User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 11

B-class

Thanks for the award, I'm just glad all of the articles have now been reviewed. It was easier when I could use the Outriggr script but he deleted it halfway though, so the reviews had to be done manually. I really hope the message on the talk page gets some editors to work on bringing the articles up to GA status. I'll leave a message in the newsletter as well for some more publicity. My next effort is now to make another attempt at FA with LMS, so we'll see how that goes. Thanks again, and congrats on the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting issues I just wanted to point out. First, I'm sure you've seen this already, so do we want to remove her from the list and extend the nomination period for one more person? Or do we want to remain in the election phase and still allow another member to run for the remaining position as we conclude the election? Secondly, this looks to be beneficial for our project, and I think we should try to coordinate our project's efforts in attempting to get as many of the articles to be included in the release. There are about 70 articles that have various cleanup tags that have to be addressed for them to be included. Over 600 films/film topics were selected on the release (I looked them over and it looks like many are classified as B-class, including the ones that I mercilessly downgraded to lower classes, so I don't know the impact of that.), and the Version 1.0 Editorial Team wants a selected "safe" revision from each one to include in the release. Do you think we should try to hold some sort of drive to have editors review the articles, determine the most relevant revision to use, and attempt to cleanup any articles (perhaps give out awards)? I think this will be beneficial for our project, but we have a little over a month to verify the ~600 articles (plus more if we want to nominate others). I'm interested on your opinion on the two issues, and hopefully both work out well for our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of pressure to be bold! I removed her from the candidate list and modified the banner to state that people can still nominate themselves. I should have more time to work on the Version 0.7 drive throughout this week (depends on schoolwork), and will try to organize something to start with. Talk to you later this week. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Wikipedia 0.7. There are some basic instructions on how I think it should work, but I would appreciate any modifications. We should try to get this set up as fast as possible to allow for reviewing all the articles in one month's time. This could be a good time to start using some of the film awards that you created to motivate editors to help with the drive. Unfortunately I think the list was made prior to when I started reviewing the B-class articles, so I think many of them may have to be removed from the list, but that will allow us to coordinate our efforts better on the remaining articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response to the questions I raised, which you can see here. It looks like each article was given a score, and by downgrading it to Start, it decreased the score by 150 points. Would you be willing to help me decide which ones we need to remove/respond to the question? I would like to get as many of our film articles on that release as possible, but we do have to take into consideration their considered importance and quality. If we establish which articles we are going to work on, we can start a drive to get the revisions/cleanup done. By the way, thanks for taking another look at the LMS FAC. If you can, would you be able to take a look at the rationales raised by Steve concerning the five external links that need to be deemed reliable? You can agree/disagree with the rationales, but I just need someone to weigh in or it may risk being failed again. Thanks again, and I hope we can do well with our project for this 0.7 release. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know the page is far from perfect (it took forever to copy and paste the list over). I was planning on adding the current classes/core parameters once it was determined which ones we were going to use (didn't want to expend too much more effort on ones that wouldn't be considered for the release). I'm guessing we may be removing a hundred films or so and then possibly adding more from our core list if that is approved. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the response to your mention of the core list on the 0.7 talk page, it appears he is approving the articles that are C-class (or basically B-class and above) for our project. Looking over the core list, that will be about ~40 articles. So the question is do we go through that large ~600 article list and pick for ourselves what we think should be included (which are also B or higher)? I don't know if it's going to modify their number concerns for the number of articles they want in their release if it drops from their initial 600 to 40 articles. I think we should work on selecting which ones we want to include that are in the best shape and important to our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your announcements.

Could you stop sending me them? Don't get me wrong, it's nice and all that you want to invite me, but I'm not really interested.

