Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
REMINDER: Coordinator nominators
Just another friendly reminder that editors have until March 28th to nominate themselves as candidates for the project Coordinator positions. At the moment, we have 5 slots and 5 candidates, so it would be nice to have at least a few others in the mix so that our coordinators truly are chosen by the members and not solely by self-selection. Elections will commence on March 29th and will be open for two weeks. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Infobox additions
There's been discussion about adding Costume Designer and Production Designer links to the film infobox. If you'd like to comment, please discuss at Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Proposed_additions_(2). Thanks. - Bobet 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Arguments on Critical Acclaim
I've noticed a couple of arguments here and there about critical acclaim and i've wondered if no one is familiar with [| They Shoot Pictures, Don't They] which by their own account collects over 1600 lists from around the World. It's not perfectly representative, but i do believe it should count into silencing arguments like the one on 'otto e mezzo' over critical acclaim. Rolling Stones lists keep getting quoted as marks of critical acclaim, but there doesn't seem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprafa (talk • contribs) 12:16, March 24, 2008
- Ya, it's sometimes useful, but I wouldn't really quote that list by itself unless it becomes more widely known. The most useful part is the pdf document (this one, it's around 2MB though)that lists all the polls/lists/whatever that each film was on. - Bobet 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might also be interested in our proposed core list of film articles, which is largely derived from the TSPDT metalist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
International external links on a article about a non-english film
I created {{kvikmyndir.is title}} a few days ago and it has been deleted and also removed from all articles. The biggest problem I have is that when it got reverted from the article, a lot of other edits got reverted with it. For example this one. And then I also wanted to ask, I mean, this is an Icelandic webpage and it was only on articles about Icelandic films. Sometimes there was a trailer and other information that couldn't be found on a English language site. I guess I'm just seeking a third opinion. True, I am an admin on the page, so I don't rely have a neutral point of view :) I'm just thinking, can I back links with a trailer or should I wait for the English part of the page to go live. --Steinninn 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would not usually recommend creating a template for an external link when it comes to film articles. There are a handful of links that have community consensus for widespread inclusion -- IMDb, Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo. These links usually offer useful content outside of the encyclopedia, but we keep the links limited because Wikipedia is not a link farm. Unfortunately, there is a conflict of interest since you're partly responsible for the website that you want to add to Wikipedia. It can be seen as spam, and it looks like your template was deleted on that basis. Considering the preferred limit on external links and the fact that most people here will be wanting to read in English, can you not visit the Icelandic Wikipedia and see about providing the links there? If there is a kind of WikiProject Films at that Wikipedia, they may have a different way of addressing external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- External link templates are very rarely useful, especially to a site whose content more than 99% of the people here can't understand, so I'd totally agree with deleting that template. Usually, if there are English language reviews etc. available on a film, use those instead, they're much more useful here. The only case where a foreign language link in the external links section is useful is for an official site. Using foreign language content in a reference is fine though, although still not preferable.
- On the diff you show above though, I'd still prefer your version, since the links that were readded to it have nothing to do with the film, while your link could at least make a case for itself. - Bobet 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention that auto-translations usually translate everything literally, and the page won't make sense in English. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the website isn't much different from IMDb, and they do a fair job of translating it into Fench, German and other languages. We woun't use auto translators. --Steinninn 18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention that auto-translations usually translate everything literally, and the page won't make sense in English. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Coordinator elections are now open for voting
All members are encouraged to vote for and/or leave questions and comments for the candidates on the election page! Voting will close at 23:59 UTC on April 11th. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
External link on Stanley Kubrick
Hello to the members of the project. Today this link [1] was added to the Stanley Kubrick article by an anon IP. I feel that it does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. However, Ed Fitzgerald wants it attached to the article. Not wishing to edit war I am posting this here so that a consensus can be reached. I will abide by whatever decision is reached. Thank you for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seems fairly clear to be self promotion- how is this author a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Schneider, who wrote the essay in question, has an extensive resume as an essayist (see here), and there's an article about him in the encyclopedia Dan Schneider. The online arts journal he edits, Cosmoetica, has acquired enough attention -- 20,800 Google Hits; and a mention in the New York Times as "one of the best literary destinations on the Web" -- for it to be considered a legitimate source of arts criticism.
We regularly link to the opinions of critics will much less notability than this - either directly or through sites like Rotten Tomatoes -- and considering that the essay is quite interesting and informative, presenting a take on Kubrick's career and oeuvre that is in some ways very enlightening, it seems to me to be a worthwhile link which should be preserved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the section title to make it clear what article the link we're discussing was connected to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've also posted what I hope is a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the Talk:Stanley Kubrick page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the section title to make it clear what article the link we're discussing was connected to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Schneider, who wrote the essay in question, has an extensive resume as an essayist (see here), and there's an article about him in the encyclopedia Dan Schneider. The online arts journal he edits, Cosmoetica, has acquired enough attention -- 20,800 Google Hits; and a mention in the New York Times as "one of the best literary destinations on the Web" -- for it to be considered a legitimate source of arts criticism.
- As a standalone link in the external links section, it probably is not sufficient to pass WP:EL. However, assuming that the author is notable and the points raised are cogent or original, there's no reason why it couldn't be used as a reference within the text, which would therefore create a link in the footnotes. This may be the better place for it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's quite a good idea. If consensus goes against me, I will consider that option. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Fish out of water films up for deletion
Join the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an open solicitation for comments for The Mummy (1999 film) as it's up for Featured Article Candidacy. All comments are welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
External link on Stanley Kubrick
Hello to the members of the project. Today this link [2] was added to the Stanley Kubrick article by an anon IP. I feel that it does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. However, Ed Fitzgerald wants it attached to the article. Not wishing to edit war I am posting this here so that a consensus can be reached. I will abide by whatever decision is reached. Thank you for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seems fairly clear to be self promotion- how is this author a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Schneider, who wrote the essay in question, has an extensive resume as an essayist (see here), and there's an article about him in the encyclopedia Dan Schneider. The online arts journal he edits, Cosmoetica, has acquired enough attention -- 20,800 Google Hits; and a mention in the New York Times as "one of the best literary destinations on the Web" -- for it to be considered a legitimate source of arts criticism.
We regularly link to the opinions of critics will much less notability than this - either directly or through sites like Rotten Tomatoes -- and considering that the essay is quite interesting and informative, presenting a take on Kubrick's career and oeuvre that is in some ways very enlightening, it seems to me to be a worthwhile link which should be preserved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the section title to make it clear what article the link we're discussing was connected to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've also posted what I hope is a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the Talk:Stanley Kubrick page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the section title to make it clear what article the link we're discussing was connected to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Schneider, who wrote the essay in question, has an extensive resume as an essayist (see here), and there's an article about him in the encyclopedia Dan Schneider. The online arts journal he edits, Cosmoetica, has acquired enough attention -- 20,800 Google Hits; and a mention in the New York Times as "one of the best literary destinations on the Web" -- for it to be considered a legitimate source of arts criticism.
- As a standalone link in the external links section, it probably is not sufficient to pass WP:EL. However, assuming that the author is notable and the points raised are cogent or original, there's no reason why it couldn't be used as a reference within the text, which would therefore create a link in the footnotes. This may be the better place for it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's quite a good idea. If consensus goes against me, I will consider that option. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the same film. Could someone that knows about the movie merge this? Taemyr (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- IMDb indicates that it's the same film. I've requested for a history merge to take place to the article that has the English title. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't require a history merge, just a regular merge (since they were always two separate articles, not the same article cut and pasted into another place). Most of the A l'intérieur article was either pointless cruft (deaths-section) or a copyright violation (plot section, from) so I only merged a little. - Bobet 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I thought the history merge applied to when editors created the same articles, but under different titles (especially under (film) or (20XX film). So in the future, should it just be a matter of copying and pasting anything useful from the article with the wrong title to the article with the right title, and redirect? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Fish out of water films up for deletion
Join the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an open solicitation for comments for The Mummy (1999 film) as it's up for Featured Article Candidacy. All comments are welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians
There is a disagreement between myself and another editor over the inclusion of one of the puppies in the film in the list of characters. The puppy Cadpig is never named in the film, only in a Disney trivia segment, and appears for only a few frames. A summary of the issue can be found at Talk:One Hundred and One Dalmatians#Inclusion of Cadpig. Some additional neutral opinions from the Film project would be appreciated. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- See my comments on the talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
Coordinator elections update
Following a discussion, the nominations window has been re-opened for the duration of the voting period, and all project members who are interested and feel qualified are cordially invited to nominate themselves for the positions. We currently stand at five candidates for five positions. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to all the A-Class film articles?
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment, there were 28 A-Class film articles in January 2008 but 0 A-Class film articles in February 2008. What happened to all the A-Class film articles? --59.189.58.236 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Girolamo revised the assessment process, so I'm sure he'll have a detailed answer for you when he comes around. From my recollection, though, the film articles that were A-Class did not actually undergo any kind of assessment. I think an actual assessment has to take place at the assessment department instead of unilaterally determining that a film article is classed this way. I worked on Fight Club, and it used to be A-class. According to Girolamo's edit summary, "A-Class now reserved for project approval - see WP:FILMR to list this film." I'm sure he can explain more about that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a way to get a list of the 28 film articles which used to be A-Class? I think all 28 should be sent for A-Class Review. I can wait for a detailed answer from Girolamo. --59.189.58.236 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Go here and scroll down to February 4. That should be the brunt of the A-Class articles, since the classes were removed in the same period as Fight Club. You can also find related discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Erik has more or less answered the question. Essentially, there was no real criterion for A-Class admission, other than it being assessed so. Following the examples of several other WikiProjects, the class is now reserved for articles which pass a project content review. The idea is that while PR, GA, and FA are good processes for vetting form and style issues and general review, the A-Class review process would specifically be focused on the actual strengths and weakness of the content itself. While the old A-Class articles oftentimes were of good quality, including several GAs, many also clearly were not of the standard. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just out of curiously what does pee arr stand for in the previous paragraph? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Erik has more or less answered the question. Essentially, there was no real criterion for A-Class admission, other than it being assessed so. Following the examples of several other WikiProjects, the class is now reserved for articles which pass a project content review. The idea is that while PR, GA, and FA are good processes for vetting form and style issues and general review, the A-Class review process would specifically be focused on the actual strengths and weakness of the content itself. While the old A-Class articles oftentimes were of good quality, including several GAs, many also clearly were not of the standard. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Go here and scroll down to February 4. That should be the brunt of the A-Class articles, since the classes were removed in the same period as Fight Club. You can also find related discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a way to get a list of the 28 film articles which used to be A-Class? I think all 28 should be sent for A-Class Review. I can wait for a detailed answer from Girolamo. --59.189.58.236 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Film series
I'm just curious as to what the proper naming convention of film series' should be. Should it be something like XXXXX (film series) or XXXXX series? ONEder Boy (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The former, I believe, per Talk:Superman (film series)#Requested move last month. Exceptions would be explicitly stated duologies or trilogies (like LOTR). However, another approach would be to establish a XXXXX (franchise) article, like Jurassic Park (franchise), if the article can cover more than just films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- A more direct answer, actually -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Film series articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
IMDb trivia
Hello. Is it acceptable to use and cite IMDb trivia in film theme sections when the trivia itself is not discussed in the context of the theme it's being used to support? In other words, if I pick trivia from IMDb's "crazy trivia" page and add it to a theme section - even though the IMDb trivia does not discuss or refer to the theme in any way - can I make the decision to add it to the theme section because I personally feel my judgment is correct? How does the film project handle and use IMDb as a source? Thanks in advance. —Viriditas | Talk 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDB is used as a source for film credits. It is rarely used as a source for trivia as, like Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. Unlike Wikipedia, IMDB doesn't ask for references. Anybody can make up something that seems plausable and IMDB won't pull it from the site. IrishGuy talk 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for clarifying that IMDb trivia pages are not acceptable. Do you know if the project has created a policy or guideline that makes this clear to newcomers? Also, if you personally came across someone adding it to a GA-Class or FA-Class article, how would you justify your revert? Now for the second part of my question: If I found a self-published film fansite run by a single individual who is not a professional published film critic, but a regular guy who holds a day job and reviews films on his personal website as a hobby, would it be ok to cite this website in the aforementioned theme section instead of the IMDb trivia page, if the hobbyist in question copied the IMDb trivia verbatim, and added it to a separate trivia section at the end of a personal film review, and acknowledged that the material on his website came from IMDb? In other words, if the film project won't let me use IMDb trivia in the theme section of a film article, can I get around this by using a self-published website that uses the material from IMDb instead? —Viriditas | Talk 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would still be unsourced trivia (as a mere cut and paste from IMDB) and therefore not a reliable source. IrishGuy talk 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but how can I tell if a film review website is reliable or not? Remember, I'm speaking as a newbie. This is my first day. Does the project have a list of film sources generally considered reliable? Are all reviewers listed, on say Rotten Tomatoes, considered reliable sources? —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would still be unsourced trivia (as a mere cut and paste from IMDB) and therefore not a reliable source. IrishGuy talk 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The IMDB trivia section can indeed be problematic, but the material there shouldn't be rejected en masse, because quite often the stuff turns out to be good. With some frequency, the material there can be verified through other sources -- sometimes from the TCM "notes" section (which is sourced) or the TCM articles. It's best to "follow your nose" and then verify. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right, so if I use a less than reliable source to represent trivia from IMDb, then if the material is important, there is a good chance it is covered by other, more reliable sources, and I should find one to replace the unreliable source. Is that correct? Is this discussed in the MOS for the project? —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The IMDB trivia section can indeed be problematic, but the material there shouldn't be rejected en masse, because quite often the stuff turns out to be good. With some frequency, the material there can be verified through other sources -- sometimes from the TCM "notes" section (which is sourced) or the TCM articles. It's best to "follow your nose" and then verify. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. If the trivia is accurate and noteworthy, it will most likely be covered in multiple sourced so just find one or two of the most reliable. This is covered at WP:RS. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, you guys are saying that anyone can edit imdb, but if I remember correctly, I have been editing that site, and I go something that told me something like I had to wait in hours or so, maybe reviewing what I added or something. My point is, I have added something to IMDB several months but it still isn't there. Are you sure anyone can edit it? Is there nobody that's reviewing what's being added? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. If the trivia is accurate and noteworthy, it will most likely be covered in multiple sourced so just find one or two of the most reliable. This is covered at WP:RS. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but I'm a newbie. I don't understand these things. How can I quickly determine that a website used as a source is reliable? And why are you calling my great edits, "trivia"? What does that mean? I think it is very important that the world know that three-minutes into the credits there's a sound of a burp, and I personally believe this reflects the theme of alcoholism and should be added to the theme section. Even IMDb agrees with me as they covered it on their webpage! Why can't I add this? Who is to say my site is less reliable than another? And. what makes my wonderful material about burping in the credits "trivial"? —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You used the word "trivia" repeatedly in your initial question. Others followed suit when answering. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am taking this farther than the original question by posing a hypothetical situation faced by members of this project every day. Is the project in agreement that IMDb trivia is not acceptable, and that when unreliable sources use IMDb's trivia, it is still not acceptable? But the question then becomes, how does the project identify RS and trivia? This may seem obvious to you and me, but some editors have trouble understanding it. Since there is a finite list of reliable film sources, it should be easy to generally describe what the project looks for in a film source. It should also be easy to describe what trivia is, how it is used appropriately (or not) and what to do when one finds it in an article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, when you say "I'm a newbie" you're stating a hypothetical situation, right? "What if I'm a newbie and..."? Because you've been around since 2004. Just checking. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, all of my questions are being asked from an ignorant position of a newcomer. I am pretending that I do not know the answers in order to gauge the consensus of the project on these issues and to determine how we can best educate editors about these issues. As you are probably aware, newcomers often begin on Wikipedia by adding trivia to articles. What we want them to do, however, is to think a little bit deeper about the content they are adding; how does it fit into the overall article? Is there a section that would be more appropriate for it? What sources are they using to support their statements? How do we determine reliable film sources? What is trivia and why is it discouraged? Basic questions, but they need to be asked because even long-term editors appear to have trouble with them. —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be perilous for the project to try and define what is and isn't "trivia". The best "definition" comes from the give and take of posting and removing.
