User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 6

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes your're probably right to keep it -anybody with a brain can see I didn't ask people to support it and I made sure I asked a diversity of people which is probably how I came across this user who clearly has no interest. Any closing admin can see all the voters are respected users who clearely have a mrain of their own to decide whether to support or opoose. I had already contacted the copy editor league by the way. Did you think any more about moving Argentina to Latin task force? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about the task force merging - I could also easily see the need for independent task forces for more active countries such as Spain, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. On the other hand, centralizing it does have some advantages. However, I think it would be hard to tenably hold them all together inclusive of Spain, mainly because of geographic differences. Plus, if you make it Spanish-exclusive, you're excluding Brazil, and if you include Portuguese, then you have to include Portugal, so then it's a Latin American-Iberian task force. A bit complicated...

Also, any thoughts from you about the Bios situation? Girolamo Savonarola 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The actors project is a supposed to be equally a part of biography and films. This is why it is neither a task force of films or biography as it is cleanly split down the middle and is intended to be closely shared by both projects. When I set it up I anticipated it would eventually become as active as WP Films. However I have no problems if you want to create assessment categories for WP Films in relation to actors and provide more assimilated links between them if you feel this will improve the articles in the long term. I am keen to stress how interreleated both projects are, naturally of course, but I wouldn't want actors to become a task force of films. Its best split down the middle I think but as I said I am all for tightening the links between WP film and this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to have Argentina, Mexico and Spain as one task force but the thing is there is also a close link between Argentina and Brazilian film and many films are often produced in Spanish and Portuguese and often have shared actors etc. Now Latin American and Iberian task force sounds a bit of a mouthful but I certinly think some merging should be done even if it is split by spanish and portuguese ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

However if you do anticipate growth in these areas I am equally keen to have seperate task forces for organizational work and planning for each of these countries rather than full task forces which fnuction as smaller wiki projects. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Girolamo Savonarola, I guess the controversies section must be copy-edited. Please, if you have time, help copy-editing it. I'm afraid that this whole FAC, which bgan as a storm of supports will turn out as a failure. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get to it tomorrow evening, but unfortunately I'm in the midst of packing up for a move, so my time comes and goes. (Just fair warning there.) As far as the FAC goes, this isn't an immediate decision - if there is evidence that the article is being actively improved in response to the comments, the article will remain there for as long as a month, if that's what it takes. At minimum, though, it'll stay up for a week, so I wouldn't despair yet. And remember, even if it does fail, it still will have progressed considerably from the revision it was at when it entered the process, and that's not a bad thing. Plenty of FAs took two or even three noms, if not more, to reach their star. At the end of the day, the star is an incentive to make a great article, not the other way around. :) Girolamo Savonarola 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate you for encouraging me. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have had a chance to structure the article somewhat and give it a major copy edit. In my experience if one of two negative quotes are added into the career section to make the tone appear completely neutral I believe with only very minor editing most notably any outstanding grammar or reference issues the major issues highlighted have been addressed and this is now virtually there. I've asked Shahid to check each reference for reliability something which he usually does an excellent job on with other articles also (he is always quick to revert shoddy references or info) and check for any possible dead links. I hope you can help as you suggested earlier and can see the article has improved considerably. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand.

But I just wanna say that I don't use cuss words in every comment on Wikipedia. In fact I'm usually nice. Do you really think I use cuss words a lot here? Well, I don't, there is no need, as I'm here to help. Yes, I must say that I sometimes do, I do it every once in a while. But usually I don't. And when I do I usually use small cuss words like damn or hell.

My point is, I usually type nice comments. You shouldn't fail to notice that. TheBlazikenMaster 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Dear Girolamo Savonarola!

How have you been? I know we're not in much interaction, but I'm still aware of your brilliant work on Wikipedia.

• Thanks for your message on the Preity Zinta talk page. It's a good gidance.

• My bad.. My statements are sometimes completely wrong. I've had a quick read through the policy you've provided. It says,

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article"

My question is, does this sentence imply to high profile FAs too? Because, Lage Raho Munnabhai is a featured article. It was featured on the main page "Today's featured article" section. Therefore, it's natural to think that an article, which was well checked and investigated (I believe...), can use as a role model to aspiring FA writers. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much any process that requires a consensus is, to a certain degree, subjective. Now, we have policy and guidelines set up so that a lot of the subjectivity is taken out of the equation, but to answer your question plainly: yes, there is going to be a certain level of inconsistency no matter how hard we try to keep the playing field level. It depends on who is viewing the FAC, what they are looking for, how attentive they are, and what knowledge of the subject (and guidelines) they may or may not have. (Beyond that, the FA requirements themselves have changed in the past, although I don't believe that is germane to these examples.) The point is that FA is an ideal, not an absolute, which is why one is to look to other FA articles for ideas and inspiration, but not blind aping.

I myself have once worked on an FA which I realized fairly late in the nomination actually had a few large blind spots that had gone unnoticed to everyone else - before I could get to working on that, it had passed FA. Technically I should have brought it to FARC, but since I knew I'd probably be the only one to notice the omission or work substantially on the article, I just fixed it ASAP. But it just shows that sometimes articles can slip through (or be failed) unfairly.

