout, not the string as it appears here):

{{Film |class=stub |importance=low |attention= |needs infobox=yes }} {{filmimage}} {{film needs synopsis}}

I just cut this from the .txt file, paste it to the talk page, and delete the unnecessary part(s). This automatically marks the article as a stub and importance as low (if it weren't it probably would have been tagged right beforehand!). It's hit & miss on the film-image and the synopsis, as you well know!

Putting those additional tags is very helpful, as it keeps others from having to evaluate them after you've already spent time with the article.

And yes, it's expected that every film has an image (not just a screenshot, but depending on the genre and year, a title card or somethign similar) and a formal synopsis.

Regarding the addition of templates, etc. The only ones that I noticed you "goofed" on were novels, where there are several films - normally those are eventually broken up and don't need their own infobox (or boxes). They're still flagged as "film" but that's about it. If there's just one, an infobox in the section on the film itself is appropriate, but with multiple films, it just looks nasty!

About the Indian films, the Project India has a "cinema=yes" which just marks it for their project. It's pretty normal to add the film tag as well, as we're watching for different things in an article than they are.

Keep up the good work, and if you've got other questions, just drop a note! SkierRMH 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join the club, I should be doing other work at times too!! I've checked all the films through 1934, so you need not duplicate efforts there :) Ciao! SkierRMH 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons are definitely tagged as "film", but they get a separate infobox (especially the Hollywood ones). I personally don't make a big deal if a cartoon has a film box, but a purist might! I just tag them as needing an infobox & worry about which one when I or someone gets around to putting it there. Anime is often a "heated" topic :( They do have their own infoboxes, and I've seen a couple nasty edit wars about which one (film or anime) is more appropriate (I come down on the side of Anime). Again, I just tag them and let the others fight it out! In either case, if there's already an infobox you don't have to tag it for an additional one. The only real bastard child right now (IMHO) are music videos (and compilations/collections thereof) (both VHS/DVD) - there's not a consistent anything on them right now, some are given album infoboxes and some films. As I come across them I just mark them needing an infobox, and both of them seem to do the trick for now. Hope that helps! SkierRMH 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't signed your comments on the film talk page. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]