The IMDB section isn't problematic because it's called "trviia", it's problematic because it's not sourced. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that trivial isn't a good word, as different people look at it a different way. Would reliable be a better word? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, when you say "I'm a newbie" you're stating a hypothetical situation, right? "What if I'm a newbie and..."? Because you've been around since 2004. Just checking. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am taking this farther than the original question by posing a hypothetical situation faced by members of this project every day. Is the project in agreement that IMDb trivia is not acceptable, and that when unreliable sources use IMDb's trivia, it is still not acceptable? But the question then becomes, how does the project identify RS and trivia? This may seem obvious to you and me, but some editors have trouble understanding it. Since there is a finite list of reliable film sources, it should be easy to generally describe what the project looks for in a film source. It should also be easy to describe what trivia is, how it is used appropriately (or not) and what to do when one finds it in an article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You used the word "trivia" repeatedly in your initial question. Others followed suit when answering. IrishGuy talk 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Many pages on IMDb, including trivia, are extremely discouraged by the community, as I have seen in peer reviews and Good or Featured Article nomination processes. This has mostly to do with the fact that much of the information is user-submitted. The only exception would be the cast and crew information, which is basically an electronic copy of a film's credits. (Even then, this information will not be available up to before a film's release, and mish-mash information before availability would not be reliable.) My impression is that there is usually some grain of truth in the trivia found at IMDb. As it has been suggested, it's best to find a reliable source that states the information. (Though not all trivia will be reliably sourced, especially ones based on rumors.) A reliable source should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and if you've seen IMDb's trivia pages, you know that it can be sloppy. A good place to see discussion about citing IMDb is at WP:CIMDB and WT:CIMDB. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Question for Erik or anyone else: Take a look at this page. Is this a reliable source? The site is run and owned by one person and he uses IMDb trivia and Wikipedia text (attributed) at the bottom of his film reviews in a section called "The Extras". Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see a section called "Is It Worth Staying Through End Credits?" This trivia appears verbatim on the IMDb trivia page here which was first archived on Jan 19, 2007. The self-published website (mutant reviewers) copied the IMDb material a month later and it was archived on Feb 22, 2007. An editor recently added this to the "theme" subsection about "myth and religion". Neither the trivia page nor the film review discuss the topic of myth and religion in relation to this material. The material in question concerns the closing credits of the film. Instead of using unreliable sources that references IMDb trivia as a source, would it be appropriate to just add a "closing credits" section and cite the film as a primary source? After all, we can describe the closing credits just like we can the plot. What would you recommend doing in this situation? Keep in mind, the film review itself is not being used as a source; instead the IMDb trivia section in the film review is being used. Should this material appear in the article? If so, which section and using which sources? —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say no that isn't a good source for a review. I good rule of thumb is that if they don't have a page (whether the person or the organization they review for) then they probably shouldn't be used for a review. Now, that being said, there are exceptions to the rule. I don't see MutantReviews.com as one of those exceptions though, as it appears to be nothing more than a basic blog. You have to look to WP:SELFPUB for the idea of "self-published material", which is what Mutant Reviews boils down to. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have found a number of examples wherein IMDb trivia notes have been inaccurate. One of the instances that I have come across was a submission that James Dean was approached to play the role of Charles Lindbergh in The Spirit of St. Louis (film). The contributing editor had submitted the note with a reference to the IMDb trivia page. After checking a number of Dean biographies and finding no substantiation for the claim, I submitted a request for further information and sourcing to the IMDB site. To their credit, I received a reply to my query and the original note was removed. It is fair to say that the website managers do not require attribution but they did in this case, react to a challenge in the validity of an item in the trivia page associated with a movie. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Well, I would say that YouTube isn't reliable either. You could look for interviews with an actor, but there are people that are just pretending to be that guy, how do we know if the guy in the interview of the YouTube video isn't a stranger in disguise? My point being only official sites and sites made by real companies are reliable in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Mutantreviews site does provide some information and appears to be reliable in terms of background notes, however, the reviews are strictly opinion pieces that are blog entries and cannot be considered reliable sources. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Ok, then assume for the moment, that the trivia is accurate, but the sources are unreliable. What if I can't find a reliable source? Wouldn't it be acceptable to cite the film as a primary source, and state my observations of the credits without the interpretations? Are there any GA or FA-Class articles that cite the film as a primary source? My guess is that there are, as I've seen them, but I have trouble recalling their names. If I recall correctly, I recently read a FA-Class anime film article that used the film as a primary source to make claims in the theme section. Obviously, this may not fly on WP:FAR, but it appears to be acceptable. Obviously, the more controversial or interpretive a claim gets, the less you will find it. Thanks for all these great comments. It's amazing how helpful this project is. I wonder if we will ever see these issues addressed in a centralized location, as they keep coming up again and again. —Viriditas | Talk 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- In terms of determining validity, without authoritative reference sources, it would be hard to make a case for using IMDb trivia lists. Now, for the other point you have made, although interpretation based on an editor's use of the film as source material is questionable, it may still be appropriate to use the original film to identify sequences, establish a point of contention and other facts. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Agreed. See my post at the bottom of your most recent comment. Using Erik's new RS to support a screen caption would allow us to also describe the sound of children laughing (lacking RS) in the audio during the capture. This seems like an ideal solution. Comments are welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- In terms of determining validity, without authoritative reference sources, it would be hard to make a case for using IMDb trivia lists. Now, for the other point you have made, although interpretation based on an editor's use of the film as source material is questionable, it may still be appropriate to use the original film to identify sequences, establish a point of contention and other facts. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Ok, then assume for the moment, that the trivia is accurate, but the sources are unreliable. What if I can't find a reliable source? Wouldn't it be acceptable to cite the film as a primary source, and state my observations of the credits without the interpretations? Are there any GA or FA-Class articles that cite the film as a primary source? My guess is that there are, as I've seen them, but I have trouble recalling their names. If I recall correctly, I recently read a FA-Class anime film article that used the film as a primary source to make claims in the theme section. Obviously, this may not fly on WP:FAR, but it appears to be acceptable. Obviously, the more controversial or interpretive a claim gets, the less you will find it. Thanks for all these great comments. It's amazing how helpful this project is. I wonder if we will ever see these issues addressed in a centralized location, as they keep coming up again and again. —Viriditas | Talk 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Mutantreviews site does provide some information and appears to be reliable in terms of background notes, however, the reviews are strictly opinion pieces that are blog entries and cannot be considered reliable sources. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Well, I would say that YouTube isn't reliable either. You could look for interviews with an actor, but there are people that are just pretending to be that guy, how do we know if the guy in the interview of the YouTube video isn't a stranger in disguise? My point being only official sites and sites made by real companies are reliable in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have found a number of examples wherein IMDb trivia notes have been inaccurate. One of the instances that I have come across was a submission that James Dean was approached to play the role of Charles Lindbergh in The Spirit of St. Louis (film). The contributing editor had submitted the note with a reference to the IMDb trivia page. After checking a number of Dean biographies and finding no substantiation for the claim, I submitted a request for further information and sourcing to the IMDB site. To their credit, I received a reply to my query and the original note was removed. It is fair to say that the website managers do not require attribution but they did in this case, react to a challenge in the validity of an item in the trivia page associated with a movie. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
Section break
Sorry, late arriving to the page. The source website for the citation explicitly lists the sources of their information in each section. While the site is relaxed, there are a number of reviewers operating within it. It doesn't appear bloggy - any more than any other film review site in their early years. The reviews seem solid and pretty good, and the material that taken from it as source material did not explicitly come from Imdb. Part of the argument was that if a website uses (amongst others) sources from Imdb (or Wikipedia), then its unreliable, which is silly, as every one of the finite sources for film reviews at one point or another utilize both of them. Another argument made was that a self-pub is inherently unreliable. So long as it follows the current guidelines (which I might add the source material does), then the problem with SELFPUB is sidestepped completely. As for the question of sourcing the film directly, I agree that its usually a bad practice, as it opens to the door to interpretative speculation (but not interpretive dance, thank God). That said, let's use the example of Children of Men, a scifi yarn abut infertility and likely human extinction. At the end of the film, the screen fades to black and the words "shantih shantih shantih" appear on the screen and the disembodied sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard over the soundtrack and credits. As this seems (yep, I said seems) to be a calculated move to express how humans don't go extinct, or that children are the source of the upanishad prayer (used again in TS Eliot's poem The Wastelands), I found it odd that most of the reviewers missed mentioning this at all. It was as if all the reviewers made a mad scramble for the exits as soon as the fade to black occurred. As it was an observational part of the film, how do we address it? Note that I am not suggesting that we do any more than noting the occurrence (ie, supplying some reason for its occurrence, etc.). I'd point out that the source in question was the only one to note its occurrence, without interpretation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I provided a couple of print sources on the film article's talk page. This is my suggestion: Describe the post-credits appearance objectively, add <ref>Shown after the film's closing credits.</ref> after it, then use the brief descriptions of hope as stated by either of the print sources. The website would not hold up well under criticism, and I think that you have a couple of better alternatives to implement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to separate my discussion into two sections: use of a secondary source review site and secondly, the use of the IMDB trivia lists. The reviewers on the www.mutantreviewers.com site do not appear to be well-known professionals although the reviews are generally well-written and have interesting commentary. The requirement for a peer-reviewed source or use of authoritative "experts" would not be met by using this site for reviews. Some aspect of verifiability must be present or else any discussion would be considered valid. The IMDb site while in the most case, is an accurate and well-recognized information source has, as is evidenced in the many comments in this present discussion "string" been acknowledged as unreliable. FWIW, as for use of a film as source material, there are unique cases where a reference to the film itself is acceptable especially in regards to an undisputed or uncontentious issue that is clarified through a screen capture or clip review. Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
- Erik, in his usual magnanimous way, has kindly addressed half of the problem stated above with the addition of two reliable sources on the talk page for the film. This leaves the other half of the problem still unsourced, namely, the "laughing of chldren" in the credits. How can we describe (or should we) the trivial observation that one can hear the sound of children laughing in the credits without a reliable source? Let's say we just cite the film itself as Erik and myself suggest; then how do we justify adding this trivia to any section of the article? After all, it would be OR to do so. Since we can all agree that the sound of children laughing pertains to the theme of hope in a world where infertilty rules and the human species is dying out, would it be acceptable to add a screen capture of the "Shantih shantih shantih" to the hope section, and in the caption mention that during these credits, one can hear the sound of children laughing? This seems like a wonderful compromise to an otherwise difficult situation. Erik has provided two RS that support the screen capture, but adding the objective observation of the sound in the credits can be sourced to the film itself. Adding this information to a caption seems ideal as it avoids any problems and is purely descriptive. Moreover, the placement of this information in a caption in the hope/theme section both illustrates the underlying theme and provides an additional description of the audio heard in the capture by using the film as a primary source. Does anyone have any objections to this proposed solution? —Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- To address the description of the sound, try to re-visit the scene on DVD with English subtitles on. It may describe the sound. In addition, I don't think that a screen cap is truly necessary. Sources about the phrase is minimal, and I think it's enough to express in prose what the phrase is. There is not much significance in seeing the phrase for itself in a screen cap. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done and done. It describes the sound right as the credits roll as "Children laughing" or something. (going from memory as I did this months ago. I actually wrote down and recorded the exact time time the audio appears and disappears in the credits for use in the time parameter in {{Cite video}}) The problem with expressing it in prose in the hope section, is that we are treading the OR line. We don't have a source that explicitly associates the sound with the theme. However, you have provided a new RS that describes the screen capture itself, which would allow us to add the sound of children laughing to the caption as a description of the very same scene. Does that make sense? —Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think I understand what you mean. I think, though, that it would be appropriate to provide a pure description of the post-credits display. Is it really questionable to say, "The words 'Shantih shantih shantih' appear on screen, with the voices of laughing children being heard in the background"? We can add the commentary from secondary sources about the phrase and not have any commentary about the laughing children at all. Based on what others say about the context of the phrase or even the rest of the film, readers can draw their own conclusions about what the detail of the laughing children represents. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- But, where do you intend on placing the description of the post-credits in the article? If you placed it in a caption describing a screen capture of the "Shanti" appearing on the screen, it could easily be placed in the hope section since the first half is sourced to that theme ("Cuaron is hopeful. The last thing you see on the screen is 'Shanti, shanti, shanti.'[sic] And he has given us hope in the best film of 2006, one that gives us the hope to keep going, that we'll wake up to the dangers we face.") But the sound of laughing children isn't sourced to the theme of hope, so placing it in prose form outside the context of the screen capture seems to be OR. By keeping the description of the sound in the caption, we are describing the scene, the very image that is presented, rather than illustrating the theme, which we cannot support. What do you think? —Viriditas | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- My thinking had been to describe the relevant part of the primary source -- acceptable per WP:PSTS right before introducing the commentary about the phrase in that part. It's not a part that's essential to the Plot section, but based on the commentary, it's thematically relevant. I think we should exercise a little common sense here; while we could have different takes about the children laughing, the point is that the sound was played at the same time as the phrase was displayed. (Right? Correct me if I'm wrong.) It's an extra detail that the commentary doesn't necessarily cover, but we include detail in Plot sections that may not always have real world applications elsewhere in the article. By the way, can I suggest transferring discussion to Talk:Children of Men? This is probably a little too specific for WT:FILM, and our discussion's getting a little long in the tooth. :) We can hash out the issue there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Feel free to refactor and copy over anything to the talk page. I look forward to seeing you help solve this problem. Thanks again. —Viriditas | Talk 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- My thinking had been to describe the relevant part of the primary source -- acceptable per WP:PSTS right before introducing the commentary about the phrase in that part. It's not a part that's essential to the Plot section, but based on the commentary, it's thematically relevant. I think we should exercise a little common sense here; while we could have different takes about the children laughing, the point is that the sound was played at the same time as the phrase was displayed. (Right? Correct me if I'm wrong.) It's an extra detail that the commentary doesn't necessarily cover, but we include detail in Plot sections that may not always have real world applications elsewhere in the article. By the way, can I suggest transferring discussion to Talk:Children of Men? This is probably a little too specific for WT:FILM, and our discussion's getting a little long in the tooth. :) We can hash out the issue there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- But, where do you intend on placing the description of the post-credits in the article? If you placed it in a caption describing a screen capture of the "Shanti" appearing on the screen, it could easily be placed in the hope section since the first half is sourced to that theme ("Cuaron is hopeful. The last thing you see on the screen is 'Shanti, shanti, shanti.'[sic] And he has given us hope in the best film of 2006, one that gives us the hope to keep going, that we'll wake up to the dangers we face.") But the sound of laughing children isn't sourced to the theme of hope, so placing it in prose form outside the context of the screen capture seems to be OR. By keeping the description of the sound in the caption, we are describing the scene, the very image that is presented, rather than illustrating the theme, which we cannot support. What do you think? —Viriditas | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think I understand what you mean. I think, though, that it would be appropriate to provide a pure description of the post-credits display. Is it really questionable to say, "The words 'Shantih shantih shantih' appear on screen, with the voices of laughing children being heard in the background"? We can add the commentary from secondary sources about the phrase and not have any commentary about the laughing children at all. Based on what others say about the context of the phrase or even the rest of the film, readers can draw their own conclusions about what the detail of the laughing children represents. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done and done. It describes the sound right as the credits roll as "Children laughing" or something. (going from memory as I did this months ago. I actually wrote down and recorded the exact time time the audio appears and disappears in the credits for use in the time parameter in {{Cite video}}) The problem with expressing it in prose in the hope section, is that we are treading the OR line. We don't have a source that explicitly associates the sound with the theme. However, you have provided a new RS that describes the screen capture itself, which would allow us to add the sound of children laughing to the caption as a description of the very same scene. Does that make sense? —Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- To address the description of the sound, try to re-visit the scene on DVD with English subtitles on. It may describe the sound. In addition, I don't think that a screen cap is truly necessary. Sources about the phrase is minimal, and I think it's enough to express in prose what the phrase is. There is not much significance in seeing the phrase for itself in a screen cap. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Erik, in his usual magnanimous way, has kindly addressed half of the problem stated above with the addition of two reliable sources on the talk page for the film. This leaves the other half of the problem still unsourced, namely, the "laughing of chldren" in the credits. How can we describe (or should we) the trivial observation that one can hear the sound of children laughing in the credits without a reliable source? Let's say we just cite the film itself as Erik and myself suggest; then how do we justify adding this trivia to any section of the article? After all, it would be OR to do so. Since we can all agree that the sound of children laughing pertains to the theme of hope in a world where infertilty rules and the human species is dying out, would it be acceptable to add a screen capture of the "Shantih shantih shantih" to the hope section, and in the caption mention that during these credits, one can hear the sound of children laughing? This seems like a wonderful compromise to an otherwise difficult situation. Erik has provided two RS that support the screen capture, but adding the objective observation of the sound in the credits can be sourced to the film itself. Adding this information to a caption seems ideal as it avoids any problems and is purely descriptive. Moreover, the placement of this information in a caption in the hope/theme section both illustrates the underlying theme and provides an additional description of the audio heard in the capture by using the film as a primary source. Does anyone have any objections to this proposed solution? —Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to separate my discussion into two sections: use of a secondary source review site and secondly, the use of the IMDB trivia lists. The reviewers on the www.mutantreviewers.com site do not appear to be well-known professionals although the reviews are generally well-written and have interesting commentary. The requirement for a peer-reviewed source or use of authoritative "experts" would not be met by using this site for reviews. Some aspect of verifiability must be present or else any discussion would be considered valid. The IMDb site while in the most case, is an accurate and well-recognized information source has, as is evidenced in the many comments in this present discussion "string" been acknowledged as unreliable. FWIW, as for use of a film as source material, there are unique cases where a reference to the film itself is acceptable especially in regards to an undisputed or uncontentious issue that is clarified through a screen capture or clip review. Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