The main thing to remember about the process is that everyone really is trying to help the article along, even if it can seem combative. In this way, it sometimes can resemble a thesis defense - you will be asked lots of questions and challenged on your work. Everyone wants more FAs, but no one wants what they consider sub-standard. I always try to integrate as many of the suggestions as I possibly can, unless the suggestions seem blatantly inappropriate. It helps to consider that any given reviewer's opinions probably will be reflected in the thoughts of a fair percentage of the general readership, so ignoring comments often is akin to not addressing opinions likely to recur. Also, aim to make the article as bulletproof as possible wrt following policy and guidelines - eliminating questionable sources, even if they maybe pass WP:RS, will require more work, but it also means that there is that much less room for someone to object to your sources, too. Girolamo Savonarola 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie budget/gross time value adjustment

I have been reading some film pages, i think they are great. I was trying to compare two movies, a first run blockbuster and a sequal that bombed. the problem is, the time value of money distorts a direct comparison. I saw that in the actor/actress section there is a field that says the age next to their birthdate so we don't have to do the math. I would propose that you put a dollar year field next to the gross/budget field that displays the amount in todays dollars. For example: $44 Million ($115 Million 200x). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylearchibald (talk • contribs) 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is doable in practice. First of all, you're dealing with a fluctuating market economy (and the dollar is not doing so well now anyway), so you'd have to have some mechanism that would check the rate fairly frequently, then multiply that by a COLA adjustment. (And COLA itself is not universally regarded as a good metric.) Then there's the question of how this would factor in all of the international grosses, and so forth. Plus, for movies with multiple runs (for example, Star Wars), you'd actually have to do several different adjustments depending on when the money came in. Then you're still dealing with dollars, which may not make sense for international releases. Realistically, the best way to judge movie performance would be tickets, but for obvious reasons studios aren't really a fan of that approach since it makes it much harder to break records (due to inflation factor) and money looks more appealing to stockholders. Girolamo Savonarola 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed articles done

We got through a thousand or so articles in the last week or two, with just a few exceptions. The majority of the articles were mostly from the Indian task force, and I'd say 95% of the ones that I assessed were stub class, with many that should probably be deleted/need massive cleanup for lack of structure, multiple POV statements, poor grammar, among other problems. However, I did find multiple start class articles and a few B classes. There are some articles still left in the unassessed category that I don't think fall under the WP:FILM's scope. What do you think about these?

• Screen it!: Website about film reviews, possibly isn't even notable. I don't think we cover websites right? (if we did, I think IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes would have to be included then).
• Cast and crew of Sivaji, this should be merged back into the article, or otherwise we could start seeing hundreds of these forming for long film articles.
• The Hollywood Reporter: Covers the newspaper; pretty sure this isn't our scope.

Take a look at these articles and let me know if you think any of them should have the banner kept. --Nehrams2020 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

na/list/unassessed/etc. film categories

I cleaned out the rest of the wrongly tagged films in those categories. I noticed that for some reason Category:WikiProject Films categories and Category:WikiProject Films templates (used in the box on the bottom left of the main FILM page) are both empty. I know that there are categories & templates - did these get deprecated &/or superseded. If so, the links on the main page should be updated. If not, then they should be populated once again. SkierRMH 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not being able to respond to your concerns earlier, due to my lack of internet access. I've looked over what you've proposed (and now done), and I have to say that I don't really agree - Category:WikiProject Films templates really should exist for project-usage templates, while the overall Category:Film templates would be more appropriate for all templates, with appropriate subcats for the WP ones, the article ones, and whole classes such as "Films directed by". However, given my inability to respond to you promptly, I understand why you've gone through with this, and we can continue to discuss the matter. (It's not high on my project priorities yet anyway - there's plenty else to sort out for now.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating article titles

Please note, when changing article titles, it is considered normal practice to check "what links here" and update the links as well. Thank you. Sue Wallace (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are you referring to specifically? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, one that affected me was Our Story, which you changed to Our Story (book), it doesn't matter now because I've gone in and done it, it's just a heads-up. I've had article titles up-dated before but the one who changes it has always up-dated the links too, and I've also done this as well, otherwise, sometimes articles are left orphaned. No worries. All the best. Sue Wallace (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Thank you for letting me know, however. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Take care. :) Sue Wallace (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Film noir

Thanks much. I'm very proud of the article (it's the closest to my interests and non-Wikipedia scope of study of anything I've done here), but I think it needs three major three things before a FAC:

1. Laborious updated image descriptions and sourcing/licensing info--I've done this on many of the other articles I tend, but this one's a real bear...I've been picking away at it slowly.
2. Cites--I'm completely confident about the content, and whenever anyone has raised a "citation needed" issue, I've been able to address it immediately and usually directly from my extensive library on the topic. Nonetheless, I did most of my writing on the article before matriculating to the "cite 'most everything" standard, and I believe there's no way this will pass FAC without me taking my entire noir library out of the bookcase and adding about a hundred cites.
3. Most painfully (for me), I'm sure there's just too many apparently or arguably POV descriptions and characterizations for FA standards. I'm probably not the best person--at least yet--to weed them out and rephrase elegantly and accurately in a more...um...FAC-participant-acceptable style. If you'd like to take a crack at some of it, I'd appreciate it. I know there's only so much time you have for this, so we might do it collaboratively, in stages--you could just flag a few things at a time that need adjustment and I could work on them. Or if you can think of someone else here who might be called on, either to do a straight copyedit or a collaboration, that'd be great.

All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but why not just at least throw it at FAC and see what they say? Will at least get you going on specific concerns. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD

In my experience, you really need to outline an argument to cover all your bases. That's what I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series (2nd nomination). Also, it helps to be around to refute others' points -- WP:CRYSTAL isn't applicable here because people think that the "verifiable coverage" about a project that may never be still warrants its own article. It's more for bare announcements or flat-out BS. I think that in future AfDs, you should argue the specific passage from WP:NF more clearly, and explain why this is the case -- the film industry being notorious for getting only a few projects into production. Probably not fun to type over and over again, so maybe you could set up a boilerplate passage to copy and paste for these instances. Some of my proposed deletions had been declined by an administrator, so I contacted him about the situation and found that he had assumed that if a top-line actor was signed onto a project, it was likely to go through. Thus, I think in these AfDs, we need to elaborate more. We have our heads deep into the function of the film industry that we have to remember not everyone has the inside perspective like the one we've received from our time being involved in researching films. For that article, just do a straightforward redirect to the director's article , maybe have a sentence or two about the film still not produced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've created Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nominees and sorted out some of the articles today. You'll probably disapprove because I didn't make a consensus over weeks but it was clearly necessary. Also any idea when the SE Asian cinema project will come into operation?. Its been weeks!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema

Perhaps you could help sort out this issue. Its been moved back away from WP Films on its own again ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola, you've reverted my edits, but you are actually the one who moved it without any consensus. There was no consensus. The explanation is on the talk page. I want to redirect it again, but I don't want to get into edit warring. The project was always independent, and doesn't have to be part of your WP films just to make your project bigger. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Existing records disagree with that. If you revert again, I will take it to both Council and WP:AN. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't threaten me. Secondly, on what basis did you move the page? What concesus? Your concensus is unclear. I will redirect it again, yes. You are just trying to make it as a part of your project. But you forget that it is not only a part of WP:FILMs but WP:INDIA also. You have no concensus and I'm also gonna turn to an admin to solve this. You don't own this project. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested a roll call for the Indian cinema group like we did with WP Films a while back. It would be good to see how many of the group are still active. Even the Chinese cinema and Persian groups joined WP Films. However huge and unique the Indian film industry is it still comes under films and in my experience greater project structure helps the overall coordination of the articles. Even the musicians project now that is also huge! is naturally a part of biography as with many others. Whats the problem? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what issues specifically are the problem here? We're still in the middle of doing some major housecleaning to the entire Film project, but one of the better things that the new task force has been able to do is, in the process of doing mass tagging runs, identify hundreds of articles previously untagged by either Films or India. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the project page it is clearly part of both films and india this is why we have both project organizers it isn't owned by Giro or anybody but as cinema it naturally falls into Films which covers the world. Would keeping it seperate be a real problem though this is the question? Keeping it as a seperate project I think would need more justification. Could you give the me the possible benefits keeping it seperate would give Shahid other than being unique? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only difference between a task force and a project is that a project has the additional burden of running all of the administrative tasks, from style guidelines to assessment banners, to name a few. A task force has the advantage of not having to dirty its hands with that so that the members can actually spend their time working on the articles. And since all of the Indian cinema articles already fall under Film scope, it means that their articles will have to conform to the overall film guidelines regardless - so there is no procedural autonomy that can be gained from leaving the Film project. If there's any issue about superiority/inferiority, it's certainly not coming from the Film side, I can assure you - we value our task forces and regard all of our articles as equal, regardless of their nationality. I find it hard to believe that it being a task force or project has anything to do with its uniqueness, however you're choosing to define that. Virtually nothing about the page has changed otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You moved the page without permission, just to earn more "task forces" for your project, making our project a sub-page to your one. Your explanation to move the page was "concensus". Could you please explain/show/provide where the concensus is? I can't see any consensus. Please make it clear. You can't just ruin others' work by moving pages and making them part of projects you are a big part of.

And regarding your second message here, what's the problem with moving it and redirecting back to its original version? And then the work can be easily made without any problem. I want you to answer my question. I'm also a part of this project and I'm equally entitled to raise my concerns. You can hate me after that, but if I don't get the explanation, I won't concede. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is ruining pages? (I'd be more concerned with what the Sravagnya group are doing!) Whats the concern? The group was only merged to try and help the Indian cinema group organize their articles in coordination with the rest of the project. Nobody is trying to earn brownie points - Giro wasn't chosen as the lead coordinator for nothing. The goals of the overall project are clear -to tie everything together and begin to develop all articles under this project in a highly organized way. We are only trying to help organize the articles of the Indian cinema in relation with the rest of the word mate -it doesn't affect in anyway how the project functions or stopping articles from being improved -it is there to help!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Girolamo, please reply to my message. I've tried all my best to improve this project, and I wasn't working hard to see now how it is gradually being destroyed. I want this project to succeed and evolve, I'm not here to see how the credit goes to WP:FILMS. What's the problem with having it in its original title only? Will it harm its existence as a task force? Or the title is what really interests you and your project? Tomorrow I'll turn to Ganeshk and we'll solve that, but meanwhile please reply to my above message ("You moved the page without..."). Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept my answer does not constitute my not having answered. Quite frankly, I think that this aggressiveness of yours is misplaced frustration from non-related editing tasks which is being projected upon me for reasons unknown. I am not your antagonist; please keep some perspective. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I your antagonist. I'm agressive? What does exactly make you think so? It's nothing personal. It's very hard to see how this project is being destroyed and becoming just a insignificant sub-page of another one. You haven't answered to my question, so please do. Where is the consensus etc? We had a project of our own, and without getting any proper discussion you have turned it into a sub-page of another project. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Destroyed? What exactly is so different that editors are spontaneously deciding not to work on the articles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say that it shouldn't matter who is given the credit, this isn't what it is about. People can see in the editing history of articles who is doing all the work anyway and I have to say Shahid your prolific reverting of vandalism of bad edits to the Indian cinema pages and your improvments to many of its articles is remarkable and I am always the first to thank you for your efforts you know this. I think you are misinterpreting the task force as some low key effort to deprive the Indian cinema group of its credits. It certainly isn't the idea. I wasn't there but I also believe a decision was made at WP:Councils that greater project coordination is needed -INdian cinema was the only group left seperate. We've all got to think about how we can improve everything over time and what the best solution is. I can see its going to be difficult to convince you Shahid that any efforts here are being done purely in good faith and intention to improve the group coordination. I've seen the activity of the group over many weeks -very little discussion is posted on the work pages and certainly far from all of its members are active. I'll leave it to you to decide. Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld for your kind words. I think you guys misinterpret my motives. That's not the case of credits etc. I mean, we'd had a WikiProject when it suddenly turned into a sub-page. Now, what's the problem with moving it for a while and redirecting it to its original version? Then we'll have a sub-page of WP:FILMS and a leading WikiProject simultaneously. Why not? It was my intention. That what makes me feel that the title is the only reason behind this move. the title. And why specifically WP:FILMS? Why not making it a sub-page of WikiProject:India? As a sub-page, nobody we'll look at it. It will lose its contributors, and that's my biggest concern. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your extrapolation, which does not necessarily reflect the facts of the matter. Please see WP:TASKFORCE: The major distinction between a task force and a fully independent child WikiProject—and, indeed, the reason why the task force model was developed—is that the task force minimizes the bureaucratic overhead of its activities by relying on the parent project to provide as much of the procedural and technical infrastructure as possible. Thus, for example, a task force will use the core project's peer review and assessment processes rather than creating its own. This allows the task force to focus primarily on direct article-writing activity, without the need to devote extensive resources to maintaining its own internal structure.