I hope I don't have to quit the movie WikiProject in order to stop receiving those messages, because I really don't wanna quit that project. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. They do, however, only occur semi-annually, so I wouldn't be too concerned. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't be, it's no big deal, no big deal at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's only occasionally it's no big deal really. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo. Sorry for bringing this up; if it's perfectly OK, feel free to castigate me, but is canvassing users for supports in the coordinator election (as seen here, here, and here) perfectly appropriate? I'm annoyed at myself for bringing it up, as I've got a strict policy these days of avoiding Wikidrama, but I thought was something I should make you aware of. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Marmayogi

Hello, I got some reliable sources for Marmayogi. Shooting teaser trailer also means the film has began shooting right? Anyways here are some sources. http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news-1/sep-08-03/marma-yogi-18-09-08.html , http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news-1/jul-08-01/marmayogi-01-07-08.html. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not, and those sources do not meet WP:NFF - the references need to confirm that shooting has already begun, not when they speculate that it might. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get what you mean. Thanks for that. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BFJA Awards

could you please add BFJA Awards in incert list in Template:Infobox Actor. --Jayanta (Talk)

Film template?

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are refering to. As far as I know, I haven't been editing anything to do with films. Are you sure you left the message with the right person.Nrswanson (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Task Force Page

Hi, Girolamo. Thanks for creating the Nordic Films Task Force page. There seems to be a problem with the "adding participants" link here -- it directs to the German Task Force. I fixed the link here, but it still doesn't reflect back to the main page. What am I failing to do? — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heading that off. It looks like what you were seeing is merely a delay with the site's cache - in theory, it should resolve itself. However, you can force it to update by performing a null-edit (saving an edit where you haven't changed anything), which is what I did. It appears to have worked. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instructions. I'll do that next time (because my failing appears to be simple impatience). — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film tagging

Sorry, I just noticed my mistake and was in the process of undoing those tags when you notified me. I'll take care of it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic cinema

HI. These are exciting times are they not? What I had in mind two years ago on here seems to be gradually taking shape. The project is better and more organised than ever. I;m particularly pleased with the Nordic task force and the devleopment of articles such as A Victim of the Mormons. Who;d have ever though in the olden days we would have a half decent article on a] a 1911 film and b] a silent danish movie. If we can add such content en masse which are of s similar standard this project will devleop massively. Some day we'll have every notable film from every country, and up to a half decent standard (hopefully). I;m keen to encourage editors to edit Latin American film although this seems to be a sadly neglected part of films on here. I;ve proposed a new project but I doubt I'll get anybody to follow it as most interested editors are likely to be working on spanish wikipedia aside from the one or two film buffs we have on here. Anyway just to tell you I proposed and with Her Peghsip got Category:Danish film stubs up and running. I;ve also proposed Iceland, Norwegian and Czech film stubs if you would kindly chip in at the stub sorting proposals as well as a proposed split of documentary film stubs as it concerns WP:Films. Hope you are well. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project banner removal

Sorry, I was removing cruft, and didn't see the banner. Thanks for correcting it, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Regarding to User_talk:Girolamo_Savonarola/Archive_10#Interview, I have just send you an e-mail, and I apologize for the delay. I hope that you would have the time to answer before the end of the month so we can publish our Newsletter on October 1st ! Otherwise, we shall publish it later, it isn't a problem. If you have a problem with a question, if you do not understand anything, not hesitate to ask me for an explanation. Thanks in advance ! (I've send you the mail by the function special:emailuser/Girolamo Savonarola.). Regards Stef48 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want no more take this interview ? It's very damage because on FR-WP, we would like to learn how is the cinema project ... Stef48 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Election wrap-up

I will do my best to wrap up the election. I feel I may miss a few announcements around the WikiProject, so you may have to clean these up. :) I'd like to keep the status quo and have you serve as lead coordinator again; as you've probably noticed, I don't edit as much due to graduate school. I'm going to see about limiting my editing scope to just community or coordinator discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to update everything to reflect the results of the election, and I've asked Nehrams2020 to include the information in the newsletter. I was not sure if there was anything more that needed to be done, such as contacting each candidate individually of the results. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election and 0.7