NOTICE: Discussion has moved to Talk:Children of Men#Commentary on Shantih phrase. Please feel free to share your thoughts there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No content got to featured status since the last newsletter? Cirt (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of newsletter I got it to my inbox, even if I requested not to reach it, what's up with that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliability of award databases disputed
During the FLC of 1928 Summer Olympics medal count, the use of award databases was disputed. This also involves featured lists within the scope of this project, such as Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture. If you have an opinion about this issue, please take part in the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Award databases. – Ilse@ 10:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Lord of the Universe at FAC
Lord of the Universe is up at WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Link to FAC discussion for ease of navigation. Steve T • C 08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a general comment, but I still have reservations about the use of a "For Further Reading" section when the references appear to be source material. If the sources are used in research, then a bibliography list could be established. I also have noted that the article is inconsistent in the use of ISO and "popular" dating styles concurrently. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
Plot in Carrie film
In Carrie (2002 film), there was a brief plot summary of the movie, followed by a second plot section containing an insanely long, blow-by-blow plot summary of nearly 2000 words.[3] I tagged it in December, it wasn't addressed, so last week I removed the excessive section and renamed the shorter one, with the idea being to let the shorter one be filled out a bit rather than attempting to hack down the other one. However, since doing so newer editor User:Deane Shafortock, both logged in and as an anon IP, continues adding it back claiming its okay to have two plot summaries. Some project help would be appreciated. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the very nature of the term "plot summary," it alludes to a brief accounting and the use of a scene-by-scene description is not only discouraged but it is also non-encyclopedic as it generally is the result of an editor relating verbatim the plot points from the actual film by screening or using direct notation of the scenes. There is no valid reason to give two plot summaries and certainly no reason to allow an overly detailed account to be used. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
- I've weighed in at Deane Shafortock's talk page, encouraging the editor to rewrite the plot summary to meet the guidelines. I would caution against the slow edit warring that's apparent in the page history. I don't see any dialog on the film article's talk page, and only one comment on Deane Shafortock's talk page. Try to see if you can't find that middle ground. Ultimately, the best way to sever this Gordian knot would require an editor to be bold and rewrite the 2,000 words into the range stipulated by the guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Research assistance
Hi, all. I'm not a member of this project, but I think I need some help in where to turn for research. I recently, and somewhat unfortunately, saw and became embarrassingly obsessed with Mulholland Drive. Which only translates into going full-tilt into reading as much as I can on it. I'm just beginning my, err... quest, I suppose; I already have a lot to read, and I have access to a major university library and database, but I've never researched on a movie before. I can search on "Film Indexes Online (Chadwyck-Healey)", but no results for this film, for some reason (am I doing something wrong?). I need impeccable citations, since whatever consumes me must eventually be featured. There are articles at websites associated with David Lynch, but I don't think they are valid sources as they are - I need the original articles, from sources such as Premiere Magazine, Creative Screenwriting, FilmMaker, Guerilla Filmmaker, Film Comment, and others. Anyone who has experience with this - I would appreciate any assistance you can give me. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, welcome to WikiProject Films! I've been getting accustomed to using a university library and database as well in the past year, so I think I can help you in this regard. First of all, my recommendation is to see if film studies is a major at your university. If it is, there should be a web page that outlines resources for researchers. In addition, you are going to find that not all details about films will come from film-related resources. The background of Mulholland Drive could be detailed by a major newspaper like The New York Times, so consider exploring newspaper databases with the film title as your keywords. Also, if you can, search for "Film Index International" or "International Index to Film Periodicals", where a search could provide you resources to seek out. The next step would be to search for the specific resources that have articles about the film. For example, when I search for Film Comment, there is a link to an "e-journal" that provides full-text articles from the magazine online. Depending on your university, some resources may be fully available or limited to abstracts. This usually depends on the resource's general availability or the time frame that the resource can cover (for example, going back to 1995 only). I'm actually considering writing up a research-focused subpage for this WikiProject, so hopefully I can detail my advice as shared above more fully to editors like you. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great advice. Does the project have a "research" or "sources" subpage that we can add this to for future use? —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. I'll probably be back to ask a few (hundred) questions. --Moni3 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not yet, Viriditas. I'm hoping to work with others as a coordinator to suggest this. I've helped out a few other editors with resources, and I think that there could be some useful tips to share. Using university accounts, libraries, and specific searches on Google. If you have any ideas, you're welcome to share them, too. And Moni3, you're certainly welcome to ask here or on my user talk page. By the way, I saw what you did with To Kill a Mockingbird -- great work! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this for about two years. Not just for this project, but for all of them. The ideal approach would be to create a simple flow chart that an editor can view on one screen at an average resolution without scrolling. The chart would document a roadmap to a FA-Class article, in this case, a film article. Each step in the process would contain a link to a subpage of the process. When an editor follows that link ("Create a well-formed stub") a short description of the process appears with a smaller version of the flowchart taking up the top 1/3 of the screen, with the subpage of the process highlighted, and the lower part of the page containing instructions and guidance. I guess you could think of this as a tutorial, but it would be the best way to bring new members up to speed and would be a nice refresher course for long-term editors. —Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Erik. I'm very proud of that article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not yet, Viriditas. I'm hoping to work with others as a coordinator to suggest this. I've helped out a few other editors with resources, and I think that there could be some useful tips to share. Using university accounts, libraries, and specific searches on Google. If you have any ideas, you're welcome to share them, too. And Moni3, you're certainly welcome to ask here or on my user talk page. By the way, I saw what you did with To Kill a Mockingbird -- great work! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. I'll probably be back to ask a few (hundred) questions. --Moni3 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great advice. Does the project have a "research" or "sources" subpage that we can add this to for future use? —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Questions: 1. Is the awards page on IMDb for a film a reliable resource, must I track down a better source for all awards a film was nominated for or won?
2. In an article for a novel, if direct quotes from text are used, the page number has to be cited. Is this similar for a film? Is it necessary to cite the film for quotes or context, and how would I do that, if so? --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have found IMDb to be a reliable source for awards data. You can also check the official websites for the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTA awards, etc. to confirm info.
- Re: film quotes, I'm not sure what the guidelines are but I don't think it's common practice to include them unless they are exceedingly famous and perhaps one of the top 100 cited by the American Film Institute. I've seen articles for minor films that quote insignificant lines and I find the practice annoying. If you keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a collection of trivia, that may help you determine what's relevant enough to include in your articles. MovieMadness (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha on the encyclopedia, but there is extensive analysis in interpretation and meaning in Lynch films, and I may have to provide quotes for readers.
- I recently had to replace IMDb as a source for awards in the FAC for To Kill a Mockingbird, as it seems to be a dubious source, but I don't know what the take is here at WP:Films. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a bad place to start research (kind of like Wikipedia), but its information shouldn't be considered definitive. I think that any important awards mentioned at IMDb would be reported elsewhere. Sometimes the awards listed at IMDb are really minor ones, so I think identifying the ones that have been discriminately covered outside IMDb would be the most appropriate.
- As for citing the film for quotes, I'm not sure if I've seen this practice before. Perhaps you could just have a reference identifying the particular scene in which the quote is used? My opinion is that editors think it's a bit much to include a time stamp for specific moments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind "extensive analysis in interpretation and meaning" constitutes someone's POV and might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. If the source is a known film historian with extensive credentials, he/she may be worth quoting, but I'd hate to see a lot of amateur analysis creeping into articles. MovieMadness (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm avoiding fan sites and sticking only to printed analysis in film journals and books about David Lynch. That the writers are known I don't think is significant. I don't know them because I'm not familiar with film criticism, but their interpretations are valid and from reliable sources, and all I can present is what someone else has printed. I just have to do a bang-up job of presenting these ideas with balance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind "extensive analysis in interpretation and meaning" constitutes someone's POV and might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. If the source is a known film historian with extensive credentials, he/she may be worth quoting, but I'd hate to see a lot of amateur analysis creeping into articles. MovieMadness (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to echo the opinion that the IMDB should be used as a jumping off point only, in order to assist the hunt for more reliable citations. Its lists of awards are not immune; I had a case not so long ago where the information was plain wrong. Steve T • C 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know "their interpretations are valid" if you're not familiar with who they are? This is an encylopedia; I'm not sure quoting someone simply because it's "what someone else has printed" is the route to go.
- Your reference to Lynch prompted me to look at Mulholland Drive. I haven't taken the time to determine which edits you made, but a quick glance at the edit history shows your contributions have been extensive. The time you have spent on research and organization of facts is admirable but, with all due respect, I think the article reads more like a graduate thesis for film school or a fan tribute to the film and/or Lynch than it does an encyclopedia article. Oddly, there's no cast list. Phrases like "One critic cautioned viewers," "Another review echoed," and "Another pointed out" pop up without identifying who said the statements that follow; even though they are referenced, why not spare the reader the need to scroll down to the references repeatedly by simply stating who made the statement within the text, i.e., "John Smith of the New York Times cautioned viewers . . ." or "Mary Jones of the San Francisco Chronicle echoed . . ."? Critical reactions are scattered over several sections instead of being confined to one. As someone who has not seen the film, I find all of it very confusing, as I think anyone in my position would. The plain and simple facts are lost midst all the analysis. I personally don't think it's encyclopedic at all, but that's just one man's opinion. MovieMadness (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments are noted. I have added a lot of information to the article within the past week. As any article is prior to FA, this is very much a work in progress. Many changes will be made, and more writing has yet to be done. I must disagree however, that there are any plain and simple facts for this film. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Something that I think should be dealt with
I'm not able to go through every BLP article obviously, but I've noticed quite a few which are arguably written by the subject in hand or at the very least someone associated with them. A lot of the times the articles are of d-list directors, writers, etc that no one really knows about. A lot of these follow these criteria:
- The user editing the article is only associated with the article of the person, or editing related articles to include his name. Said user's edits make up the bulk of the article.
- The article is a written in a non-neutral, almost advertising tone
- The entire article reads like a fluff piece from IMDB, or a full-fledged biography detailing everything but the name of the school.
- Little to no reliable sources can be found.
I suppose a good example would be Nick Palumbo, although I've noticed quite a few more. Check out this version [4].
What I'm asking is if those who monitor biographies can give a look into this and try to prune those that fit the criteria.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point, and I've had experience with that myself. Gerald McMorrow was created like this, and I've fine-tuned it to be the way it is today. I'm not sure how well these could be addressed, since some people believe some information is better than none (assuming that we whittle down the promo and uncited content). Maybe we could outline some quick and easy clean-up steps for articles like these. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The issue of an editor actually creating an article about or featuring themselves is a questionable practice. Wikipedia does not recommend that "self-advertising" takes place. These statements may be overly glib but I believe, factual. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
- You may want to also take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Homerun (film)'s GA nomination currently on hold; input appreciated.
Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- In reviewing AnmaFinotera's GA commentary, I agree with most of your responses to the points made. Some of the review concerns some very minor issues. Would you like another appraisal? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
- Go ahead and reply on the talk page, stating you agree with me, but do not give another review or bite AnmaFinotera. I hope that AnmaFinotera, an inexperienced reviewer, will learn from this review and become a better reviewer (while I become a better article writer). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- No biting considered, nor was another review required but I considered giving a more fulsome description of my comments. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
- Go ahead and reply on the talk page, stating you agree with me, but do not give another review or bite AnmaFinotera. I hope that AnmaFinotera, an inexperienced reviewer, will learn from this review and become a better reviewer (while I become a better article writer). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- In reviewing AnmaFinotera's GA commentary, I agree with most of your responses to the points made. Some of the review concerns some very minor issues. Would you like another appraisal? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
Promotion of A Hard Day's Night (film)
Just to inform you that this has now been assessed as a Good Article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Jackie Chan film template for deletion
The Jackie Chan filmography template is up for deletion. Please add your comments to the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Juno needs Production help
Anyone interested in helping out with Juno? I'm trying to kickstart the Casting section -- I just added some real world info about the casting and production process for two actors, but I don't have time right now to do the whole section for the main cast. There's an editor who seems to want to delete the section (see talk), but I'd like to see this important recent film's page grow, particularly with the help of other members of this project. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went through my Google Alerts and provided some headlines on the talk page. These are limited to the ones available online, so I'm sure there are more to be found from print sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I added a very brief production note about the Canadian aspect of the film. FWIW, it is a very quick and rough submission; feel free to revise it. Bzuk (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, y'all. Erik, the sources are great -- anyone have time to pull out the casting info and draft some prose? The talk section I linked to above also has a link to a source list. Bzuk, I did revise a bit, primarily because the Genie Awards thing was already described in the Awards section. --Melty girl (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I added a very brief production note about the Canadian aspect of the film. FWIW, it is a very quick and rough submission; feel free to revise it. Bzuk (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
Chapter titles
Please see The Secret of Treasure Island - is it appropriate to list out all the Chapter titles in movie serial articles? I was under the impression that this was generally inappropriate, as is listing out a book's table of contents in the article about the book - as opposed to a paragraph/prose discussion, accompanied by a plot summary. Cirt (talk)
- I could not find a specific mention of the use of chapter or episode titles in the MoS guide for films. Although checking the list of movie serial articles, this listing is predominantly used. Can these not be considered as part of a series, then the chapter titles are appropriate? In checking the article, the listing is not dominant nor distracting; users can see the chapters in the order of appearance which may be of use in understanding the development of the serial. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC).