There are many editors who write scores of great articles on a topic without belonging to its project or task force, and there are also many editors who join groups but do little work. If you feel that top-notch contributors are not aware of group, then they can always be recruited through the Outreach Department tools. If anything, the Film project revitalizes the group by making more overall contributors (namely anyone who reads the Film project pages) aware of its existence through the Film sidebar. The group itself - as a group - was stagnating for a long time, largely due to the inability of the project to effectively administer itself. This was in fact a major contributory reason for the departure of organizing editors like Zora, who were "tired of playing King Canute". The group does not need its own bureaucracy to run effectively - if anything, it needs to spend its time on the articles and on finding more members - members such as the overall membership of WP Film, who are interested in Indian cinema but distanced enough to be able to identify potential bias problems. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but it still doesn't contradict the fact that we are allowed to have a sub-page of WP:FILMS (a task force) and a leading unique WikiProject simultaneously (by redirecting the page). Aren't we? Is it forbidden by WP's policies? Well, we'll talk about it later, I've to go. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to read again, very closely, the quote I linked above. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't write words in capital letters when talking to me. I find it very rude, and I won't accept this kind of talking manner. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So long as you wish to argue form over substance, fine. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I also can be rude at times ( and even very rude), but I respect you, that's why I tried to be nice to you. My two concerns now are: A) Is it forbidden or not? B) There wasn't a concensus. Was there? If you want to answer, please do and clear the issue. If you don't, I'll turn tomorrow to Ganesh, and some admin, and we'll see how to solve the problem. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This was turned over to the admins in Council - the answer was clearly in support of the move, even by recognized members such as User:Kirill Lokshin, who also is on the ArbCom. I don't consider Ganesh a neutral party in the matter, to be quite frank. A lack of unanimity does not equal no consensus. And the whole point of a task force is to avoid the administrative overhead of a project. That you still do not seem to perceive this distinction is troubling. I have answered your questions several times, and when you don't get the answer you like, you ask the same questions again - accusing me and offering ultimatims if I don't give you an answer that's already been delivered. Meanwhile, you continue to press the issue because it is irksome to you that it is a task force instead of a project (as if that's actually some mark of distinction or shame), but then complain that it is the Film project that has a superiority issue. You claim that we're trying to take credit for the group, when we have no such people claiming any thing of the sort, but then are happy to attack me personally when I explain the administrative and organizational practicalities - none of which you're addressed in response - as to why a move was affected and how little has actually changed regarding the group itself. And you were well informed of all of this for months, but only now suddenly months later come back to suddenly act shocked at the long-since done and dusted move. Even Ganesh has moved on at this point. If you had read the Council thread, you would have known that by now. Whatever grievances you have with Film should be addressed to WP Film at large, not me personally. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with that if it helps the project to evolve and advance (as Blofeld says). But I'm not sure that it actually does, so I need a third consultation. I'll turn to Ganesh for his opinion on the matter. You say it helps (and I trust because you're a good editor), but I still need an advice from someone else.

Re your message above, there is no matter when I come to oppose to something. I have the right to raise my concerns whenever I want to. I don't really see there "the answer was clearly in support of the move". The matter now is that from the outset there was no concensus. Shifting pieces from Blofeld's talk page, when it wasn't organized and nobody really knew what the matter is, is wrong. I can provide diffs. And your move was clarified as "consensus" (?).

The main point, this project was part of both WP:India and WP:Films, and now it's a sub-page of the latter. My concern is, why specifically the latter?

As I said, I'm OK with it, but only if it helps to the project's progress (and I want to see results). I'll turn to Ganeshk. If he is OK with that, I won't oppose further. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ganeshk replied. He also disagrees with that so he suggested me to start a new discussion on the talk page. But now, I don't really know. Blofeld and you say that it's better to stay as a sub-page. Could you please tell me what's so special about it? Is there some genuine reason behind this move? What is your purpose? What are/will be the results? is it better than the original version? Please reply and explain it (you didn't do it initially). Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ganeshk, with all due respect, has himself been accused of doing for the India project what you are accusing Girolamo of doing for the film project. I would have to say that that makes it very possible to see his statements as being potentially less than objective. The reasons for making the project a nominal task force of Films rather than India is because frankly the Indian cinema group has a much closer relation to the film project than it does to the India project. As for keeping it a separate project, the primary disadvantage of that is the fact that it makes it appear to others as being its own separate entity, and, I think to many potential editors, discourages them from seeking to work on the articles. It is one thing for a group to be recognized as one which clearly abides by the guidelines and proposals of its parent project, which means to potentially newbie editors that the same rules apply there as elsewhere. Keeping it a separate project indicates to those editors that there is a potential "turf war" over those articles, and might actively discourage editors from working on those articles, as they can't be sure of the reason for the disagreement. Also, considering that all the other groups are now already task forces of Film, having India being the odd man out in that regard raises even more questions. And this is beside the point of having to maintain templates, assessments, etc. In general, the only real "advantage" to being a separate project is the more impressive name. That minimal advantage comes with a larger number of disadvantages, including at least an appearance of lack of cooperation/separatism/ownership and so on. In effect, I really can't see an substantive advantages to the encyclopedia to having it keep the separate project name, and can see advantages to the content if it loses that appearance of separation. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shahid has not only contacted an Indian admin but has requested support at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics -clearly more bias hoping that people will try to stop it being part of films and support him (don't be surprised if the same group of indian editors turn up in succession to appeal against it as they usually do elsewhere) . I've told him clearly why the merger was needed and so has Giro and John. He has a right to his own views of the project but howver huge Indian cinema is I don't think it should be kept alienated from the film project for pride's sake. Has anybody wondered why it took so long for anybody to actually notice the move?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Last try to solve this problem

To make you and your friends happy, I removed my section from the Indian related noticeboard page. But I want an answer and I want to understand how it helps the project, if not the opposite.