This was an interesting election this time, and I was glad to see more turnout, and now even more coordinators to assist with the project. I have no problem assisting with the wrap-up, what specifically would you like me to do? The 0.7 list you developed looks like a better selection (although it did take a while to load). I'm sure for whatever cutoff they let us go with (the 200 you recommended or more if that's what they want) we can then copy and paste that into the initial page I started to replace the initial list and save on the load time. I hope we can get that established quickly so that I can mention it in the newsletter in a few days and drive more interest in it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new member of the coordinator team. My first question is the most obvious: how does this team operate? My second question is utterly self-serving: what do you need me to do? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Yes, I don't mind doing a little. As English is my first language, I'm better at translating from the French-English direction than vice-versa. I'm taking a break now and will be back on the encyclopedia in another 12 hours or so. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email. I wonder if it would be possible to use another method than email to send me the text you want translated, e.g. putting it into a subpage on your user page? I don't use my WP email much. Hope we can find something convenient. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of your interview is already beginning, and we don't need any translator : I don't speak very well english, but I understand it. So, I can translate myself your interview. I can also help to the translation of my interview, but I'm not the best translator French>English ... Regards Stef48 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

A belated congratulations for your election as a film coordinator and "lead". I certainly look forward to working with you again. FWiW, I recently had a series of publishing deadlines to meet so my attention was diverted of late, but I will be coming back "on line" little by little. Bzuk (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

amg_id

why do you keep removing amg_id from articles? It's part of the infobox just like anything else. Please make constructive edits next time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whups! Sorry, I think I clicked the wrong user_id with this one. My bad. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Hi, it's EclipseSSD here. I was wondering if The Texas Chain Saw Massacre shouldn't be added? I think it should be added, as it seems to be a pretty important film and it's on this link [1]. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film/Class

Yeah, I know - sorry! I thought the change I requested would be a cosmetic one only. I've already requested an edit to Template:Film/Task force categories in the hope that this will resolve the issue. Failing that, you may as well do the revert; I'm going away for a few days so I won't have the time to study the code in any detail until I get back. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi (film)

Since I was looking for a B-Class rating, I was rather hoping that the checklist would have been filled in. I generally frown on self assessments, so would rather not do it myself. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree with you, but the criteria are fairly objective, so I wouldn't fret too much. (Truth be told, I have an aversion to B-class assessment myself. Dunno why!) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've given it "yes" for four of the criteria; the only one I've left out is "coverage", because I don't know how broad this needs to be for B-Class. If you don't wish to do this yourself, I can pester someone else. :) Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Films selection for Version 0.7

Hi, everything you mentioned sounds fine. The list is a bit long to add by hand, but if you can just collect VersionIDs of the ones you picked, that should be fine. I'll try and look over the ones that are just below the 1250 threshold very soon, but I have a lot of other things coming due as well! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the scores you generated, as seen at User:Girolamo_Savonarola/V0.7. You pointed out here that only about one third of the "Top" list reached the 1250-point threshold, even with a 400 point boost from being ranked Top. Is this what you used to generate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Wikipedia_0.7? BTW, you can definitely edit User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-1 if you wish to place VersionIDs there for your articles.

However, I've been looking into this further, and I apologise I didn't figure this out fully before. Checking over our offline data, I see that if it had used importance, WP:Films would have received an extra 99 "scope points" added to its Top-importance scoring, i.e., 499 points in all. This boost reflects the fact that WP:Films has a broader/more important scope than the average project, so a Top-importance tag is worth more. So you can feel free to include all films from User:Girolamo_Savonarola/V0.7 that have a score above 1150, i.e., Raise the Red Lantern and those above it. I'm checking my results with User:CBM, who wrote the bot code. Walkerma (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope points are based on the WikiProject scope, so they are only applied to articles that are receiving an importance rating from that WikiProject. All articles receiving the 400 points for Top, should receive an extra 99 to reflect them being Top-from-WP:Films. If we get a handful extra or fewer, it won't be a disaster, these point score would fluctuate daily if we analyzed them daily. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I definitely would have done more (and made my revisions better), but this is the busiest week I'm probably going to have all semester. If they're willing to extend the deadline since we had less time to complete the revisions, I can help out further starting this Saturday. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'A'-class reviews