- Okay, thanks for commenting, will wait to here what others think in that case, and won't remove that subsection in the meantime. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem to be much more like listing out the individual episodes titles of a TV series like Waking the Dead than like listing the chapters of a book. I would agree that they can be left unless a consensus is reached against them. MarnetteD | Talk 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good points all, okay will keep it in, thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem to be much more like listing out the individual episodes titles of a TV series like Waking the Dead than like listing the chapters of a book. I would agree that they can be left unless a consensus is reached against them. MarnetteD | Talk 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for commenting, will wait to here what others think in that case, and won't remove that subsection in the meantime. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally if anyone comes across any other good WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to use in The Secret of Treasure Island, I'd greatly appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Links to hulu
I've been wasting plenty of time at http://www.hulu.com recently, and I'm wondering: should a link be placed to hulu for those full-length movies that are currently on the site? In my opinion, it would definitely serve as a useful resource for readers - being directed to an official site where you can watch the whole movie. Other thoughts? BuddingJournalist 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, it's a nice idea for the WP:EL section of articles. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not a bad website! I was wondering, though, how is Hulu.com able to do this? Are there any competing websites that we should consider? Otherwise, it seems like a nice content link to the full-length movies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it a great resource? So Hulu is basically an official collaboration by a multitude of production companies (NBC and FOX I know are partners on it). And like seemingly everything free on the Internet these days, they're hoping to use ad revenue to make money (although if you install Adblock on Firefox, you skip the commercials!). I don't think there are any other competing sites, since presumably, the companies want total control over their content, but some other production companies not involved in Hulu do host their own full length streaming videos (for example ABC). BuddingJournalist 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, it seems like a decent link to implement for the ones that have full-length movies available. I'd like to hear others' thoughts about this, though, before taking any kind of action. Just in case we may be overlooking any kind of issue with this kind of link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I was on my way to creating a template a la T:IMdB for this, but I discovered it has already been created: Template:Hulu. It's transcluded on a few articles so far. BuddingJournalist 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- How about that. Before we go any further, let's make sure that we have a general consensus for this. I've seen a lot of external links indiscriminately solicited across film articles, so I want to make sure if someone brings up the issue of "Why Hulu and not my website", we can substantiate why. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I was on my way to creating a template a la T:IMdB for this, but I discovered it has already been created: Template:Hulu. It's transcluded on a few articles so far. BuddingJournalist 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, it seems like a decent link to implement for the ones that have full-length movies available. I'd like to hear others' thoughts about this, though, before taking any kind of action. Just in case we may be overlooking any kind of issue with this kind of link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it a great resource? So Hulu is basically an official collaboration by a multitude of production companies (NBC and FOX I know are partners on it). And like seemingly everything free on the Internet these days, they're hoping to use ad revenue to make money (although if you install Adblock on Firefox, you skip the commercials!). I don't think there are any other competing sites, since presumably, the companies want total control over their content, but some other production companies not involved in Hulu do host their own full length streaming videos (for example ABC). BuddingJournalist 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not a bad website! I was wondering, though, how is Hulu.com able to do this? Are there any competing websites that we should consider? Otherwise, it seems like a nice content link to the full-length movies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I brought it up here first before going mad and inserting hulu links everywhere ;). I guess one argument for its inclusion is that this is an "official" site sponsored by the production companies of the content. BuddingJournalist 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Seems fine if it is sponsored by the production companies. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like an interesting resource but unfortunately it is only able to be accessed from the United States, people in Canada cannot use the site. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
- That's definitely an issue. Perhaps we can tweak the existing template to have a (United States only) disclaimer? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. That's unfortunate for those outside the US. Their FAQ indicates that they're waiting to clear the rights worldwide, so there's hope for you Canadians yet! :) Of course, you could try a US proxy server, although I'm not sure if that would work. BuddingJournalist 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Acordding to the hulu article this site has good quality videos related to television. Just wondering, do they do it legally? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. That's unfortunate for those outside the US. Their FAQ indicates that they're waiting to clear the rights worldwide, so there's hope for you Canadians yet! :) Of course, you could try a US proxy server, although I'm not sure if that would work. BuddingJournalist 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's definitely an issue. Perhaps we can tweak the existing template to have a (United States only) disclaimer? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like an interesting resource but unfortunately it is only able to be accessed from the United States, people in Canada cannot use the site. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
- Yes, as noted above, it is an "official" website and is operated as a joint venture of the production companies of the various TV shows/movies that are featured there. BuddingJournalist 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Featured Article candidate - Bezhin Meadow
Hello, please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bezhin Meadow, for Bezhin Meadow, a 1937 Soviet film. Any assistance you can offer to help finish the article off, or with suggestions for the FAC, would be appreciated. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Auto archive
I assume this is broken? Lugnuts (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, it would seem to be. I've done some manual archiving. I'm wondering if it was the existance of a blacklisted link that was breaking it. I'll do a little more archiving and hopefully the bot will get back to business. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- That seems to have fixed it. Yay. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! It did seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth, so thanks for fixing it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks for sorting that out! Lugnuts (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! It did seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth, so thanks for fixing it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:No Screenshot.svg
Does the Wikiproject have any need for 
? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there is a
|needs-image=attribute in Template:Film, which seems a little more subtle. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there is a
Notability of Night Skies
Anyone heard of this and/or can reference it? Has Spielberg had a biography written about him (that would mention it surely...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen this article before, and it's bothered me somewhat in terms of being one about a project in mere development. There are supple results on Google Books about the project, so it can definitely be shaped up if an effort is made. My only concern is if there is much that needs to be said about the project. We might have a better idea if the content is shaped up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Most never-made films fail the general notability guideline. I don't know about this one, but it would be a shame to lose this information. The best idea might be to merge the bulk of it into the ET article, with the rest of the useful stuff into Spielberg's. Steve T • C 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Normally, editors would recommend a merge in order to incorporate the information about a related film project, but in reading this article, it is clear that there is a large amount of detail that would be lost in merging the article. It may be that due to the nature of this project and the notoriety of its originator, that it may be the "exception to the rule." FWiW, I did find a reference to this film in Neil Sinyard's Films of Steven Spielberg (1986). Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
- Ok then. I personally believe it can stand as an article on its own lying on a nexus between several projects where it does, as well as its highly notable author. I do feel some references would be very prudent to avoid discussions of merging or deleting later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Normally, editors would recommend a merge in order to incorporate the information about a related film project, but in reading this article, it is clear that there is a large amount of detail that would be lost in merging the article. It may be that due to the nature of this project and the notoriety of its originator, that it may be the "exception to the rule." FWiW, I did find a reference to this film in Neil Sinyard's Films of Steven Spielberg (1986). Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
Today User:Australiaaz performed a cut and paste move (something that they have already been warned about before) of this film and turned the original page into an incomplete disambiguation page. Now the thought on this isn't necessarily a bad one but I think as it stand it needs some fixing as edit histories and talk pages are, of course, all messed up. I took a look at it but I am afraid that I might make things worse. I am hoping that some of you may be able to straighten this out. Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to refer this to an admin, since cleaning up cut and pastes is generally beyond the capabilities of normal editors. Well spotted, though! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Featured Article candidate - Bezhin Meadow
Hello, please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bezhin Meadow, for Bezhin Meadow, a 1937 Soviet film. Any assistance you can offer to help finish the article off, or with suggestions for the FAC, would be appreciated. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Auto archive
I assume this is broken? Lugnuts (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, it would seem to be. I've done some manual archiving. I'm wondering if it was the existance of a blacklisted link that was breaking it. I'll do a little more archiving and hopefully the bot will get back to business. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- That seems to have fixed it. Yay. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! It did seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth, so thanks for fixing it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks for sorting that out! Lugnuts (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! It did seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth, so thanks for fixing it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:No Screenshot.svg
Does the Wikiproject have any need for ? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there is a
|needs-image=attribute in Template:Film, which seems a little more subtle. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there is a
Notability of Night Skies
Anyone heard of this and/or can reference it? Has Spielberg had a biography written about him (that would mention it surely...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen this article before, and it's bothered me somewhat in terms of being one about a project in mere development. There are supple results on Google Books about the project, so it can definitely be shaped up if an effort is made. My only concern is if there is much that needs to be said about the project. We might have a better idea if the content is shaped up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Most never-made films fail the general notability guideline. I don't know about this one, but it would be a shame to lose this information. The best idea might be to merge the bulk of it into the ET article, with the rest of the useful stuff into Spielberg's. Steve T • C 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Normally, editors would recommend a merge in order to incorporate the information about a related film project, but in reading this article, it is clear that there is a large amount of detail that would be lost in merging the article. It may be that due to the nature of this project and the notoriety of its originator, that it may be the "exception to the rule." FWiW, I did find a reference to this film in Neil Sinyard's Films of Steven Spielberg (1986). Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
- Ok then. I personally believe it can stand as an article on its own lying on a nexus between several projects where it does, as well as its highly notable author. I do feel some references would be very prudent to avoid discussions of merging or deleting later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Normally, editors would recommend a merge in order to incorporate the information about a related film project, but in reading this article, it is clear that there is a large amount of detail that would be lost in merging the article. It may be that due to the nature of this project and the notoriety of its originator, that it may be the "exception to the rule." FWiW, I did find a reference to this film in Neil Sinyard's Films of Steven Spielberg (1986). Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
Today User:Australiaaz performed a cut and paste move (something that they have already been warned about before) of this film and turned the original page into an incomplete disambiguation page. Now the thought on this isn't necessarily a bad one but I think as it stand it needs some fixing as edit histories and talk pages are, of course, all messed up. I took a look at it but I am afraid that I might make things worse. I am hoping that some of you may be able to straighten this out. Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to refer this to an admin, since cleaning up cut and pastes is generally beyond the capabilities of normal editors. Well spotted, though! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lord of the Universe RfC
Hi there, I was wondering if anyone could toss their two cents worth in on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lord_of_the_Universe#Request_for_Comment Please & thank-you. -- Maelefique (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
film infobox question
As a matter of consistency should names or other info inside the infobox be wikilinked so they are red or blue each time they are repeated in the infobox? (I feel they should, even though it's not done on the page text; it looks better). I would like to edit a few for more across-the-board consistency in formatting the infoboxes. Mike P (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like overlinking to me. I know what you're saying, but I don't think we're going for color consistency. --Melty girl (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Melty here, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- You only need to link once in the infobox. We don't need 5 links to one person that happened to do several jobs. Just about everything in the infobox is within eyesight of each other, so the original link is always present. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Bignole is right; see Template:Infobox Film#Parameters: "Note: Do not link to an article more than once in the infobox." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK folks, jeez thank you! I would say you've resolved my question!:) Mike P (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Bignole is right; see Template:Infobox Film#Parameters: "Note: Do not link to an article more than once in the infobox." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- You only need to link once in the infobox. We don't need 5 links to one person that happened to do several jobs. Just about everything in the infobox is within eyesight of each other, so the original link is always present. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Melty here, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wǔxiá to Wuxia
Requested rename on the article for the film genre from Wǔxiá to Wuxia - see Talk:Wǔxiá 70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Hills Have Eyes III (2008 Film)
Although the article was recently deleted via WP:AfD, User:LukeTheSpook decided to recreate the article shortly afterwords, providing sources of a speculative nature. Before the deletion, the article had templates removed continuously without reason, and had absolutley no sourced. Now, however, the article was recreated with sources of a majorly speculative nature, which I do not think is appropriate for any article on Wikipedia. As far as I know, there is not even an IMDb link for the article, and no sources to confirm it's production, therefore the article violated WP:NOTFILM and WP:CRYSTAL. I've redirected it now, but I have a suspicion that he may yet again created. I was wondering what is there to be done about this article? Would it be too much to ask for page protection? We can then recreate the article if the appropriate time comes.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- If those speculations belong anywhere on Wikipedia, (which I doubt) they belong to the article about the 2007 remake, or the article about the series, but not in its own article. I do agree that it shouldn't have its own article until it has information too big for five paragraphs or so. The Internet can't be trusted 100%, it isn't possible to know whether or not a website can be trusted, sites that can look official can also be joke sites, so we should make sure Wikipedia is obviously trustworthy by not including speculations. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This stub article about a film student, which was seemingly created by the subject himself, has recently been proposed for deletion, on the basis of lack of establishment of notability. I figured if anybody would be able to find out if the subject met notability requirements, it would be the members of this project. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Erik knows the best what to do, he always does. I also think I know what to do, Google returns under two hundred results. I wouldn't call that notable, I don't think there should be an article about anything unless the person has at least thousand results. So I agree with you there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Judging from the links available at the Wikipedia article and in search engine results, it does not meet the basic criteria for a person's notability. I've added {{prod-2}} to the article with this argument. If the proposed deletion does not go through, we should resort to AFD to get commnual consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Please see the Request for Comment section, of the talk page for The Profit. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- RfC closed, thanks to those that commented. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Bio articles and layout/style
Is there a style guide for Film/Television actors? I didn't see anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines seems to mainly be about films, not people. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- WPP:BIO might be your best bet; I'll head over there now, see if I can spot anything. If not, the layout of something like Cillian Murphy might be a good template to use. Steve T • C 10:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was looking at some FA examples and Cillian Murphy is a good one to use. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which will provide further examples of Featured Articles. The James Stewart (actor) is a developed article on an actor from another era. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
- Yeah, I was looking at some FA examples and Cillian Murphy is a good one to use. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple titles
What is the wikipedia policy regarding the title of articles about films (usually from other countries)which have several alternative titles which are used equally? I'm having trouble with the titles of articles on the films of Jose Mojica Marins. One I have titled Finis Hominis (The End of Man), because it is equally known by both. Is this proper? He has another which I don't know whether to title Estupro! or Perversion, both are equally used. I have considered for consistency using the version closest to English as possible but I notice IMdb uses the foreign title with most of Mojica's films, such as À Meia-Noite Levarei Sua Alma rather than wiki's At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul, or Esta Noite Encarnarei no Teu Cadáver on IMdb rather than wiki's This Night I Will Possess Your Corpse Help? Mike P (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! According to this page you should use the title more commonly recognized by English readers. I'd be tempted to move the Finis Hominis (The End of Man) page to the title of The End of Man and have Finis Hominis as a redirect to it. Compare this with an article I created for the Ingmar Bergman film Sawdust and Tinsel. IMDb lists it as Gycklarnas afton, and I use this as a redirect, and mention the original title in the opening paragraph. Hope this helps. Lugnuts (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are some complications when two film titles are used concurrently. The example I can think of is Spitfire (1940) and The First of the Few (1940) where both a British title and American/North American title was used, which also is complicated by the use of Spitfire (1934). In this case, the first film title predominates while the altered title is commented upon but is not listed as a main title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
Discussion and straw poll about Cast section of Homerun (film)
The Cast section of Homerun (film) is currently a table, but there is a discussion about whether it should remain as a table, be converted to a bulleted list or even be removed altogether. The article's GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera on 3 April 2008. All other issues have been addressed.
I invite members of this WikiProject to participate in the discussion and straw poll about the Cast section. Once a consensus is reached, I will . Note that I wish to retain consistency across all GAs on Singaporean movies that I write, so this decision will affect I Not Stupid, I Not Stupid Too and future GAs on Singaporean movies that I write.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a minor correction, the cast list alone is not the hold up, it is the issue with the images. The cast list does need to be addressed if planning for FA, but my main concen is the images at this point. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera, one of my IRC mates said that your demands regarding the images are unreasonable; he also called you some names that I shall not post here. Note that he does not share my intense dislike of the anti-fair use brigade. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's his view and he's welcome to it, though I could never respect the opinion of a coward who would insult someone he doesn't know behind their back for no other reason than because he can. And I've likely been called worse, considering some of the recent vandalism to my user page. On the other hand, I see no reason for you to have mentioned it at all if he is only going to voice such an opinion off wiki where he can't be tagged for incivility and where such comments are irrelevant. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being overly harsh. I personally though I've been almost ridiculously patient and helpful in leaving the GA open for almost three weeks to allow time for the problems to be fixed rather than just fail it outright. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- He is an admin whom I highly respect and would hardly call a "coward". After all, when you dislike someone, it is human nature to tell others what you think of him, rather than confronting him. I only mentioned that to let you know that others disagree with your demands regarding images. By the way, are you a member of the anti-fair use brigade?
- Both of us are frustrated. You probably wish I was less argumentative and took less time to address your concerns. However, I (and some of my IRC mates) find some of your demands regarding images slightly unreasonable; the stress of being a junior college student does not help. Nevertheless, I hope we can get along and learn from our mistakes.
- --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the anti-fair use brigade is, so I would say no. I have learned from my mistake, but probably not the way you think I should have. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's his view and he's welcome to it, though I could never respect the opinion of a coward who would insult someone he doesn't know behind their back for no other reason than because he can. And I've likely been called worse, considering some of the recent vandalism to my user page. On the other hand, I see no reason for you to have mentioned it at all if he is only going to voice such an opinion off wiki where he can't be tagged for incivility and where such comments are irrelevant. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being overly harsh. I personally though I've been almost ridiculously patient and helpful in leaving the GA open for almost three weeks to allow time for the problems to be fixed rather than just fail it outright. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera, one of my IRC mates said that your demands regarding the images are unreasonable; he also called you some names that I shall not post here. Note that he does not share my intense dislike of the anti-fair use brigade. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Minor point as well, but I do not like the use of two different date systems, however this is a an issue that has to be brought up at project forum discussion groups as it is more system-wide due to the reliance on templates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
- If you see any dates that differ from the primary date system used in the article, please be bold and change them. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. Hopefully the templates can be improved to avoid this problem. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- While not necessarily germane to the basic discussion here, I would like to offer my opinion that cast lists should not be presented in the form of a table, which is unsightly and not very encyclopedic in nature. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then please express your opinion in the straw poll. Thank you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Bzuk may be referring to the footnote dates, which are in the proper format and are not required to be in the same full date format used in the article. They are all properly formatted in the ISO format for footnotes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- When did ISO format become the "proper format" for footnotes? Just curious? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
- If the citation template history is any indication, since at least 2006. Not saying its the proper format in publications, but for Wikipedia it seems likes been for awhile when using the footnote method with cite templates. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any reason why editors cannot use m-d-y format in the same spot in the template and provide a consistent date system in the entire article? The complaint of new users/foreign users is what does 2008-01-11 mean? Is it November 1, 2008 or January 11, 2008? FWiW, the templates were provided to assist editors but should not "lock" them in. Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
- My guess would be because the template specifically says to use ISO, likely because it auto links the dates but also because it is an international standard that is clear and consistent. I personally like ISO dates in the refs. They are much neater looking. I think using m-d-y would be much more confusing, especially since it would be indistinguishable from a shortened international format of d-m-y for any month for days 1-12. ISO is a very standard format, and clear remains as yyyy-mm-dd worldwide. I've yet to have anyone say they didn't understand what it meant. Either way, this is probably outside of the scope of this discussion, and this page, though not sure where it should be brought up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, I've moved the discussion on a peripheral subject off this page, see your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
- My guess would be because the template specifically says to use ISO, likely because it auto links the dates but also because it is an international standard that is clear and consistent. I personally like ISO dates in the refs. They are much neater looking. I think using m-d-y would be much more confusing, especially since it would be indistinguishable from a shortened international format of d-m-y for any month for days 1-12. ISO is a very standard format, and clear remains as yyyy-mm-dd worldwide. I've yet to have anyone say they didn't understand what it meant. Either way, this is probably outside of the scope of this discussion, and this page, though not sure where it should be brought up. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any reason why editors cannot use m-d-y format in the same spot in the template and provide a consistent date system in the entire article? The complaint of new users/foreign users is what does 2008-01-11 mean? Is it November 1, 2008 or January 11, 2008? FWiW, the templates were provided to assist editors but should not "lock" them in. Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
- If the citation template history is any indication, since at least 2006. Not saying its the proper format in publications, but for Wikipedia it seems likes been for awhile when using the footnote method with cite templates. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- When did ISO format become the "proper format" for footnotes? Just curious? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
- While not necessarily germane to the basic discussion here, I would like to offer my opinion that cast lists should not be presented in the form of a table, which is unsightly and not very encyclopedic in nature. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you see any dates that differ from the primary date system used in the article, please be bold and change them. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. Hopefully the templates can be improved to avoid this problem. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment - closing credits
A request for comments has been opened on Children of Men regarding the use of a closing credits section. All opinions are welcome. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- See note on the relevant talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
MOS for film
Can someone give me a link tot he MOS as it applies to film articles? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, it's the link that I gave the editors in the above section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I created the shortcut WP:MOSFILMS so that it would be easy to remember. I see that it has been superseded by MOS:FILM. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bignole. i appreciate it.