Regarding this pride and whatever you talk about, I don't act because I want an independent WikiProject, but because I want more and more editors to work on it and join it. People usually don't bother even look at task forces, let alone join them. This project is now somewhere there... a little part of WP:FILMS. Where are the results? Where ae more editors? Even one editor/participant hasn't joined the project yet. That's the result. Editors don't take these task forces seriously. That's why I say that this project is gonna be ruined. However, if it was a WikiProject for itself, it would definitely attract more people to it. I told Girolamo and I told you - I want to see results. There are no results and the'ye not so likely to come. Am I wrong?

Tell me, am I wrong? Will it help the project? Could you give me and the whole group a list of advantages? Are there any at all? Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you answer my question? Is there an answer at all? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove my message from the Indian group discussion board to make you happy, but to let this situation be solved between us. So please reply Girolamo. If reply doesn't come, I'll re-add my request on the noticeboard. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's my last try. After that, I'll move the page, and this ignorance will constitute an evidence to you refusing my suggestion to collaborate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What formatting are you talking about? The project is about Indian cinema and this is the logo. And please tell me why are you ignoring my messages. It's not nice. Ire-added my message to the noticeboard, turned to Ganesh and to one more administrator. I think we can solve this between us but you apparently think that ignoring me will solve the matter. Trust me, it won't. I'm trying to help the project and you're trying to make it a task force of WP:FILMS. I ask you once again, what is the advantage? People won't even bother to look at it, and we'll lose participants. If you want to collaborate, I'll remove all my requests from all the pages, and we'll analyse the matter. I want it the project to succeed. If you want the same, reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a dream that this project will produce many FAs, and many editors will work on it together, but will it be the same if it is now unnoticed (because it's a sub-page)? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the entire thread very very meticulously. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a read through it, through your messages, John's ones, Blofeld's ones, but does it necessarily mean something important or significant except that it's good? Ganeshk still states otherwise. And you said that he is not neutral, but at the same time you ignore my important questions, which haven't been replied. Here are the points that you haven't replied to, and they're important.

• " People usually don't bother even look at task forces, let alone join them. This project is now somewhere there... a little part of WP:FILMS. Where are the results? Where ae more editors? Even one editor/participant hasn't joined the project yet. That's the result. Editors don't take these task forces seriously." - Wrong? Am I wrong?
• "Could you give me and the whole group a list of advantages? Are there any at all?" Are there?

Could you reply to these two questions? The whole thread didn't answer these two questions. Again, if you want to collaborate, I'm ready, just if this really helps to the project, but these two concerns are important. If you can reply to them (if there are clarifications and advantages), please do, and we'll close this forever. If not... please reply anyway and tell me that you have no answers, but ignorance is offensive to me. Blofeld is a witness of my last "try". Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have to respond to your questions anymore than you have to like the current situation. Telling me that I have to respond or else you will do [action] or get [person] essentially constitutes harrassment under the NPA policy.

As to your questions, Wrong? Am I wrong? Well, do you have any proof? Right? Am I right? I can't possibly provide data on a taskforce which has only existed in that capacity for only a few weeks now - the jury's still out. However, I can show you both WP:MILHIST, which pioneered the task force concept and WP:WPBIO, which essentially does the same thing but calls them "workgroups". Both projects experienced considerable growth and more quality articles, because the task force model allows editors with primarily a geographic interest to work closely with editors with primarily a topic interest and familiarity with the standard policies and guidelines for the topic. By integrating the national-interest editors into the Film project, it allows the group to get more attention from both the Indian editors who have more knowledge of the films and the film article editors who have more knowledge of how film articles need to be handled. Everyone benefits. There's also no evidence that the group has been at all sidelined, because all of the links to the project simply redirect to the task force now. Even the India navbar contains a link to the task force, so there's no reason to believe that people are missing out.

Now, looking back historically at the situation, how we got here is essentially a matter of past vs. present structuring. When WP India was getting started, there was no conception of task forces, and the amount of articles that WP India covered was positively staggering. Therefore, it is understandable that - in order to manage such a great quantity of articles - they set up a structure comprising a number of WikiProjects all under the umbrella control of WP India. This made sense at the time, when there was no better way. However, the task force model was created specifically to counteract many of the insufficiencies of this old organizing - particularly the fact that many, if not most, projects across all of Wikipedia were being poorly run because the amount of administrative work required to effectively run a project can be hard to maintain. When editors are divided into many smaller projects, this creates exponential project admin workload, which not only interferes with the article-writing, but also creates contradictory, inconsistent, or just completely disorganized article styles and guidelines. One of the main reasons WP:COUNCIL was created was to harness the knowledge that the most successful projects had learned. And what the editors running those projects said was twofold: one, there were too many WikiProjects being created, and two, task forces were a better way to implement many of the WikiProjects. When a subgroup of articles are not fundamentally different enough to require a completely new and specialized set of guidelines distinct from the larger group, the task force model makes more sense because it creates a group that instead spends 100% of its time working on the articles as a community. And it benefits both sides because the editors who joined the Indian cinema task force can also engage with the larger Film project, while the editors who joined the Film project can offer their help to the Indian cinema group that they wouldn't otherwise engage with. It encourages closer participation on all parts.

As to the effectiveness of the project beforehand, after more than two years, it had only produced one featured article. Aside from that, the quality of the average article was staggeringly poor (and it still is) - something which I believe Blofeld mentioned himself some months ago. There are a lot of reasons for that, but a big one is that there was no real larger project administration effectively running the show - it was largely a free-for-all forum. While I've been tagging the articles with the task force parameter (an open task still in progress), it is shocking to see how many talk pages contain neither the Film tag nor the India tag. This suggests that no one had even bothered to attempt a comprehensive assessment drive.