Hi there. I'm just wondering if you think it proper for me to pass an article at 'A'-class that I've voted in the review for. Would it be best if I got one of the others to do it, or are there no concerns about doing this in general? Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to do so as long as it's open and shut. (If the supports outnumber the fails by at least three reviews, and if there are no blatantly outstanding reviews.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Wildroot and I'm somewhat anxious to get Batman (1989 film) to A-class status. I don't have much patience and my message probably doesn't make much sense to you, but this does. It would be nice to respond to Steve's message as fast you possibly can. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this message: I hear you, and thanks for the clarification. However, your comment about addressing all FAC concerns at the 'A'-class stage doesn't quite tally with what we say on the assessment page, and which was the criteria I based my "two stage" review upon ("The article... is not yet ready for featured article. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work... May miss a few relevant points.") Is this something we should be looking to clarify/change? Steve ^{T • C} 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That may be a remnant from the wiki-wide grading scheme, so yes, that may need some revision in light of our process. Thanks for pointing that out. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thinking about it, what we're essentially doing with that description is dissing our own reviewers. While we're supposed to judge on FAC criteria, we're saying that the best we can do at that will still leave the article short in a couple of areas. Steve ^{T • C} 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed a lot of those FAC concerns. So you guys don't have to worry about that mumbo-jumbo anymore. Just pass it off and everybody is happy. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that there was an established procedure. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for edit, If I do any kind of mistake plz inform me.Presently I am working on bengali film related article.-Jayanta Nath (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man's Fate (unfinished film) - restoring standalone article