- Now, I dig that films like Mulholland Drive and Memento are mindbenders when it comes to interpretation, ergo the caveat about applying interpretative narrative to events there. There are also a few films that provide credits running backwards (some sort of allusion to the film which, for the life of me, I cannot recall) which are observed and commented on as part of the observable phenomena of the film.
- Currently, in Children of Men, a discussion is ongoing about the mentioning of the non-soundtrack sounds of children's laughter and shouting observed occurring during the closing credits. There is also the phrase, "shantih shantih shantih" at the conclusion of the credits that was initially strongly opposed for inclusion. That opposition has since evaporated since the observable detail of the phrase is accompanied by an cited interpretation as to its meaning.
- The laughter of the children is observable phenomena, and its existence is not contested. It is part of the movie (which is considered the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film), and it bears noting that the laughter occurring during the closing credits is available in all three subtitles available on the DVD available in the States, as well as bootleg copies from China and Singapore subtitled with the same observation.
- What is currently contested is whether the observable phenomena belongs in the article uncited (much as the plot summary is uncited). No interpretation is being applied to this observation; it is just being noted. No interpretation + no dissent about occurrence = no citation required.
- In short, the film is the implicit and explicit source for occurrences within the film. For interpretation, we seek elsewhere.We give the reader the whole film, add citations where interpretations are made on the film, and leave the reader to evaluate the rest. We don't chew the food for them, but we do give them the food. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Media artifacts (in this case the film) are the source. Including what you see or hear in the film can be posted, because it is verifiable -- anyone can look at the film and confirm it to be there. There is absolutely no difference here from citing anything you've read in the book. You read the book (i.e. observe it), and post what you've read (observed), with a citation to the source. Someone who wants to verify it goes to the source (the film) and confirms it. Entirely the same, there's no additional level of interpretation, IMO.
As you say, if you were placing an interpretation on it, or a conclusion about its meaning, that would require a secondary source. In this case you're simply reporting the contents of the primary source, the media artifact. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Primary sources are used all the time in Wikipedia articles. And they are always supported by WP:RS to avoid WP:OR. In terms of film articles, we generally do not use citations in plot sections because we are dealing with basic information about the film that can easily be verified in any review or critical treatment of the subject. If, however, the material is challenged due to is ambiguity, importance, or accuracy, then sources are requested to see how it is used. The exception in MOS:FILMS describes this scenario, and exists to show that the policy of WP:V always trumps guidelines. We do not report our observations about any "media artifacts. Plot sections only describe the most important elements. If a dispute arises as to whether a specific aspect of the plot is significant, secondary sources are called upon for comparison. This holds true for any content, not just plot sections. The "closing credits" section of Children of Men is pure trivia. Trivia sections are generally discouraged, and whenever possible, trivia is moved into established sections for expansion or illustration of a topic. The sound effects of "laughing children" in the credits take up less time than the three songs that appear. So, if we are discussing the closing credits, we are discussing the sound effects and the music that is played. There are several reviews of the music in RS, but no mention of the sound of laughing children. We could easily source the sound effect to the film with the cite video template, noting when it occurs with the time parameter. This was done, but was removed by Arcayne; he also removed the three songs from the section, only mentioning the trival sound of children laughing without reference and the end credits that appear in the film for less than several seconds. This is essentially the same content from the IMdB and Mutant Reviewers sites, except this time, Arcayne has used a web source to support the existence of the "Shantih" in the film, but that does not support the sound effects of children laughing. Furthermore, the RevolutionSF website that is being used as a reference, does not support the credits, but rather the use of "Shantih" in the film (i.e. spoken by one of the characters). So again, we have Arcayne, reverting back to the original trivia from IMdB and Mutant Reviewers but using the RevolutionSF source as a crutch. That source says nothing about the shantih in the credits and nothing about the laughing children. So again, we are left with using the film as a primary source to support this trivia. In order to show that this trivia is important, secondary sources must be offered. Erik has provided at least two film reviews that support the idea that the Shantih was used in the credits. These references can be used, and the material can be incorporated into the body of the artice, but these sources say nothing about the importance of trivial sound effects. Arcayne is attempting to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effects and the shantih, and he has spoken about his pet theories at great length in the talk archives. In one example, from 00:04, 27 May 2007, he writes:
- I agree. Media artifacts (in this case the film) are the source. Including what you see or hear in the film can be posted, because it is verifiable -- anyone can look at the film and confirm it to be there. There is absolutely no difference here from citing anything you've read in the book. You read the book (i.e. observe it), and post what you've read (observed), with a citation to the source. Someone who wants to verify it goes to the source (the film) and confirms it. Entirely the same, there's no additional level of interpretation, IMO.
- I created the shortcut WP:MOSFILMS so that it would be easy to remember. I see that it has been superseded by MOS:FILM. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, there is no children's laughter at the beginning of the movie (or anywhere else in the film, for that matter). You may recall that the fil opens with the Bristish nescaster discussing 'day 100 of the Siege of Seattle'. Secondly, the laughter is not a part of the soundtrack (it is neither listed as such in either the credits, is not part of any song listed in the credits, nor does it appear in the released soundtrack for the film). It is in fact notable that the laughter begins immediately before the screen fades to black, and continues through the credits and end title music, and stops immediately before the words "Shantih, shantih shantih" appear on the screen. Whereas the 'shantih' has been in the past effectively argued as a thematic component, this laughter doesn't appear to serve that same sort of purpose. The suggestion that - as another editor has suggested here - the infertility crisis is averted since Kee (and her baby) have made it to the rendezvous with the Human Project (justifying Theo's sacrifice) is a valid point; there is no other instance of children's laughter in the film. It only appears at the end of the film, when we are left wondering if humanity dies out or not. It's presence hints that man's extinction doesn't happen. However, never let it be said that I am unreasonable; please tell me why you think it is a thematic component. At least you aren't suggesting that the laughter was just some odd little happenstance that a bored film editor accidentally dropped in. Lastly, I think the only reason reviewers haven't mentioned the laughter at the end is because it is so clearly a spoiler. I think one would be equally hard-pressed to find a reputable reviewer who revealed the surprise endings of Sixth Sense or Usual Suspects. Following your wisdom, we could not detail the identity of Keyser Soze or Dr. Crowe's true nature because we couldn't find a reviewer who told us it was such. However, such are includable because they are a part of the, story - the film experience. The same is true for the laughter. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's only one of many examples of Arcayne's idea that the laughter is notable. No reliable source has ever made that claim or mentioned it. This is a continuing attempt by Arcayne to evade WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not to be completely arcane, but Arcayne is correct in making a connection between the laughter as part of the central theme of the film. Is it a "pet theory"? maybe but that is a dismissive way of deciding the argument, as well as insisting that a reliable source back up an eminently verifiable element of the film. Is there consensus for the use of the closing credits as a thematic device? If so, then, as the editor has made valid attempts to link the director's decisions to provide an overarching conclusion for the viewer and tried to provide as much attribution as possible, I cannot see the harm in introducing this element. FWiW, this discussion seems to have "migrated" from the talk page of the article and does not seem to have a bearing on the original "string." Bzuk (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- Wikipedia does not publish original thought. We cannot make connections in the article without evidence, such as WP:RS, due to WP:NOR. The only reasonable connection that could be made outside the article based on the evidence that we do have, is the connection of the laughter to scene 12, where the character of Miriam comments on the absence of children's voices. Still, we cannot discuss it in the article without proper sources. To say that anyone is "correct" in making a connection between one thing and another seems to miss the point, as I could make hundreds of "correct" connections. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for original research. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd point out that I'm told this article: Kevin Crust (2007-01-07). "CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) references the laughter while talking about the film's audio in general. Anyone with a pay account for their archive should be able to access it online. Steve T • C 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)- I'm afraid you've been given the wrong information. It's a good reliable source that discusses both John Lennon and Jarvis Cocker's songs and how they are used in the closing credits, but it says nothing about the sound effects of children laughing. I want to thank you for bringing it up, because I'm going to add it to the article to support the songs Arcayne deleted. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! Well, like I say, it's just what I was told :) As for the wider point of their inclusion, I'll head over the to talk page. Steve T • C 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Trust, but verify." It's a great article, actually. I'm the editor who originally added Mr. Crust's second review to the article to support the translation of the Sanskrit, so I'm familiar with his work. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! Well, like I say, it's just what I was told :) As for the wider point of their inclusion, I'll head over the to talk page. Steve T • C 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've been given the wrong information. It's a good reliable source that discusses both John Lennon and Jarvis Cocker's songs and how they are used in the closing credits, but it says nothing about the sound effects of children laughing. I want to thank you for bringing it up, because I'm going to add it to the article to support the songs Arcayne deleted. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not to be completely arcane, but Arcayne is correct in making a connection between the laughter as part of the central theme of the film. Is it a "pet theory"? maybe but that is a dismissive way of deciding the argument, as well as insisting that a reliable source back up an eminently verifiable element of the film. Is there consensus for the use of the closing credits as a thematic device? If so, then, as the editor has made valid attempts to link the director's decisions to provide an overarching conclusion for the viewer and tried to provide as much attribution as possible, I cannot see the harm in introducing this element. FWiW, this discussion seems to have "migrated" from the talk page of the article and does not seem to have a bearing on the original "string." Bzuk (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- That's only one of many examples of Arcayne's idea that the laughter is notable. No reliable source has ever made that claim or mentioned it. This is a continuing attempt by Arcayne to evade WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it's time to move on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, Steve, if you don't mind,I'll move your comment to the Talk:Children of Men talk page where the discussion was originally sited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
Good article icon
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Roaring Siren keeps on reverting my good edits, and doesn't realize that a one sentence doesn't deserve its own section. And I am pretty annoyed by being reverted without reason, I never liked being reverted without a reason, I asked that person to discuss the issue, but no, the person kept on reverting me without any reason. And I can't find the proper warning on WP:WARN, so please discuss it with the person. It's really getting annoying, as I kept telling the person that a sentence doesn't need its own section, and I did the right thing by merging the sentence, but that person kept up reverting me and adding that unneeded heading. Please do something about this, I never liked being reverted without a reason several times in a row, and having my edit summaries ignored, and I still don't. So please help me stop this madness. If I sound WP:UNCIVIL, I apologize, but I am a serious guy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've reworded the sentence, and left a note on Roaring's talk page to not revert again. You're right, the information should be where you placed it, and not as a single sentence, in a separate section, all by its lonesome. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know I'm right, I've been here for over a year so I know how things work around here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Besides, the information about filming actually appears twice; I've relocated one of the passages to make the "flow" work. One of the main ways to counteract a "slow" editwar, is to not revert, but instead, revise keeping the original idea/concept, provide an edit summary and make sure that the talk page is used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
- I didn't read the section, just looked at the info being reverted back and forth. Good catch. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, we're done discussing this here, besides this isn't the right place to discuss this, Talk:Shoot 'Em Up is. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't read the section, just looked at the info being reverted back and forth. Good catch. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Besides, the information about filming actually appears twice; I've relocated one of the passages to make the "flow" work. One of the main ways to counteract a "slow" editwar, is to not revert, but instead, revise keeping the original idea/concept, provide an edit summary and make sure that the talk page is used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
- I know I'm right, I've been here for over a year so I know how things work around here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Film articles talk page clutter
Greetings, cinephiles. Is there any chance you would merge your various "film article needs attention in respect x" talk page templates into your main WikiProject Films talkheader? I'm thinking of {{filmimage}}, {{film needs synopsis}}, {{film needs cast section}} and so on. This is a problem because of clutter like this. What I am suggesting is merging these into the main template in the same way that {{reqphoto}} was. Any comments/volunteers? Skomorokh 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like this should be done, since Template:Film has the coding:
|needs-cast= |needs-image= |needs-infobox= |needs-synopsis=
- Looks like it'd be a matter of conversion. Anyone know of an easy way to go about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AWB, for those poor souls using Windows. Thanks for responding, Eric. Skomorokh 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up
|
Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. |
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- So what is it about? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- A meet-up of Wikipedians. In Vancouver, British Columbia. Steve T • C 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no I still don't get it. If there is a meet-up it's always because there is something to discuss, what are we gonna discuss is what I wanna know. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note that this is an "informal gathering". So nothing official, nothing to talk about save for whose round it is. Steve T • C 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no I still don't get it. If there is a meet-up it's always because there is something to discuss, what are we gonna discuss is what I wanna know. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- A meet-up of Wikipedians. In Vancouver, British Columbia. Steve T • C 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter
The April 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Film Music
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music was proposed by John Carter to merge into WikiProject Films. The merge tags have been at both project pages for a while, so I think we should take action. Discussion was initally attempted as seen here, and I'll repeat what John Carter said:
- ...As the one who did the tagging, it was because the other project in question, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music, has been tagged as inactive. It would logically be merged into either this project or the Music Project. The disadvantage, at least in my eyes, of proposing a merge with the Music project is the comparative state of, dare I say, disorganization of that topic, and the fact that film music per se tends to often be from entirely disparate music genres, sometimes even in the same film, which is itself a bit confusing. Also, that project doesn't yet have assessments, and I'm not sure it even wants them. However, I did neglect to provide any discussion of the topic, and apologize for same. If you all feel that it would be better to be merged into the Music Project, though, I will be more than happy to remove or replace the tag. John Carter (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject appears inactive, and it could be either merged or re-formulated into a task force. Other editors' thoughts are welcome about what to do with this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, background music is not only in movies, though the wikiproject calls it a movie music. Television shows also have background music. I am unsure myself whether it's the movie or music WikiProject. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the Film Music project is already structured to deal only with film music, not TV, radio, audiobook, or any other background music. Having said that, I think that a merger with this project, which strikes me as being the more logical parent project, would be in order, and wish to thank Erik for starting the conversation up again. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps it would be possible to treat it as a task force under both WikiProject Films and WikiProject Music. If there is a desire for television music, then that could go under WikiProject TV and WikiProject Music. There could be another setup possible. Girolamo, with your familiarity with task forces, what's your opinion on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My only comment would be that WikiProject Music doesn't get do assessment, but they do keep track of a category, Category:WikiProject Music articles with their banner. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible to do a joint task force, but I'm concerned about this project's ability to effectively manage articles which really are only incidentally related to films. The real meat of the articles will have to conform to music style guidelines. Perhaps a merger with WP Albums would be better, since the vast majority of these articles are about whole soundtracks? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- We could inquire at WT:ALBUM. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Film Music project tagged almost nothing to begin with. And most of our soundtrack articles already have been tagged by WP Albums, so that seems the most logical thing. The reality is that WP Film Music was kinda stillborn, which really makes the question (in my mind) whether it even needs merging, or whether it would probably be best just to delete it wholesale. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that's fair. Do we actually delete the WikiProject, or do we re-format it to be displayed for historical purposes only? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't get deleted. I added {{historical}} for now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this. Should we remove the WikiProject Film Music tags? Perhaps notify the editors that signed themselves up for the WikiProject before concluding the manner? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't get deleted. I added {{historical}} for now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that's fair. Do we actually delete the WikiProject, or do we re-format it to be displayed for historical purposes only? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Film Music project tagged almost nothing to begin with. And most of our soundtrack articles already have been tagged by WP Albums, so that seems the most logical thing. The reality is that WP Film Music was kinda stillborn, which really makes the question (in my mind) whether it even needs merging, or whether it would probably be best just to delete it wholesale. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- We could inquire at WT:ALBUM. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible to do a joint task force, but I'm concerned about this project's ability to effectively manage articles which really are only incidentally related to films. The real meat of the articles will have to conform to music style guidelines. Perhaps a merger with WP Albums would be better, since the vast majority of these articles are about whole soundtracks? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My only comment would be that WikiProject Music doesn't get do assessment, but they do keep track of a category, Category:WikiProject Music articles with their banner. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps it would be possible to treat it as a task force under both WikiProject Films and WikiProject Music. If there is a desire for television music, then that could go under WikiProject TV and WikiProject Music. There could be another setup possible. Girolamo, with your familiarity with task forces, what's your opinion on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the Film Music project is already structured to deal only with film music, not TV, radio, audiobook, or any other background music. Having said that, I think that a merger with this project, which strikes me as being the more logical parent project, would be in order, and wish to thank Erik for starting the conversation up again. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've brought it to the attention of WP Albums now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Coming here via Girolamo Savonarola's note, I don't think handling scores and soundtracks collaboratively between WP Music/WP Albums and WP Films, WP Television and WP Video games respectively should present us with much difficulty. Knowledgeable people from these WikiProjects and/or fields of interest will invariably come to work on these articles together; if anything, we might want to compare style guides. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Albums project is perfect for most of the articles. But we only do published albums, so the articles about composers and artists, and the field in general would have to stay in the Films project (which makes sense, really, unless you want them to go over to WPP:MUSIC or WP:MUSICIAN). So I suggest adding a note to your project guidelines regarding those articles, and linking to WP:ALBUM for guidelines on writing soundtrack album articles. -Freekee (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Make it a joint task force of both WikiProject Music and WikiProject Film? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about some of the long-term effects this might have. Are we also going to claim scope over video game adaptations of films? What about novelizations or comic book adaptations? While we certainly have the ability to integrate this into our framework, I'm dubious that it's a good idea. Essentially, this is a music genre task force; something I'd imagine we'd claim as a related project or workgroup, but ultimately not under our explicit remit. Just my thoughts. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
On the box for actor/actresses
In biographical articles on film celebrities, there is a colored bar (often brownish yellow but sometimes other colors) on the invididual's name. What does the color mean and how can you change it? Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is set as default gold (actually more a mustard color) for living actors and silver for deceased actors. Don't ask why, its just evolved this way. Personally I'd rather they were all silver but others disagreed ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Movies that don't take place in the 21st century.