Lastly, regarding participants - I've never been a fan of membership lists on the projects, because they do not actually indicate who is working on the articles. There are many names on all membership lists on Wikipedia which have contribution histories that oftentimes barely extend beyond joining several WikiProjects. And there are also many useful editors who simply haven't joined WikiProjects. (I myself did not join WP Films until a few months ago, despite working steadily on film articles since I joined in 2004.) So I don't really care about the membership numbers per se - I'd rather see more FAs, as you've alluded to above. But you can also look at the move in this way - a merge of the memberships. I don't mean that every participant in Films will become wholeheartedly invested in Indian cinema, or vice versa. But it is likely that at least a few will go each way. And as has been mentioned before, we really need to do a membership check to see who is still active.

At the end of the day, editors who want to work on Indian cinema articles will work on Indian cinema articles, even if there were no WikiProjects - after all, they did before the projects existed. All the page offers is a central gathering place. Whether they are old members or new ones, all of the old links work just as well as the new ones, so no one will get "lost" in the shuffle. What might help - and I've already started to think about how to design it - would be to feature the task force link more prominently in the Film project banner. At the moment, it's kinda buried in the Additional Comments section. It may be more productive to bring it closer to the top, and maybe even make it part of the banner that isn't [show]/[hide]. That's on my larger Coordinator to-do list.

Does that all answer your question? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Yes it does.

First of all, I've never said "you have to", nor have I threatened you (like you did previously).

Had you written this before, we would have closed this issue instantly.

Yes, that satisfies me. Now I'm OK with the move. I've removed all my messages on other pages. I hope results come very soon.

I'm ready to work. Feel free to ask for help (though I know grudge towards me is inevitable from your part now). I personally don't regret opening this issue, to be honest. I'm complete with myself, because I know I was doing that for the sake of this project. Now that you gave a good, detailed explanation, it makes more sense. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry about the delay. I think I'm coming down with the flu or something. In answer to above this is exactly what I was trying to explain to you Shahid that becoming part of films would be more likely to actually attract more people from both Indian and Films - and encourage more editors from WP Films to edit the articles not the opposite!! Now there is no guarantee that membership will increase somewhat but what I believe is useful is that many of the articles which Giro says are as yet unassessed and neglected, and having the assessment of WP Films is a must to begin ordering them. Hopefully they can begin to be assessed soon and I hope that you Shahid and several of the others can help assess them. A role call is certainly needed for Indian cinema because many of the "members" have either left or highly inactive. At present I don't think there is enough strong activity in the group to continue seperately -this in no way affects the integrity of the group was is there to actually support and hopefully increase activity in it rather than diminish it.

In answer to your question Giro about WP Actors, I think I said before it is a good idea to assess Film bio articles under Film too as they are inextricably linked. Actors as you said however would be much better off as a task force of WP Biography if needs be rather than WP Films -it functions this way anyway although at present it is seperate in the way films is from WP Entertainment because membership and activity is increasing considerably, but if you want to add parameters to increase WP Film involvement in it this is OK.

Now there were only ever good intentions with the Indian cinema merger and we believe it has everything to gain from in rather than diminishing membership or activity. I certainly don't see that everybody thinks of task forces as unworthy. I admit it would be great to see immediate results but rationally this may take sometime but in the long term I know it is the best way to go. Adios, I'm going back to bed now take some paracetemols and sleep. I feel so dizzy I can't look at the screen! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, the categories for the Actors and filmmakers project could be added to the Film project's categories as well, giving both projects the same assessment criteria, if you'd want to set them up that way. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Blof, this: "becoming part of films would be more likely to actually attract more people from both Indian and Films - and encourage more editors from WP Films to edit the articles not the opposite" - If you had said that from the very outset, I would probably have agreed to that. I think you're right in a way. Your explanations are more convincing now, guys. And thank you John. It was a big misunderstanding I think what happened between us.

One moment, am I also entitled to assess articles? There are many unassessed stubs in the area... If yes, let me know and I'll start off. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can assess articles, and is actually encouraged to do so. If you haven't read through the various criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment, read them and have go ahead. the Only questions that might be raised are regarding the importance/priority assessments. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Southeast Asian films

I'll let you carry on with the tagging of all articles, then they'll be on your watchlist, and the SEA love will be spread further. I went through Burma, Cambodia and Indonesia. Some of the Cambodian ones I tagged aren't showing up in the category for some reason. — WiseKwai 10:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just doing bits and bobs as I can...was actually probably going to pack it in for the night soon, so keep on going if you want. Which Cambodian ones are giving you trouble? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It was mainly the Rithy Panh films, such as Rice People. I don't know why. I just went through and replaced the Film template and that seemed to do the trick.— WiseKwai 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness. Maybe it was a cache issue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a mistake.

The only reason I'm replying to this is because I had to do something on the Internet. If you look at my user page you can see it's no mistake. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Capone Rising

I think it would be a good idea to merge the article. State of Play (film) is a nice recent example of a star-powered project that has stalled because Brad Pitt abandoned it right before filming was supposed to begin. Looking the other way is less plausible these days, especially considering the writers' strike boosting scripting issues for a lot of projects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Film task forces?

Saw your recent work expanding the task force list just now. Would there be any purpose in possibly considering "genre" task forces? John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose would be the same as any other task force - to bring together editors with a common interest in a subject with a large-enough contingent of articles. I don't see any problem with that myself, but if you have concerns, I'd be very receptive to hearing them in order to head off potential problems. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No real "concerns", just thinking that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction might be willing to create a mutual taskforce for those genres. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, and that's what we'd desire should those task forces emerge. (I believe that the "potential" list does mention that.) I'll probably bring it up with them shortly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tracking shot/Dolly shot