Hello! I noticed that you merged my new article Man's Fate (unfinished film) into the article on the Malmaux novel. Please be advised that I undid your merge and restored my article to its standalone status. There is no reason to merge the two articles, since the two subjects are very different. Malmaux had nothing to do with the Fred Zinnemann film, and the tumultuous production of Man's Fate (unfinished film) was actually one of the more dramatic film news stories of 1969 (the cancellation of the production was front page news) -- it deserves standalone status as a major unfinished film. I would also ask that you please do not revert my restoration. Thank you for your consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were we to create independent articles for every film which was cancelled in pre-production, we'd probably have nearly as many articles to add as we currently have! It's a very common industry occurrence, and per our standard notability rules, we generally keep information on unproduced films in a subsection of the source material's article. I'd recommend discussing this with Erik and Steve, though, since they are more active in this part of the guidelines, and I'd certainly be curious to hear their thoughts on the matter. Would that be fair? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be disagreeable, but I have to insist that the article remain as a standalone piece due to its historic value. The cancellation of the production (not pre-production) of the film was a major news story in its time and dragged on for several years because of the Zinnemann lawsuit. The film was not in pre-production -- if you go back to the article, you will see that everything was in place prior to the commencement of the prinicipal cinematography. All of the press material from 1969 (and I've read the original page one Hollywood Reporter and Variety articles) specifically called it a production -- it was well beyond the pre-production stage when the plug was pulled. Obviously, films cancelled in pre-production don't belong here, but that does not apply here. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing two identical but different terms. "A production" is a common term in the industry synonymous with a film being production, while "the production stage" is a term used to denote principal photography. By definition, pre-production lasts from when financing is secured until when the filming begins, and therefore, this film died in pre-production. Again, I would encourage you to seek out Erik and Steve and see if they have different opinions on this, since they often are involved in these questions regarding merging. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your new message. You may not be aware of this, but I work in the film industry, so I am familiar with the various phrases you cited. I would also like to believe that the writers for Hollywood Reporter and Variety were also aware of those phrases, since their 1969 coverage of the production's cancellation did not state it died in pre-production. As I stated earlier, I have to insist that this article remain as a standalone piece since Malmaux had no input in this production and since it is one of the most famous unfinished films ever made. I have provided a link to the existing article on the Malmaux novel to this new article. I have also submitted the new article for DYK consideration, and I hope you will allow it to be judged for that honour. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just found out that the article has been okayed for DYK recognition, which will reflect positively on our WikiProject. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since G.S. is asking about WP:NFF, I would like to offer this quote from the WP:NFF page: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (The bold and italics are mine.) Having done extensive research in preparation for this article (and I am planning to continue the research in order to expand it beyond DYK to GA or possibly FA status), I am hoping that "common sense" will prevail in allowing it to remain as a standalone piece – as per the "occasional exception" clearly cited on the WP:NFF page. The creation and termination of the Fred Zinnemann film was a major story that resonated throughout the U.S. motion picture industry; it was front page news at the time it occurred and was still being written about long after the dust settled at MGM. Anyone who wishes to contribute to growing this article to GA and/or FA status is welcome to aid the effort. Thanks and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this situation, I think that we should assume good faith that this could be a substantial article. While WP:NFF could apply, I think that it usually applies to contemporary projects that just come and go without any certainty of historical relevance. If Ecoleetage can provide retrospective coverage of this project, then it seems alright. I would recommend instead structuring this article as a historical article instead of a film article. I have to agree with Girolamo that this never actually began filming, so perhaps it could be moved to Man's Fate (planned film) and ensure that the article is in the past tense. That's my $0.02 on the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, Erik. Actually, my planned expansion of the article beyond its DYK level (it has already been approved for that) to GA or FA would include a focus on how this film’s aborted production was a key factor that helped to bring about the near-collapse of MGM in 1970. (That aspect of the story was not included originally because that requires more time and research, and I was eager to get this article online now in order to fill a void in our Fred Zinnemann coverage). We also have to differentiate between “filming” and “production.” The film was far beyond pre-production at the time the plug was pulled – sets were constructed, costumes were designed and created, rehearsals were taking place (see the Zinnemann quote in the article), and locations in Asia were secured. I am trying to find out if any second unit shooting had already taken place, and I am also trying to locate any possible publicity stills connected to this film. I should stress the Zinnemann film was not “planned” – it was well underway before it was stopped, and it was actually a highly anticipated film. The Cimino film, however, is “planned” (and has been for seven years). However, I will rephrase this article, as per Erik’s suggestion, into the past tense. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that planning can go beyond blueprints. Everything was planned up to the start of filming, basically. Maybe there's another word that could apply better, but "unfinished" just makes it sound like something happened in the middle of making the actual product. I can see, though, what you mean about "planned" seeming conceptual. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "aborted" but the right-to-life folks would not be amused. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to sit on my hands for now, but I'm worried about larger precedent applications, really. But to reiterate, there's "production" as in the film is being produced, and this covers all "stages of production" (pre-production, production - aka principal photography, and post-production) , and there's "production-stage", which is principal photography commencing. It's lamentable that this understandably can lead to confusion or obfuscation, but the NFF guideline is very clear on which term it's referring to, so arguing on the semantics strikes me as slightly wikilawyering and against the spirit of the guideline. My point is that just because the press sometimes uses either term doesn't mean that they are the same thing, and I've yet to encounter a definition of pre-production that doesn't include art direction and rehearsals. Why? Because those are precisely what pre-production time is for! :) So I don't really understand what you consider pre-production, basically, or where you're deriving that from, aside from the odd Variety writer averse to more precise terminology. Those are my thoughts and concerns, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be sitting on your hands -- I have a groovy old bean bag that is much more comfortable. :) All seriousness aside, this film is an anomaly at many levels, and I feel the NFF language makes it very clear that flexibility is encouraged in cases of anomalies. And, besides, Variety is considered "the Bible of entertainment" (or so they say). In any event, thanks for talking this out -- I appreciate your input and respect your concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi. Belatedly chipping in on this, as I've only just logged on. WP:NFF doesn't apply here. The point of WP:NFF is to prevent articles appearing about films that are not guaranteed to be notable in the long run (because they never completed production). This is so we don't end up with lots of stubby articles on projects that were never made and thus would fail the general notability guideline. In which case, it's this we must look to, not WP:NFF. So, do any of the cites in the article provide that notability? Well, the film adaptation is not mentioned in this article; it is mentioned in this, but that's just a one-sentence mention in a larger work not about the production. Similarly, this, this, this and this article do not demonstrate notability. Now, I'm not saying that it wasn't a notable failed production, just that none of these demonstrate that. They are all articles about much larger subjects in which Zinnemann's Man's Fate received barely a line apiece. If better sources can't be found, then that's where the information belongs; as a part of a larger article (probably Man's Fate#Film Adaptations). Steve ^{T • C} 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article is like creating a tapestry -- individual threads and patches have little worth on their own, but stitched together, they create something of value. Likewise, individual citations may seem lithe on their own weight, but pieced together they can form a solid article. As for the citations, let's define them properly. The first citation is strictly about the Malmaux novel and I used it to explain what Man's Fate was about (you may have noticed the Wikipedia article based on the book cites no sources). The second quote was taken from a book on the life of Zinnemann and it was used to fill in basic information on the film -- the full book is not online, but I understand there is more detail on the production therein (I will probably purchase the book when I expand the article for GA/FA purposes). The LA Times and Time Magazine citations are about James Aubrey -- the cancellation of the production was one of many things he did at MGM (he also squashed the proposed Stanley Kubrick film on the life of Napoleon). The citation from This is London/Evening Standard was used strictly to confirm the time when the production was killed. The Guardian citation was about the Cimino film, not the Zinnemann film, and was used for that purpose. I also used Fred Zinnemann's autobiography for four citations in the article; that book has an extensive section on the production and it wasn't mentioned in the deconstruction of my references. But, in any event, I am planning to expand on the article with the goal of moving it beyond DYK to GA and maybe FA status, and I would like to invite you to help me in that endeavour. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAW VI