I was thinking should we make categories for movies like 10,000 B.C., There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?
10,000 B.C. would fall under the category "films that take place before the 1st century", There Will Be Blood would be in "Films that take place on the 20th century" and The Assassination of Jesse James would be in "Films that take place on the 19th century" what does anybody else think? I think it's very useful for people looking for movies that take place in the past. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The categories already exist (well, some of them). See Category:Period films and it's subcategories. On the other hand, it doesn't look very well organized, and some of it is probably misleading (eg. Category:Western films is a subcat of Category:Films set in the 19th century, which might not always be true). - Bobet 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Please forgive me for being so dumb. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Movies that take place off Earth or in an Alt universe ALSO don't take place in our timeline.EraserGirl (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean like this one? No, I'm talking about movies that take place on earth. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Movies that take place off Earth or in an Alt universe ALSO don't take place in our timeline.EraserGirl (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Please forgive me for being so dumb. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fires on the Plain
A user has asked for help on Fires on the Plain (film) (see here). Apparently the user is disappointed that the page can't seem to get past Start-class. I have placed an {{expert-subject}} tag on the film, and would appreciate if anyone familiar with this film could help cleanup/expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Academy-Award winning"
I think I recall seeing that we were not supposed to use "Academy Award winning" in the ledes of film articles -- can't remember why, though. User:UZiBLASTER7 has added that language to quite a few film articles today. If I'm correct and it was decided that this wasn't preferred, would someone with rollback like to revert his edits, and let him know why? I've done a few specific films already. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly questioned the use of the term but cannot find a reference to how to shape the "lead" paragraphs of a film article. Can someone help with a "pointer" to the recommended manner of setting out the introductory passages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- I think it was a good idea, for example, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King got plenty of Academy Awards, and is very notable for getting eleven. So I can't see why you can't use this in the first paragraph, "LOTR:TROTK is an Academy-Award winning fantasy film..." TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because that isn't the only thing it won, and Wikipedia is not Americanized. We are neutral. Not only should we be able to represent a neutrality as far as English speaking countries go, but also when we present article topics. Saying a film is an AA in the first sentence immediately puts the article in a strongly positive light, instead of a neutral one. Present the basics; tell the reader what the topic is, before you tell them what the topic did. This has been discussed several times, and the consensus is that the basic info goes in the first sentence, and the first paragraph and the notability info goes after. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- For Ed, and Bzuk, it states at the MOS for Films not to put Academy Awards, or similar, in the first sentence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know I read it awhile back, but that is as clear a statement as you can make- no award notes in the lead! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- I think it was a good idea, for example, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King got plenty of Academy Awards, and is very notable for getting eleven. So I can't see why you can't use this in the first paragraph, "LOTR:TROTK is an Academy-Award winning fantasy film..." TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly questioned the use of the term but cannot find a reference to how to shape the "lead" paragraphs of a film article. Can someone help with a "pointer" to the recommended manner of setting out the introductory passages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- Wow, this editor has been busy:
- 22:20, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sam Mendes
- 22:19, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Steven Spielberg
- 22:16, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Richard Attenborough
- 22:14, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Bob Fosse
- 22:13, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Franklin Schaffner (top)
- 22:13, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) John Schlesinger (top)
- 22:12, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m George Cukor (top)
- 22:11, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Delbert Mann (top)
- 22:10, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Fred Zinnemann (top)
- 22:10, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Joseph L. Mankiewicz (top)
- 22:09, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Elia Kazan (top)
- 22:08, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) William Wyler
- 22:07, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Leo McCarey (top)
- 22:07, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) John Ford (top)
- 22:06, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Norman Taurog (top)
- 22:06, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Lloyd (top)
- 22:05, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Lewis Milestone (top)
- 22:05, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Borzage (top)
- 22:03, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) No Country for Old Men (film)
- 22:01, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
- 22:01, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Chicago (2002 film) (top)
- 22:00, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) A Beautiful Mind (film) (top)
- 21:59, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gladiator (2000 film)
- 21:58, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) American Beauty (film)
- 21:57, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Shakespeare in Love (top)
- 21:57, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Titanic (1997 film)
- 21:56, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The English Patient (film) (top)
- 21:55, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Braveheart (top)
- 21:54, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Forrest Gump
- 21:53, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Schindler's List (top)
- 21:53, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Unforgiven (top)
- 21:52, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Rain Man (top)
- 21:51, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Out of Africa (film) (top)
- 21:50, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Amadeus (film) (top)
- 21:50, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Terms of Endearment (film) (top)
- 21:49, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Gandhi (film) (top)
- 21:48, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Chariots of Fire (top)
- 21:47, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Kramer vs. Kramer (top)
- 21:47, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) (top)
- 21:46, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The French Connection (film) (top)
- 21:46, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Patton (film) (top)
- 21:45, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Oliver! (film) (top)
- 21:45, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) A Man for All Seasons (1966 film) (top)
- 21:44, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m The Sound of Music (film) (top)
- 21:44, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Tom Jones (film) (top)
- 21:42, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Lawrence of Arabia (film)
- 21:41, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Apartment (top)
- 21:41, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ben-Hur (1959 film) (top)
- 21:40, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gigi (1958 film) (top)
- 21:39, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Bridge on the River Kwai (top)
- 21:39, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Around the World in Eighty Days (1956 film) (top)
- 21:38, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) From Here to Eternity (top)
- 21:37, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) An American in Paris (film)
- 21:36, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) All About Eve
- 21:36, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Hamlet (1948 film) (top)
- 21:34, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Best Years of Our Lives
- 21:32, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Lawrence of Arabia (film)
- 21:31, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) West Side Story (film) (top)
- 21:31, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Apartment
- 21:30, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ben-Hur (1959 film)
- 21:30, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gigi (1958 film)
- 21:29, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Around the World in Eighty Days (1956 film)
- 21:28, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Marty (top)
- 21:27, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) From Here to Eternity
- 21:25, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) An American in Paris (film)
- 21:25, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m All About Eve
- 21:24, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m All the King's Men (1949 film) (top)
- 21:24, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Hamlet (1948 film)
- 21:23, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gentleman's Agreement (top)
- 21:22, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Best Years of Our Lives
- 21:22, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Casablanca (film)
- 21:21, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) How Green Was My Valley (film) (top)
- 21:20, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gone with the Wind (film) (top)
- 21:19, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) You Can't Take It with You (top)
- 21:19, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) You Can't Take It with You
- 21:18, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Life of Emile Zola (top)
- 21:17, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Great Ziegfeld
- 21:17, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 film) (top)
- 21:16, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) It Happened One Night
- 21:15, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Cavalcade (film) (top)
- 21:14, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Grand Hotel (film)
- 21:13, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Cimarron (1931 film) (top)
- 21:12, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Broadway Melody (top)
- 21:11, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (top)
- 21:10, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Racket (top)
- 21:09, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) The Racket
- 21:08, 23 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wings (film)
I've corrected some of the articles, but other editors may wish to chip in. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- I did the few that were on my watchlist. Someone with rollback or AWB could do this pretty quickly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently he's decided to vandalize this page to remove the conversation and has begun adding it again to more articles, using an IP. *sigh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera beat me to restoring this section that was blanked by User:24.138.253.112. It also looks like this editor is picking up where the previous one left off (sockpuppet anyone). We may have to keep an eye on this for awhile. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really think we should invite that person to this conversation, ask why he/she finds this important. It might not work, but I really would be interested in knowing why the person finds this so important. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- They were left a note pointing them here. Then the IP comes and blanks the discussion....AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In relation to this, I've gone through the Academy Awards going back to the 74th Academy Awards and removed such mention from the beginning. More than ever, I am in support of excluding such terminology from the beginning. I came across numerous, unfamiliar films that purported to be Academy Award-winning/nominated, and this vagueness can be misleading. I think this is particularly troublesome with Academy Awards covering numerous categories, such as best supporting actors/actresses. In addition, an animated film being nominated for an Academy Award does not seem as credible, considering that there are very, very few animated films in any given year. The worst instance I found was Pearl Harbor being identified as Academy Award-winning from the get-go. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really know what you mean by "few", there are plenty of animated movies released each year, though most of them are Straight-to-DVD, straight-to-television and stuff like that. Would you care clarify? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant was the number of animated feature films in any given year. With this limit, there is not exactly a wide selection of highly critically acclaimed films. Of course, it's appropriated to mention that it got nominated for an Academy Award in the lead section, but mentioning it from the get-go establishes unrealistic credibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I know what you mean, most movie makers want to make their movies "come alive" if you know what I mean. And they're a lot more realistic as live-action. Come to think of it you're right, it is indeed limited. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant was the number of animated feature films in any given year. With this limit, there is not exactly a wide selection of highly critically acclaimed films. Of course, it's appropriated to mention that it got nominated for an Academy Award in the lead section, but mentioning it from the get-go establishes unrealistic credibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The text in MOS suggests avoiding "award-winning", which is not the same as Academy Award-winning (the latter is a lot more specific). I don't find Bignole's America point very convincing: English-language film is dominated by American film, and it's entirely reasonable to note American film awards prominently; so too, of BAFTA awards, etc. It doesn't add much of a bias. (It sure would be nice if the MOS gave more rationale...) jhawkinson (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the same argument applies. A film could win or be nominated for Best Picture or Best Supporting Actress. There is quite a difference between the two. For example, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was not at all a critically acclaimed film, but it won an Oscar for Costume Design and was nominated an Oscar for Blanchett's role. Like I've mentioned before, Pearl Harbor contained the same terminology. Compare that to Titanic's wins -- not at all in the same ballpark. We can easily explain later in the lead section the specific awards and nominations a film garnered without needing to debate about the prominence. If it wasn't the Oscars, it could be another award. There are other American awards like the SAGs and the Golden Globes, so the accolades can be fully recognized outside just the first sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Complaint. Too many shortcuts. Circular referencing (from Wikipedia talk:Notability (films))
Having been pointed to WP:FILM regarding the AfD of a future film, I find that it doesn't point directly to anything useful. I find instead a mess of circular referencing, involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films.
I suggest cleaning up the excessive shortcuts, and moving/copying all of the externally referenced rules/guidelines/criteria/recommendations to a single place, probably Wikipedia:Notability (films). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You shouldn't have been pointed to WP:FILM. There are no standards to really apply for AFD purposes. There's just WP:NF, and the future films department is just a particular department that gets into the specifics of how to handle an article about an upcoming film. With the focus only on WP:NF for AFD purposes, I'm not sure what needs fixing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
User Otolemur crassicaudatus contacted me via my talkpage to discuss the possibility of splitting up this category into chunks by decade. I suggested that he/she takes the idea to this talk page for a consensus.
What are other user's thoughts on spliting this category up? Is by decade the best way to do it, if a split went ahead? Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that most black/white movies are from early 20th century. There aren't many black/white movies in the 21st century, extremely few of them are made each year in the United States. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that was my first thought, with a huge bulge for the 1940s and earlier. Lugnuts (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
New task forces?
I've received several informal comments asking about task forces for German cinema, Japanese cinema, and Russian Empire/Soviet Union/post-Soviet cinema. Would task forces for any of these be of interest to editors? I'd be happy to create them each if there is interest from several editors. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- To further the request, I was wondering if there were any editors who were interested in being part of a science fiction film task force. Girolamo, what's an ideal number of editors to express interest to go ahead with a task force? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would imagine something around at least 3-5 members would be ideal. Should we solicit WP SciFi for a joint task force? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well I did suggest a Hong Kong cinema group, I don't know how many others would be interested. I certainly would ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the Chinese cinema group becomes active enough to warrant another task force within the Chinese one, it might be worth it; unfortunately, I don't think that's the case yet. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm an active contributor for WikiProject Japan, and I'm also a huge film buff. If there was a Japanese cinema task force, I'd be in it. Torsodog (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget the whole Screenwriters project into taskforce idea. I'm still hanging around. EraserGirl (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to help see what else can be done with that, EG, but that's really a WPBIO concern - we don't have any control over the biography articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Girolamo, it is a very serious question whether anyone has any control over any articles. As to whether the huge and understaffed Biography project has any control over anything, well, ... . ;) If this project would be willing to take on that group as a joint subproject, I could try to work on the Biography banner to include it there, and possibly provide assessments for both projects. I just haven't actually worked on that banner before. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to help see what else can be done with that, EG, but that's really a WPBIO concern - we don't have any control over the biography articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:JAPAN would be happy to operate a joint taskforce (it being part of both projects, with this project (WP:FILMS) as the main project). I'd likely help as I could, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to join the Soviet/Russian film taskforce. Where do I sign up :)? KNewman (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to join the Soviet/Russian film taskforce as well. Please let me know how I can help. Zidel333 (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
British/UK stub types for deletion
this discussion was posted sometime ago on the stubs for deletion page, but seems to be going nowhere fast. Please feel free to add your comments to the discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Salvation Army filmography nominated for deletion
The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
FAR
Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A video editing sofware called Clesh has been nominated for deletion
Hi. We have problems finding sources that clearly assess notability for online video editing program Clesh. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clesh and help us. Please answer there and not here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Template Infobox Film; wikilinking of the language
Could the wikilinking of the language be suppressed when it's the same as the language of the Wikipedia it's on? What we now have in the English wikipedia is an enormous number of film articles with links to English language which are never going to be clicked on, as the readers of the English wikipedia presumably already know what the English language is. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What problem is this addressing? Yes, I speak English, but no, I certainly do not know most of the vast quantity of information which is on the English language Wikipedia page. Why wouldn't I be more interested in a topic that is directly relevant to my life? I'm not particularly bothered either way as far as linking goes, but keeping it standardized would be nice. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a thorough discussion at WP:OVERLINK of what should be linked and what should not, and why. To my mind, the key point is whether any reader is likely to make use of a link. It's not at all likely that an reader who already knows enough English to read the English wikipedia is going to be clicking through from an article about an English-language film to an article about the English language. (In contrast, if a film is in a different language, a reader might well use the link to find more.) Colonies Chris (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Use of references
Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of articles, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the project, is also problematic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
- According to Footnotes An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Comments? What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
- There's absolutely no requirement whatsoever either that (a) works contained in the References section must have been cited in inline citations (see MilborneOne's note above), or that (b) that the person adding references must have been a contributor to the article. In particular, if (b) were true, then the many templates that we have such as {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, and others that ask editors to add more references would make no sense - these templates specifically ask editors to add references without asking them to contribute anything to the article text. There's simply no justification for removing them. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with all of your sentiments. Particularly "Further reading" - I was under the impression that the whole point of this section was to highlight key texts relevant to the topic which are otherwise unnoted in the references. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no requirement whatsoever either that (a) works contained in the References section must have been cited in inline citations (see MilborneOne's note above), or that (b) that the person adding references must have been a contributor to the article. In particular, if (b) were true, then the many templates that we have such as {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, and others that ask editors to add more references would make no sense - these templates specifically ask editors to add references without asking them to contribute anything to the article text. There's simply no justification for removing them. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Films made before the MPAA Production Code @ CFD
Category discussion can be found here Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Including bit parts in filmography
For an article on a minor actor, is it standard practice to list bit parts in the filmography? If the actor was credited as blonde judge or houseguest do we include those films?