I was noticing that we are both trying to clarify the tracking shot entry. I think that the inclusion of tracking shot and dolly shot under one heading is misleading. While tracking shot has become somewhat generic, I think it can still be distinguished from a dolly -- i.e. a tracking shot occurs on the ground, a dolly shot can include the use of a boom, &c. MattScottHiggins (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a totally artificial distinction you're imposing upon it. I work in the camera department on films for a living, and I've never heard anything to that effect. A tracking shot is simply a shot in which the camera is physically moving on wheels; whatever is moving it usually is called a dolly, whether it's a "skateboard dolly", a bazooka design, or one with a jib arm. Virtually all professional model dollies in usage (mainly Fisher and Chapman models) come with a jib arm - it's simply another element to the shot. While a jib move in isolation would not be a tracking shot, a tracking shot that jibs is still a tracking shot. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Escobar and Killing Pablo

Yea I created both Escobar and Killing Pablo pages and I'm just wondering why u merged them, since production on Escobar is set to begin in January. I don't know about Killing Pablo though...--Bren202 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See the notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see...... yea i guess--Bren202 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

To: User talk:Girolamo Savonarola

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

Hello. I noticed that you recently went through all of the Academy Award articles and placed some type of "Film Projects" banner on each of their Talk Pages. In some cases, you added the banner. In some cases, it appears that you removed the "Academy Award Projects" banner and replaced it with the "Film Projects" banner. Basically, I am confused by all of this and I am wondering what it all means. Can you please explain this to me? Is "Film Projects" some new project that you are starting? Did anything happen to the "Academy Awards Projects"? Did the latter get extinguished for some reason? Did the latter get absorbed into the former? I am totally confused. Please let me know. Thanks a lot. Please reply at my Talk Page ----> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

There was a merge discussion with WP Films that went on for several weeks and was more or less unanimously in favor of merging WP Academy Awards into WP Films as a task force, while also expanding its scope to cover all film awards; hence, the Film awards task force. All we have done is changed the tags to reflect this, and slightly restructured the page; however, larger things such as templates, style guidelines, and membership lists have remained intact. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about the matter. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. OK, so I now have several questions about all of this. Are you the appropriate person of whom I may ask my questions? I was surfing around Wikipedia and found the following page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators) which listed your name as a Lead Project Coordinator regarding Wikipedia articles on Films, Film Awards, Academy Awards, etc. Please advise if I may ask you ... or if there is some other more appropriate contact person? Many thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

I'd be happy to further answer any other questions you have. (For the record, the lead coordinator position only applies to the administration of WikiProject Films and its structure - I have no executive or exceptional privileges with regards to the articles themselves.) Girolamo Savonarola 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's fine ... and that's a good start. Can you please take a look at this ---> Talk:Academy Award#Academy Awards Records Section ... and let me know your thoughts on the issue. Please reply at my Talk Page. Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Hello? ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

The split is a good idea, but the information should be reliably sourced as soon as possible. Otherwise it will be an open target for deletion by cleanup editors. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Number 1 - The split has already occurred. See List of Academy Award records. And Number 2 - The split article has already been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award records. Thus, at this point, how can we galvanize members of the Film Project / Academy Award Project to do the following two things: (a) provide their input / feedback / opinions / suggestions in the deletion disucssion; and (b) help to fix the problems with the article so that it meets Wiki standards to avoid deletion? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Unmerging Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins

Hello Girolamo, you recently merged one of my articles, Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins into Terminator (series), however since doing this there has been significant updates with regards to the project.

I'm sure your probably aware that Christian Bale has been cast as John Connor, and that production starts March 15 2008. Producers on Terminator Salvation.

I believe this is enough information to warrant this film it's own page at this stage in production. Could you please tell me you views on this and explain where I have or have not got a case here. Thanks in advance. Jonesy702 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NF, in the section on future films - if the film hasn't begun production yet (and there needs to be a citation for that), then the article shouldn't be split yet. Girolamo Savonarola 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank for your reply... let's hope we can split them on March 15 2008. Jonesy702 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Steel Magnolias

Not quite sure why I can't remove the stub tag from Steel Magnolias. See Wp:stub#Removing_stub_status. I await your kind attention. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that refers to the tag at the bottom of the article. The project tags in the talk space are effectively permanent unless the project changes; while you can change the class parameter from "Stub" to "Start" or whatever is most applicable, you should not delete the banner as a whole. Hope that clears the matter! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. Is there any reason you've moved two pages (The Only Son and The Arab (film) when the other pages don't exist? Are they likely to exist in the near future? And why weren't the redirects fixed? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both of the other articles are notable films by notable filmmakers, and are on the Films request list. I apologize for not handling the redirects - I always seem to forget! :( Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Future films

I was thinking that a release dates subpage would be the next step, based on something like the release dates listed at ComingSoon.net. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the release dates, though? American films generally get {{Future film}} removed at the appropriate time, but not foreign films, is that what you mean? I'll see about putting together the release dates subpage tomorrow or the day after (as I take care of my last tasks at school and go home). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much talking about the article template, I'm talking about the Future-Class parameter in the project banner on the talk page. I've run into many foreign films where it's been up for months after the release. Having a list would be useful for all releases, but probably even more so for the foreign ones, which get overlooked so often. (It also has the advantage of having other uses, too, such as 2008 in film, which currently is dreadfully American-biased, and the project's monthly newsletter, which has a release date sidebar. Moreover, even recent releases such as The Golden Compass still seem to have the Future-class (as of this writing).

However, thinking about the {{future film}} template, I tend to think that it usually gets placed on the article long before anything goes on the talk page, much less "class=Future". Therefore, that's probably also a template worth watching the Related Changes for - looking for new transclusions so that we can tag the talk page appropriately. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean; I've come across a few stubby articles on future films that have {{Future film}} but nothing initiated in the talk page. What course of action are you suggesting, though? To make it a priority to include {{Film|class=Future}} wherever possible, in this particular department's conduct? By the way, I'm off to bed for the night, so I won't be able to respond after this. Just trying to get an understanding of what you're suggesting; I'm sure it's a good idea like the rest of your ideas, I just want to grasp it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you go to Category:Upcoming films and then click Related changes in the sidebar, you will be able to see, amongst other things, when articles have added the template. These articles can then be checked to make certain they have the project banner and are given the Future class rating. Also, tracking the Related changes to that particular category will give you a watchlist on all changes to future film articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you mean now. That's a task we could list at the department subpage. A couple of other ideas for the department: provide templates like {{subst:prod|Article's existence is not yet warranted...}} or templates for userspaces to explain the guidelines. (That way, we can try our best for diplomatic wording for new editors, maybe include an invitation to WikiProject Films.) Also, a side question, per my surprise that the last newsletter publicly announced my suggestion about potential award-winning films, I was wondering what you thought would be the best way to go about setting up to address these films that will be nominated for BAFTAs, Oscars, or some other high-level accolades? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Also, if you want to see how hardcore I am about future films, check out this screen shot of my separate Gmail account for headline retrieval.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