i made the page with a template for "future film" however my internet connection was interrupted and i was unable to finish the page. Saw VI has had enough press release information, i believe, to warrant a page. If you will take note, the page for SAW V was created long before the release date. Also, as this is the next series in the title, i feel it appropriate that the page be made already. I will revert the page back to how it was when i left it, and continue from where i left. thankyou. Corythepaperboy (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to thoroughly read WP:NFF. Your point about Saw V is an "other stuff exists" argument, and is not relevant solely by the virtue that we missed it last time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just being rude and sarcastic by this stage. There are plenty of pages worthy of your attention; junk, etc. This page is worthy of existing; even if filming has not yet commenced. It will save time when it IS being filmed, as it will already be made. Set a date; this time next year, if nothing has been comfirmed about it being filmed or not, then delete the page. Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I will also point out that "The winner of the VH1 reality show Scream Queens will win a role in the film" This confirms enough that there will be a SAW VI; contracts made by the Scream Queens management would not allow otherwise. Could you imagine? Hey, you MIGHT win a role in a film that MAY NOT be made. Unlikely, I'm sorry. So just let the page be. Thanks. Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was. State of Play was this close to being abandoned after Brad Pitt jumped ship, before Russell Crowe came to the rescue. If he hadn't signed on, it would have definitely gone down the toilet (as well as all my hard work on the article!) I use the film often as an example in WP:NFF AfDs. The only reason I didn't in this one was because I'd already given too many examples and didn't want to clog up the page. :) Steve ^{T • C} 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoformatting in Infobox Film