Is there a guideline for this somewhere? Trout Ice Cream (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on how notable the actor is to begin with. Take John Wayne's performance in The Deceiver, for example! Personally, I would include his/her bit-part. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the part itself may not be notable but a famous actor doing a walk-on might be worthy of being recognized or an up-and-coming actor plays a minor role but later, the film is noted as the first film of the actor, then that part is also noteworthy. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
The Japanese title of Rhapsody in August
On the talk page for this film, I mentioned that the reading of the Japanese title needs a correction. I listed some sources about this on the page. But these are all written in Japanese and I don't know any appropriate English sources. Since I am new to Wikipedia, an editor (MarnetteD) suggested me to post this issue on this page. Does anyone help me? --Kihachi (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:VUE. In any case, finding a reliable source with a Latin-alphabet transliteration would be the best way to settle the question. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you: A reliable source with a Latin-alphabet transliteration would be the best. But if a misreading is more widely accepted in the English literature than the correct reading, how can you prove what source is reliable without Japanese literature? That is my question. Thank you for your response.--Kihachi (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to be an alternative transliteration and I have found a listing for Rhapsody in August in different sources. Use: "Rhapsody in August (Hachigatsu no rapusodî) (1991)" Movielens, 2008. as a source. It may also be useful to note that there are alternative transliterations that identify Hachigatsu no kyoshikyoku as the actual term in favour. See: "Akira Kurosawa Filmography (Director)" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
- Hello, Bzuk. I appreciate your cooperation to find useful pages on the Web. I hope that it is acceptable for Wikipedians to write Rhapsody in August (八月の狂詩曲, Hachigatsu no rapusodī) (aka Hachigatsu no kyōshikyoku) on the article. How do you think about this?--Kihachi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Japanese title of Rhapsody in August is "八月の狂詩曲." "八月" means August, and "狂詩曲" means rhapsody. Both are Japanese kanji words. "狂詩曲" is usually pronounced "kyōshikyoku." When this film released in Japan, 1991, Kurosawa added furigana "ラプソディー rapusodī" to the word "狂詩曲." So the correct romanization of the Japanese title is Hachigatsu no rapusodī. But ,often, the japanese title has been printed without the furigana. This is the reason why the misreading Hachigatsu no kyōshikyoku has been widely spread than the correct pronounciation. But I can not prove this without Japanese language sources. What is the actual solution?--Kihachi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say use your original "aka" addition in the article body, with a note that then provides all of the info you just wrote in your last post. As long as it is linked to a reliable source, that would be fine. Foreign language sources aren't strictly forbidden, but they are strongly discouraged unless the info is otherwise uncontroversial. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Girolamo Savonaro! I will try it.--Kihachi (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say use your original "aka" addition in the article body, with a note that then provides all of the info you just wrote in your last post. As long as it is linked to a reliable source, that would be fine. Foreign language sources aren't strictly forbidden, but they are strongly discouraged unless the info is otherwise uncontroversial. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Japanese title of Rhapsody in August is "八月の狂詩曲." "八月" means August, and "狂詩曲" means rhapsody. Both are Japanese kanji words. "狂詩曲" is usually pronounced "kyōshikyoku." When this film released in Japan, 1991, Kurosawa added furigana "ラプソディー rapusodī" to the word "狂詩曲." So the correct romanization of the Japanese title is Hachigatsu no rapusodī. But ,often, the japanese title has been printed without the furigana. This is the reason why the misreading Hachigatsu no kyōshikyoku has been widely spread than the correct pronounciation. But I can not prove this without Japanese language sources. What is the actual solution?--Kihachi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Bzuk. I appreciate your cooperation to find useful pages on the Web. I hope that it is acceptable for Wikipedians to write Rhapsody in August (八月の狂詩曲, Hachigatsu no rapusodī) (aka Hachigatsu no kyōshikyoku) on the article. How do you think about this?--Kihachi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to be an alternative transliteration and I have found a listing for Rhapsody in August in different sources. Use: "Rhapsody in August (Hachigatsu no rapusodî) (1991)" Movielens, 2008. as a source. It may also be useful to note that there are alternative transliterations that identify Hachigatsu no kyoshikyoku as the actual term in favour. See: "Akira Kurosawa Filmography (Director)" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
- I totally agree with you: A reliable source with a Latin-alphabet transliteration would be the best. But if a misreading is more widely accepted in the English literature than the correct reading, how can you prove what source is reliable without Japanese literature? That is my question. Thank you for your response.--Kihachi (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Kaiju
Hey, all. I'm wondering if Kaiju is actually appropriate to have listed for this Wikiproject. It's not about something that is exclusive to the realm of film, as it is merely a name for monsters in Japanese movies and tv shows, so I don't feel it appropriate. However, I'm asking anyway, just to see the thoughts of other editors. Howa0082 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...I'd personally say it just belongs in the Japan project, if it belongs at all. Seems to just be a dictionary definition. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just because it is not exclusive to film does not mean that it is not relevant to our scope either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the article, it seems to be describing a genre of films and TV series. As such, I think it's fine to have it tagged as part of this project since it's describing a film genre. It's definitely not just a dicdef (outside of the first sentence or two). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has no references, I added some fact tags, but I didn't bother looking for references because some of this stuff apears to be something you'd only find on wikipedia. For example, "1st AD's Eternal Dilemma". Somebody on the talkpage claimed she/he was a AD, so she/he added some terms in another section. These terms could, of course not be typical, and they need to be verified. To make things short, this article needs clean up. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another editor has also tagged this article as an essay with POV issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
Film music
(Actually, let me preface by asking interested parties to comment here - I'm pretty sure my proposal is on the mark, but would like to hear dissenting views, and whether the word "American" should be in the category name.)
I've noticed that our article on film music (a name it maybe should have, not film score) is rather mediocre - hardly the B-Class article it purports to be. Perhaps we could explore some strategies for improvement here. One big lapse is history. We say a little about a few silent films of 1908-15, then jump to 1973, then stop. So I'll try to fill in some of the gaps there. If other people see other defects that need to be corrected, do let us know. The talk page is probably the place to have this discussion, but I just wanted to generate some interest here first. Biruitorul (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Lists of films
When doing lists like List of Roger Corman films, what should be included? The list primarily has films that Corman directed. I, and several others, have tried to add films he produced but one editor keeps removing them for no real reason that I can discern. He told me to go start another list for productions if we want them listed. Now, to me, if we're going to have such a list, it should be a proper, and completely, filmography, with his directed films, produced films, etc. What is the project's view on these lists (and are they even appropriate at all)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be fine to list produced films as well, but they should be in a separate section in the list in order to avoid confusion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Nihonjoe, but perhaps if the article were titled Roger Corman filmography to begin with, then there would be less room for confusion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- An alternative could be to use a system to identify the different projects, such as:
- Directed: Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957)
- Produced: Bloodfist II (1990)
- Didn't Corman produce a huge number of films compared to those he actually directed? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- From looking at his filmographies in other places, yes...he even produced some in which he trashed ones he earlier directed ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that a Filmography can include all aspects of work, producing, directing, acting, taking out the trash (well, maybe not?!) Perhaps a table with column headings would work:
- From looking at his filmographies in other places, yes...he even produced some in which he trashed ones he earlier directed ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- An alternative could be to use a system to identify the different projects, such as:
- I agree with Nihonjoe, but perhaps if the article were titled Roger Corman filmography to begin with, then there would be less room for confusion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Roger Corman Filmography
| Year | Film title | Role/position | Notes |
| 1957 | Attack of the Crab Monsters | Director | Credited |
| 1990 | Bloodfist II | Producer | Credited |
I think Corman was responsible for some 350 films, with only 50 or so that he directed, the rest he produced or worked on in some capacity. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- I think that table would be a nice format for it...could be made sortable even. With so many films under his belt, its seems unreasonable to deny the
fastvast majority of them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)- I'm sure they were "fast" too, considering the speed in which he often churned out his films! LOL Bzuk (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- LOL...sometimes even spellcheck can't help me ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should follow Girolamo Savonarola's suggestion and move the article to Roger Corman filmography. Start it with the statement "This is a partial list of films on which Roger Corman worked in a major capacity." (This will allow you to cite the better-known projects rather than all 350.) Then list the titles as follows:
- 1955
- Swamp Women (Director)
- Five Guns West (Director/producer)
- Day the World Ended (Screenwriter)
- 1956
- Gunslinger (Director)
- It Conquered the World (Screenwriter/producer)
- 1957
- Not of This Earth (Screenwriter/director)
- Attack of the Crab Monsters (Producer)
- The Undead (Director/cinematographer)
- And so on and so forth . . . MovieMadness (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- That looks like the best solution
Roger Corman Filmography
| Year | Film title | Role/position | Notes |
| 1955 | Swamp Women | Director | Credited |
| 1955 | Five Guns West | (Director/producer) | Credited |
The table also works in this case.
Question about the number of images now being removed
Is there some reason why a number of previously acceptable images are now being challenged and removed? Please see: <Image:Ashanti.jpg> which I had put up on a sandbox page temporarily and was used by User:Limetolime for the article he was working on, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. Another editor has challenged its status (but has not given a reason) while the other challenges and deletions seem to be coming from bots and admins. Whazzup? FWiW, can anyone help in setting up a proper template or in providing the acceptable language to save this image, as I can't see what the problem is with the image. Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- Per the reason specified on the image page, the Ashanti image is in danger of deletion not because there's a problem with the non-free/fair use media rationale but because it's not used in any articles at the present time. If you add it to an article, you can remove the template on the image page.
- That said, the non-free/fair use media rationale provided for that image is rather sketchy. The following is the standard one I use when uploading images, and so far none have been challenged, so you might want to consider using it.
- When you want to upload an image, click on any of the following:
- It is a promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or other promotional source
- It is the cover of an album or single
- It is a cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source
- It is a screenshot taken of a movie, TV program, computer game, web site, computer program, music video, or other such source
- Clicking on any one of these options will give you the form below which you then can complete as I've indicated . . .
- {{Non-free use rationale
- | Description = Whatever best describes it, i.e., Original poster, DVD cover, etc.
- | Source = URL for the internet page on which it can be found
- | Article = Article title, i.e., Wilde (film)
- | Portion = All (if you haven't cropped the image) or Partial (with an explanation of what's been removed, i.e., cropped to remove large expanse of sky)
- | Low_resolution = The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. The image is of much lower resolution than the original, and would not be mistaken for the original. Any copies made from this image would be of inferior quality.
- | Purpose = The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film (actor, actress) itself (himself, herself). It is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification for informational and educational purposes. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality for uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original product.
- | Replaceability = As the film is copyrighted, no free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject.
- | other_information = Use of this image in the above article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.
- }}
- I hope this is a clear enough explanation and helps! MovieMadness (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks MovieMadness, a good description of the process. Another editor has pointed out the template that works is:
- The suggestion was to also latch onto an image that has the information filled in and fully detailed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- As MovieMadness said, the problem isn't at the Muppets article. The question of whether the image is suitable for use in the article has been raised (possibly because it isn't necessary for "critical commentary on the film", a requirement for FU) and another editor decided it isn't and removed it from the article. Apparently this was the only article the image was used in, which made it an orphan. The orphan issue is the direct cause for the deletion process. The question of its use in the Muppets article is still open, so feel free to jump into the discussion. And, yes, the editor who deleted it from the article didn't go into detail about his reasons (yet), but feel free to ask him about it (I did, on the Muppets Talk page).
Jim Dunning | talk 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- As MovieMadness said, the problem isn't at the Muppets article. The question of whether the image is suitable for use in the article has been raised (possibly because it isn't necessary for "critical commentary on the film", a requirement for FU) and another editor decided it isn't and removed it from the article. Apparently this was the only article the image was used in, which made it an orphan. The orphan issue is the direct cause for the deletion process. The question of its use in the Muppets article is still open, so feel free to jump into the discussion. And, yes, the editor who deleted it from the article didn't go into detail about his reasons (yet), but feel free to ask him about it (I did, on the Muppets Talk page).
- After some more consideration I'd say it's unlikely the Ashanti image will return to the Muppets article since the movie poster in the article already depicts her in the film. Any other image would be superfluous and not meet FU requirements. It appears it will remain an orphan.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- After some more consideration I'd say it's unlikely the Ashanti image will return to the Muppets article since the movie poster in the article already depicts her in the film. Any other image would be superfluous and not meet FU requirements. It appears it will remain an orphan.
Boxofficeindia.com
There is currently a discussion regarding the reliability of the above-named website as a source for information on revenues for Indian films at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Boxofficeindia.com and its subsection. Anyone who feels in a position to make any input regarding the reliability of the source in question should feel free to comment there. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- John, thanks for bringing this discussion to this forum. It would be important to identify the reliability of the sources but there does seem to be an impasse between the contributors and will require additional input from knowledgeable editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
- It'd help a lot if the source involved identified it's sources, which it doesn't really explicitly do. It does say here that it bases its numbers on the following:
- "All data prior to 1954 is estimated depending on the how long a film ran as actual collections were not published. After that the data has been estimated from what has been given in trade journals. Many figures from 2004 onwards are what the distributor or producers have declared.
- As corporates are entering the industry, box office figures have become much more transparent and most corporates issue collections of their films. When collections are not issued for films, the network of Boxofficeindia.com is today big enough and is able to get collections from most centres around India through our various representives."
- That's about all any of us have yet found. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It'd help a lot if the source involved identified it's sources, which it doesn't really explicitly do. It does say here that it bases its numbers on the following:
Please, let's keep the discussion centralized and continue the matter on the linked thread. Thank you for bringing it to the attention of the project! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea there. Probably should have thought of it myself, if thinking were something I did a little more often than I do. This has not been a fun day, sorry. John Carter (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Call for Help with Primer (film)
Hello. I'm quite new to this, so apologies if I'm posting on the wrong page. I've updated the article for the film Primer, but could use a second opinion. I think the article is reasonably well written, but could use some extra info and could possibly be restructured. Any input would be much appreciated. I've also added the page to the list of articles needing attention. JMalky (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly is a very interesting film; further comments made in article edit summaries. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
The Wind That Shakes the Barley
If there are any experienced project members here who are familiar with the Ken Loach film, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, the plot section needs serious help. A hopelessly biased editor, who doesn't understand how declaring his political background doesn't exactly help explain away his biases, is obsessed with adding plot detail and hs even begun trying to add original political observations about which historical events inspired the events in the film. See the talk page and history for details.
Any help would be much appreciated! At this point, I'm just trying to keep it from getting worse... --Melty girl 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took a look and read the talk page's relevant sections, but I can't see how the plot is still biased and non neutral from the movie's stand point. The plot seems to represent the movie well, I corrected some grammar; can you quote the sections that you find problematic? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been working to beat back the bias some, though if you start watching the page, you'll see that I have to constantly remove biased additions as the editor in question keeps compulsively adding stuff. But as I said above, bias is not the only problem, the tag notwithstanding. The whole thing is much too long, and has too much he said/he said back-and-forth. And the editor in question keeps on adding more and more details that have to keep being removed. He also just randomly keeps changing wording, so that there's no stability to the prose; what's really needed is an overall rewrite -- it's very poorly written. Perhaps what I'm really asking for is for others to watchlist it too, because at this point, I'm the only one with my finger in the dike. If you were to do that, you'd probably better understand what I'm talking about. While it's only me watching the page, I'm unwilling to spend time doing a big rewrite, because it will so quickly go downhill. Others have tried to help in the past, but all have given up. --Melty girl 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I assumed that was the situation, I have been through that before. I will keep an eye out and try and curb anything that seems like it is unneeded. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Melty girl 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
flag icons in infoboxes
What is the wp convention regarding using flagicons in infoboxes in the country parameter. I see that some do and some don't.ThanksMike P talk 04:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Check out WP:FLAG, it's a whole Manual of Style for their use. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The MOS for films says to avoid them, but I think it should probably be rewritten to say "avoid using just the flag", as WP:FLAG clearly states to use the country's name adjacent to the flag for the very reason that WP:MOSFILMS says not to use them. So, my interpretation is that if you use them in the infobox, make sure you use the icon that displays the country's name beside the flag, so that the reader knows what country the flag represents. Some would say it would be easier to just not have the flag at all, but technically using "{{USA}}" to produce "
United States" takes up less space than typing "[[United States]]" to produce "United States". Less space in the article (miniscule, but still less), plus the added bonus of having country and flag together. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Most editors follow the guideline assiduously but every so often the flag icons appear when a newcomer adds them. I agree that the MoS guideline should provide more direction and "avoid their use in the infobox" is a lot clearer. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
- The MOS for films says to avoid them, but I think it should probably be rewritten to say "avoid using just the flag", as WP:FLAG clearly states to use the country's name adjacent to the flag for the very reason that WP:MOSFILMS says not to use them. So, my interpretation is that if you use them in the infobox, make sure you use the icon that displays the country's name beside the flag, so that the reader knows what country the flag represents. Some would say it would be easier to just not have the flag at all, but technically using "{{USA}}" to produce "
Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue
This issue can also be seen on the talk page under "Not a sniper!!!". There is an argument over wether or not Pvt. Jackson is a sniper or a designated marksman (DM). Historicaly, a sniper operates alone, whereas a DM operates with a sqaud (like in Saving Private Ryan). Some argued that because there was no historic sniper program, it makes him a DM. Obviously they are both simmilar, but at Wikipedia we try to get things as accurate as possible. One user left a message saying that he had sources, and that it proved Pvt. Jackson was a sniper. His source is a interview with Berry Pepper, who plays Pvt. Jackson. The source has the qoute "Now directors view me as the hardcore sniper" but besides that qoute, has nothing to do with if his character is a sniper or not. I would like a couple of opinions. I will not accept the person who posted the source with that quote as the only opinion. This is just because you need a good source that proves he is a sniper, not just Berry Peppers saying the word "Sniper". I personally (as well as others do) believe that he is a marksman. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the source incase anyone is curious [5]. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely, I was gonna bring the issue to the conflict of interest page, but I'm pretty tiered of this guy SWATJester finding a page and then taking over and pushing his views, so I just left it alone. With his threats of banning and so forth, it seems like this guy loves taking advantage of loopholes. In this case he goes and finds sites making generalizations and uses them as sources and if you find a more reliable source that claims his source incorrect he reverts the edit and threatens to have you banned for editing out "sourced" information. As if he didn't just edit out sourced information.