French, Italian and Hong Kong film

I will be working a lot on these three industries in terms of article content in the coming months. Including Mexico, these industries are huge but coverage is no where near up to where it should be. Particularly France and Italy I will be paying attention to and generating a lot of new articles in the coming year. I don't know if you have seen the filmographies of some of the top actors but the amount of missing articles in relation to existing is overwhelming. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

North East Asian task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Film has been set up. Shouldn't this be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Korean task force or a Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/North-East Asian task force which would include Japan, China and Hong Kong -the latter which I am working on. I think we should merge China and create a north east asian task force to include Japan, China, Hong Kong and Korea. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see discussion at foot of User talk:Appletrees#Korean film project note Category:WikiProject Korea film working group. Perhaps you could respond to muself and User:Dekkappai or Appletree and come to some agreement when you return thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah GREAT!! to have you back. In wiki time it seems like months since you have been away. Hope you had a great christmas break anyway. Yes things have developed rapidly after the last weeks -making really good progress. Yes I've set up the years in South Korean and Japanese film for Dekkappai to develop. He set a page up with User:Appletrees to regulate them -perhaps this could be merged into a taskforce -big coicidence that you had it in mind!! Meanwhile I have begun putting real structure into the largest cinemas France, Spain, Italy, UK, Japan, Bollywood, Mexico, Hong Kong, South Korea, Argentina and Pakistan have been set up by year ready for development. I've still got one or two others to do such as Philippines and Taiwan and perhaps Greec/Turkey which have big industries but I've got the most important set up first -the above industries have priority first. I also created the List of Soviet films which is in its infancy, . My idea is that after every film article, the cinema template connects you to the years in film where the films are organized ready for access. Hopefully it will begin to develop like American films of 1936 for each of the majoe film producers. Hope you are well and Happy New Year amigo!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also trying to something sorted with Videmus Omnia to try to get some official documentation of copywright expiration details for each of the major film producers. I have a feeling many images which are currently marked as fair use are actually public domain but there is little available or a template doesn;t exist yet. E.g Korean film pre 1957 is public domain and we've sorted out a PD-korea template for use in uploading them to the commons. Hopefully it can be clear soon enough what is public proprty so we can uplaod images of earlier films more freely ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish you good luck in that. Given the ever-shifting ground in the Great Image Purges, I just haven't got the patience myself, so I applaud your efforts in that area. Where did we leave off with the biography issue, though? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question Giro about WP Actors, I think I said before it is a good idea to assess Film bio articles under Film too as they are inextricably linked. Actors as you said however would be much better off as a task force of WP Biography if needs be rather than WP Films -it functions this way anyway although at present it is seperate in the way films is from WP Entertainment because membership and activity is increasing considerably, but if you want to add parameters to increase WP Film involvement in it this is OK. I would like to increase interdependence between films and actors as much as possible. Actors now has 61 members which is OK but should become much bigger eventually. I also feel we need to do something particularly for Hong Kong film which I will be working on. Should this be a part of the Chinese cinema group or should we merge etc and include Japan, Taiwan and Korea into one NE Asia group? My thoughts are this would be too big as each of the industires are very large. I would be keen to get something going for HK film though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola strikes again

Hi, Girolamo. Thanks for the comment. user:Appletrees and I have been working on the Korean film articles for the past couple weeks and got one on the "DYK" page (Song Il-gon). As one of my ongoing, self-imposed, regular Wiki-duties, I'm going to be pre-occupied trying to save a few Japanese porn actress articles from deletion :( But then I'll be back to work on mainstream Korean cinema, and maybe another GA article for the Japanese erotic cinema. Cheers, and I hope you don't mind if I re-archive my archive. Ah, I see Appletrees beat me to it ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Laundry Warrior

Laundry Warrior is shown to be filming. (While I don't like to cite IMDb, I think for the most part, its "Filming" status for upcoming films isn't disputable.) Is there a reason why you've prodded Laundry Warrior? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The article itself says it isn't due to begin production until November 2008. That's my basis. If there are better sources out there, then by all means ignore the prod. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the Variety article and removed the prod. I'm concerned about the director's name though-- the article give it as "Lee Sngmoo"... Unless he's adopted an odd spelling, I think it's more like "Lee Sung-moo" or "Lee Sung-mu" (...or, possibly "Lee Seung-mu...") Dekkappai (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that filming is indicated to have begun, it's more likely that the year is an error rather than the fact that the film began production almost a year in advance. Sometimes these upcoming film articles can be tricky in determining the actual start of production, especially for those not on IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In either case, better sources need to be found (as per WP:NFF). And last I looked, the article seemed a bit spammish.... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Film template quirk

Thank you for the case-sensitivity note about the 'class' parameter. I use a reference page for tagging articles and I have updated the information (diff). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

La Chamade (film)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of La Chamade (film), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: La Chamade. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Headstrong_345 back at it

I just happened to check the archives at Albus Dumbledore and noted he had blanked substantial portions of the archive here and here. From hios User Talk page, it looks like he's been given numerous opportunities to clean up his act, but messing with archives is both sneaky and, ultimately pointless. Maybe you could help the youngster understand how archives are supposed to be left untouched. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you probably would be more adequately served through WP:ANI. Let me know if that doesn't satisfy. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the blanking occurred on January 4th, and it is now the 8th - which might well be considered stale by AN/I admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI is my best advice. I don't think it's worth making too much of stink. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)