I've latched onto the suggestion you made in this discussion and started work on a subtemplate for Infobox Film that will automatically format the Country field. It all seems very straightforward and should be easy to implement: names recognized by the template will automatically link to the respective "Cinema of..." article (e.g. USA would be rendered as United States), and it won't break existing articles which already link to the country (i.e. [[USA]]). I've got a copy of the infobox set up in my userspace, and it all appears to be working fine. Do you think this is something worth pursuing? PC78 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that this is excellent work! Exactly what I had in mind, really. If it works after being put through the paces in testing, then I can't really see a good reason not to adopt it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, three questions before I press on with this thing:

Should this subtemplate be used for categorizing articles? Should (for example) all Australian films go straight in Category:Australian films regardless, even if they are also subcategorized in Category:Australian television films?
What should we do for countries that don't have a corresponding "Cinema of..." article? Red link them? Link them elsewhere? Leave them unlinked? Ignore them?
Should regional "Cinema of..." articles be catered for? Admittingly there aren't many, but I'm thinking specifically of Scotland, Wales, Quebec, and the various Indian regions.

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of 0.7 FILMS

Problem with boxes

Are you seeing this message on different talk pages?- Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{" It seems to be related to WikiProject Films template boxes, but I can't figure it out. (ex:Talk:The Godfather and Talk:Chinatown (film)) Copana2002 (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are working on a fix at the moment. Thank you for letting me know, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template

hey, you undid the changes I made, which I think had it fixed. was that on purpose? --Ludwigs2 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of My Intention

Stub-Class? Surely not? PC78 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More plot and less POV/OR would be nice. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much plot can you expect from a 24 min. film? Where is the OR? PC78 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously, if we're rating articles like this as Stub-Class, then I think we have a problem. How exacly does this article not meet the Start-Class criteria? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complete plot synopsis is needed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Not for Start-Class. PC78 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, I have duly reassessed the article as Start-Class. Your unwillingness to discuss the issue is rather disconcerting. PC78 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldboy Poster

Hi, since you seem to be one of the coordinators of the film WikiProject, I was wondering if you could lend your opinion on a discussion concerning which poster should be used for the article. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start date template

Hello, hope your trip goes well! When you get back, can you respond to Andy Mabbett's inquiries about {{Start date}} at Template talk:Infobox Film? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American task force

Is this really necessary? Most editors think of "WP:Films" are being more based around America/British films than any others. I thought it would seem more sensible to create taskforces just for lesser worked on world cinema while the majority work on US within the main project. Count Blofeld 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do so would be an inherent bias, and it provides additional benefits for organizational reasons. Plenty of other projects do similarly - see MilHist, for example. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but unfortunately the majority of editors only work on American films and don't consider any of the other industries outside Hollywood. This bias of course is present all across wikipedia in every subject towards the states. I personally have no objection to it, but it is likely to emphasise the bias that already exists by the number of editors it is likely to attract in relation to the others. Also many American films overlap with British films and are often co-produced. How do we distinguish which films should go under which task force? One contradiction though is that for every other country of the world stub articles are organised by country/decade. Why must the UNited States by exempt from having standard stub ordering by country? I proposed standardising American film stubs like others on wikipedia and to others it seemed an outrageous idea. If America is organised as a taskforce now as the others it would seem sense to have stub articles ordered as "American film stubs" to allow editors working on that taskforce specific goals to work on and rid of the stubs Count Blofeld 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having disproportionate participants in the task forces may be a bias, but it won't be a systemic one. Overlaps will be tagged for both task forces, as we've already been doing where relevant. As for the categorizations, go ahead and revive that discussion. Category-wise, I eventually want to do a major overhaul of everything (everything, way beyond just titles), but what you're proposing seems fine on first glance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I look forward to hearing your proposals. Count Blofeld 12:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Science (film)

Hey there. You recently downgraded Rocket Science (film) from B class to Start and pointed to the "Improving this article" tab's suggestions. What did you think needs improving? Cheers, —97198 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the instructions for how to evaluate the article for B-class are located there. The template requires criteria parameters to be filled out before reaching B-class status. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. :) —97198 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD opinion

I think it would be a good idea to look at page histories and see if some articles can't be boldly merged to save us some grief. For example, Darkwing Duck DVD releases could be merged to Darkwing Duck, and backlinks (in particular, the template link). Remember that it was problematic for some editors to bunch together some articles for AfD, so doing bold merges and making sure the AfDs are separate would be a better approach. Also, I notice that this AfD is underway... might need to consider the arguments as well, such as advocating a place on the broader article until it becomes substantial enough to be spun off. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started some clean-up in this category. I merged Darkwing Duck DVD releases to Darkwing Duck, and I "rescued" Midnite Movies based on a very quick Google News Archive Search. Also supporting the Neelix's merging of three volumes to The Three Stooges Collection (see talk page). —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008 Newsletter

Wildroot's started on the November 2008 newsletter, and I've expanded it in Nehrams2020's absence. I was wondering if you think that there are any additional topics to mention in it? I will see if I can roll out the newsletter by the end of the day (3 PM EST here). —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an example of being bold?

I agree with your decision. But what made you decide to do this in light of this? The closing Admin even noted that discussion could best take place here, and there was none. Is this an example of being "bold"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bold. But not too bold - considering that most voted towards delete or merge. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mining your expertise

I can't believe I didn't think to ask you this, but do you know what a skypan is? The redlink at Changeling_(film)#Cinematography is annoying me, so I was going to create a stub article for it. But the sources I've found so far are particularly vague; mostly sales spiels that assume a certain level of pre-existing knowledge in the reader. Do you know of a good source I could use to put something together? Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This or this are good places to start. Basically, a socket rigged right in front of a metal disc or "pan", which widely spreads a bright light, allowing large-scale coverage of a background set (usually). Generally exclusively confined to studio work and rigged up to a ceiling-mounted pipe grid, they are also useful for lighting green/blue screens, when regularly spaced. The Panavision-type one is more common, IIRC...I seem to remember that Arri also makes one, but I can't find theirs online. However, Mole is very popular in Hollywood too, so their model may have been used instead (slightly more of a can design, I guess to do some preliminary control of spill light). I hope that's clearer; if not, I'm happy to further clarify. By the way, have you seen this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, a very clear description of a skypan, thank you. I'll see if I can either work an explanation into the article or create a stub using those sources. Thanks for the BTL link too; there are a few things in that article that weren't in the other sources I've used at #Visual effects. If we're happy BTL will be accepted as a reliable source, that should add some meat to an already overstuffed section. :) Steve ^{T • C} 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a publication written for people in the industry by people in the industry, and has been around for some time, so I don't really think that it will receive any significant RS issues. It seems that most of the content is interview-based as well, which helps. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class rating

I appreciate your feedback and will ensure the style guidelines are followed. Wondering if I can ask you for help, I am leaving a few questions below

I find it increasingly difficult to write an aricle on a sub-continental film. In case of Hindi language films, its kind of manageable. But for south-Indian languages there isn't much data available on the net. Why isn't this being considered while reviewing an article?

Please take a look at this aricle and let me know if something is missing, because it has all the information available on the net. Can an aricle be named GA if there is no room for improving the current article?

Are you aware of websites which gives you box office performance, budget and gross income information for Indian films

Regards, Bharathprime (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My short answer is that not everything is online, and that to rely solely on online sources is a likely recipe for disaster. I am not as familiar with Indian cinema resources, so I can't really be of much service in specific advice, but I am certain that most of this data exists in newspapers, magazines, and books. You can also consult with your fellow editors at the Indian cinema task force, as they may be better equipped to assist. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing IMDb (3rd party assessments)

See Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb#3rd party section. Thanks. 67.100.126.67 (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film reels

OK I've been a good boy and searched for and uploaded some film reels as of which could probably replace or existing cartoon type icons. Take your pick from the following. I'll propose it to WP:Films so we can reach a consensus on which to use.

File:Filmreel3.jpg