- Now if there was a source that was reliable that stated in WW2 that Ranger squads/platoons/companies had men attached to them that they called snipers, I would accept that. They were marksmen or sharpshooters, I think the term marksmen was more widespread. The term sniper today is what is widespread because of popular culture so of course lots of sites are gonna be calling him a sniper, just like they might call a Corpsman a Medic or a any Tracked Vehicle a Tank, when in fact that is technically incorrect.
- Conversely the term Designated Marksman in this case would be incorrect as well. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I can think to say is that all films are historically inaccurate in certain respects, and becoming too overly obsessed with the nitty-gritty where perhaps even the filmmakers weren't is not productive for the article, the editors, or the readers. While I am not extremely familiar with the details of the film, it may be worth bearing in mind that neither description would be appropriate if the film doesn't declare it either explicitly (dialogue) or implicitly (rank or uniform designation, eg). One runs the risk of OR on both sides, is what I'm saying. The film has the final word, regardless of the historical "truth". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- One of the lines in the film has the Private Jackson character talking about his "sniper rifle" although this by no means is a definitive answer. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
- A Google News archive search reveals the character is talked about as a "sharpshooter" (marksman) more times than he is as a "sniper", though this is of course not 100% conclusive evidence. Is there a more ambiguous word than either which could be used? Steve T • C 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Girolamo Savonarola, all films are 'inaccurate' in these regards, and it's not our place to correct them. If a rank/position has to be mentioned, 'sniper' or 'marksman' are recognized and simple terms, which I think should be used in the interests of clarity. JMalky (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- A Google News archive search reveals the character is talked about as a "sharpshooter" (marksman) more times than he is as a "sniper", though this is of course not 100% conclusive evidence. Is there a more ambiguous word than either which could be used? Steve T • C 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- One of the lines in the film has the Private Jackson character talking about his "sniper rifle" although this by no means is a definitive answer. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
- The only thing I can think to say is that all films are historically inaccurate in certain respects, and becoming too overly obsessed with the nitty-gritty where perhaps even the filmmakers weren't is not productive for the article, the editors, or the readers. While I am not extremely familiar with the details of the film, it may be worth bearing in mind that neither description would be appropriate if the film doesn't declare it either explicitly (dialogue) or implicitly (rank or uniform designation, eg). One runs the risk of OR on both sides, is what I'm saying. The film has the final word, regardless of the historical "truth". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I took out the competely unnecesary reference, but it seems we are still far from reaching a consensus. I do not think people would notice (save Swatjester of course,) if we replaced Sniper with Marksman. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for help on Swing Vote (2008 film)
I am trying to locate an editor to update the article for the upcoming Kevin Costner movie Swing Vote; the article currently includes the name of a producer who is not credited on the film, as well as a couple of other omissions. The synopsis section could probably also stand to be filled out. Details can be found on the film's associated talk page.
I would do it myself, but the studio is a client of my employer so I shouldn't be the one to make the actual changes per WP:COI. However, I've been unsuccessful in trying to get help from the two editors who have contributed the most to the page, so that's why I'm bringing the request here. If you have any questions, you can get me on my user talk page. Thanks in advance. NMS Bill (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added some details to help later development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
How am I doing?
I started editing wp in January and have started a small project to standardize film articles mainly by John Waters, Russ Meyer, and Jose Mojica Marins. Lately I've written a few stubs because I can't stand those red links to notable films! Could someone please assess these stubs for me for their quality and which things I should do differently. I mainly try for NPOV, informative, and a structure on which other edits may be easily made.
The End of Man
The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe
Perversion (film)
as well as Van Smith. There are a few more in progress-I would like to do stubs for the red links in Mojica's and Russ Meyer's film lists. I use a simple template on my user page. Is it acceptable to use it on a regular basis for film stubs? Should I stop asking so many questions? Mike P talk 16:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first two articles have progressed to a "start" level although the last article remains a "stub." Interesting and informative accounts predominate; keep it up. FWiW, use of template, sandbox projects and other off-line development tools are perfectly acceptable means of working up an article. As for asking questions, no charge! Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
Letters from Iwo Jima: ridicoulously long plot
The article Letters from Iwo Jima has, in my and other editors opinions, an overly long plot section. Does anyone else agree? One editor said that he made it better-and yet it is still very long. Most of this appears unnecesary to me. Some of you may think I'm being a hypocrite for having a fairly long section in Fires on the Plain (film), but a lot of this information is to show a variety of opinions. Back on the topic though, do any of you think this article is ricoulously long? Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fires on the Plain isn't long at all, only 427 words which fits quite nicely within our guidelines. :) As for Letters from Iwo Jima, with the plot section running 1256 words and the film itself not being a six hour flick, yes it is excessively long and needs some trimming down (along with some MoS help). :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The plot reads like a "scene-by-scene" recitation which is unnecessary. I agree with AnmaFinotera (Collectie) in that the MoS guide along with the Film Project guide is not being followed. Reception also needs to be pruned. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
- I agree with you both that it is way too long. Making Fires on the Plain a longer article by putting more details in was an idea of mine, but I decided I didn't want sentences like "Tamura stepped on an ant, which he kills. Then, he trips on a medium-small rock with a slightly sharp right edge." Ok... Letters plot section aint like that but it is still not good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I expressed my views about the lengthy plot over a year ago on the article's talk page. Needless to say, I got into a heated debate with another user who felt that the plot length was appropriate so I walked away from it. However, I'm still willing to collaborate on pruning the details (minus another WP:NOT#PLOT debate). UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Technical Terms
Just wondering what the received wisdom is on using technical terms in film articles. Specifically, I've just edited the phrase 'a shooting ratio of 2:1' into Primer (film). 'Shooting ratio' is linked to the appropriate page, but is that enough? Should there be a note within the article explaining what this means? JMalky (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not so much the need to define the ratio of 2:1 as the need to place it in context that's important. For example, why is the ratio mentioned at all? Did using that ratio have some significant impact on Production or viewing? I notice the statement is followed by, "With no room for mistakes, ...". Are the two statements related? Did choosing that ratio for 16mm stock impose certain (and notable) limits on the cinematography so there was "no room for mistakes"? That would take care of "what it means" more than a strict definition of "shooting ratio". (If that's the case, by the way, then the passage needs to be expanded to cover that impact.)
Jim Dunning | talk 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The mention of shooting 2:1 is clearly explained in context with the crew having to conserve stock and leave "no room for mistakes." This is an important aspect of a project that had limited funds and needed to carefully storyboard every shot to conserve on retakes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
- "The film was shot on Super 16mm filmstock, with a shooting ratio of just 2:1. This left no room for mistakes, and so every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills."
- But if I'm unfamiliar with exactly what "shooting ratio" means -- since I'm not a DP or an editor -- then I can't make the connection between (or leap) pros and cons of 16mm stock or specific shooting ratios and what type of mistakes may or may not be associated with them. It seems that just an additional line or two could clarify the relationship for the layman. Maybe by inserting a subordinate clause after "... with a shooting ratio of just 2:1, ...." or at the beginning of the next sentence.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)- What is DP supposed to stand for there? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- But if I'm unfamiliar with exactly what "shooting ratio" means -- since I'm not a DP or an editor -- then I can't make the connection between (or leap) pros and cons of 16mm stock or specific shooting ratios and what type of mistakes may or may not be associated with them. It seems that just an additional line or two could clarify the relationship for the layman. Maybe by inserting a subordinate clause after "... with a shooting ratio of just 2:1, ...." or at the beginning of the next sentence.
- DP is director of photography. There's nothing wrong with not explaining "shooting ratio" itself in the article if it's linked, but explaining why Primer's ratio is atypical and how it affected the production would be necessary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems fairly clear in the statement made that the production crew used a ratio of 2 shots (takes) for every scene, and the term shooting ratio is wikilinked to an appropriate page. This is a very conservative amount of footage judging by the industry standard, of between 6:1 to 10:1 or more in the case of video (probably closer to 20:1, as expensive filmstock is not being used). In photojournalism, for example, the shooting ratio is 20:1. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
- Perhaps some clarification is needed. However, this will be difficult to add an explanation of the term without interrupting the flow of the article. That would only confuse the topic further. JMalky (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The film was shot on expensive Super 16mm filmstock, with a shooting ratio of just 2:1. This decision left no room for mistakes, and so every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills to conserve costs." This minor revision is just a suggestion, as I had previously indicated, the original statement appears to be fine as is with a wikilink provided for the term "shooting ratio." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
- I appreciate this, but I don't think it makes it any clearer. Also, the ratio wasn't a decision, it was a constraint imposed by a tiny budget. JMalky (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The film was shot on expensive Super 16mm filmstock, with a shooting ratio of just 2:1. This decision left no room for mistakes, and so every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills to conserve costs." This minor revision is just a suggestion, as I had previously indicated, the original statement appears to be fine as is with a wikilink provided for the term "shooting ratio." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
- Perhaps some clarification is needed. However, this will be difficult to add an explanation of the term without interrupting the flow of the article. That would only confuse the topic further. JMalky (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems fairly clear in the statement made that the production crew used a ratio of 2 shots (takes) for every scene, and the term shooting ratio is wikilinked to an appropriate page. This is a very conservative amount of footage judging by the industry standard, of between 6:1 to 10:1 or more in the case of video (probably closer to 20:1, as expensive filmstock is not being used). In photojournalism, for example, the shooting ratio is 20:1. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
I rewrote the passage –
- The small budget required conservative use of the Super 16mm filmstock. With no room for mistakes, every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills. The relatively low shooting ratio of 2:1 resulted in limiting shots to one take and filming only the lines Carruth knew he would need.
This seems to cover it, explaining the budget constraints and how they affected the photography. BTW, as I was looking at the refs, it seems that all the cites to the Murray interview with Carruth should be combined into one reference, not individual ones to each of the half-dozen or so webpages it is spread over.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd delete the word "relatively" - 2:1 is extremely low by any standards; if anything "extremely" would be more proper. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was being chicken.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)- Ok, one final revision, I promise. Takes didn't have to be limited to one per shot, that would mean a ratio of 1:1, so I've altered that sentence and also switched round the structure of the paragraph. I think it flows better. We happy with this?
- I was being chicken.
- The small budget required conservative use of the Super 16mm filmstock. The extremely low shooting ratio of 2:1 meant that the number of takes had to be strictly limited, and with no room for mistakes, every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills.
- If we are happy with this, I have a question. Primer is still rated as a B-class article, but I like to think that it's a 'good article' now. Do you guys think it needs any more work? If not, how do we nominate it?JMalky (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmmmm: I think it needs more work, although it generally is a pretty good article. Refs should be cleaned up (use templates or modify existing cites to ensure complete info is included, such as article title, author, publication date, publication name, etc.). Also, consolidate refs by using the "name" parameter. There are still minor spelling and grammar errors, as well as some inconsistent usage issues (the film is American, but at least one editor is using British spelling and forms). Reformat the Cast section so the character name is first. Insert the names of the actors into the Plot section so it is able to stand on its own, independent of the rest of the article. The mention of the thematic element in the Plot section seems misplaced, maybe because it is so slim. This does beg the question of whether there should be a treatment of themes elsewhere, either its own section or at least in the Reception section. Can a Release or Distribution section be added (or further information added to Reception)? For example, the Lead mentions limited release in cinemas, but this isn't supported in the body of the article. Finally, I would probably move Awards under Reception. Just some thoughts.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)- Ok, sounds reasonable. This is really the first article I've edited on Wikipedia so the little details you're pointing out are things I wouldn't have noticed. I'm the one using British spelling, by the way! Shall change it. I agree about the small 'themes' section. I do feel that some discussion of this should be in the article, especially given that the film is so difficult to make sense of. But I'm not sure there's enough of it to fill a dedicated section. Anyway, if anyone has any other comments, shouldn't they be in the film's talk page? JMalky (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see you've posted there too. JMalky (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds reasonable. This is really the first article I've edited on Wikipedia so the little details you're pointing out are things I wouldn't have noticed. I'm the one using British spelling, by the way! Shall change it. I agree about the small 'themes' section. I do feel that some discussion of this should be in the article, especially given that the film is so difficult to make sense of. But I'm not sure there's enough of it to fill a dedicated section. Anyway, if anyone has any other comments, shouldn't they be in the film's talk page? JMalky (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmmmm: I think it needs more work, although it generally is a pretty good article. Refs should be cleaned up (use templates or modify existing cites to ensure complete info is included, such as article title, author, publication date, publication name, etc.). Also, consolidate refs by using the "name" parameter. There are still minor spelling and grammar errors, as well as some inconsistent usage issues (the film is American, but at least one editor is using British spelling and forms). Reformat the Cast section so the character name is first. Insert the names of the actors into the Plot section so it is able to stand on its own, independent of the rest of the article. The mention of the thematic element in the Plot section seems misplaced, maybe because it is so slim. This does beg the question of whether there should be a treatment of themes elsewhere, either its own section or at least in the Reception section. Can a Release or Distribution section be added (or further information added to Reception)? For example, the Lead mentions limited release in cinemas, but this isn't supported in the body of the article. Finally, I would probably move Awards under Reception. Just some thoughts.
A question about a picture
Hello to the members of the film project. User:Sam wants to add J.L. David's picture of the slain Marat to the page for the play and film Marat/Sade as seen here [6]. I have objected to this based on the fact that the picture has virtually nothing to do with either the play or the film. I am using the highly restrictive nature of the current pictures policy as the basis for this thought. The argument that it represents the historical events that this play is based on has some flaws for me. It is David's idealized representation of an event that he was not in attendence at. The play/film is about a group of people locked in asylum creating an event that none of them saw. Thus, we have a one artists painted fiction representing another set of artists theatrical fiction. Unfortunately, I have removed it a second time before coming here to ask for comments and a consensus. I apologize for jumping the gun and I will replace it after I am done typing here. My question to the members of the film project is to help us decide whether this picture is appropriate to this page. If the consensus is to leave this picture as part of the article I would ask that it be reduced in size as, in its current form, it dominates the page. Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, I believe that the proper forum for a discussion on the article and aspects of its development should take place on the "Discussion" page of the article. What has just recently occurred was spelled out in edit summaries but a more through discourse may be required. At this juncture, it looks like only two editors have a content dispute. Taking the subject to the discussion page allows for more input from others. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
- Just before I pack up for the night, I will point out (without examining whether the picture is actually appropriate for the article) that the image is in the public domain, so the "highly restrictive nature of the current pictures policy" does not apply here. You can do anything you like with it. Steve T • C 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to comment should discussion emerge on the talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I came here seeking a wider audience for discussion as this page seems to be on very few editors (maybe only mine) watchlist. It seemed highly likely that the only discussion that would go on there would be between Sam and myself. Having lived through the mass removal of pictures of a few months ago one of the things that seemed to come up again and again was WP:NFCC number eight. I could not see how David's painting was illustrative of this play/film. But Steve's point about this being public domain seems to take care of this and Sam has stated that he will be trying to get a screen capture from the film itself. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to comment should discussion emerge on the talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just before I pack up for the night, I will point out (without examining whether the picture is actually appropriate for the article) that the image is in the public domain, so the "highly restrictive nature of the current pictures policy" does not apply here. You can do anything you like with it. Steve T • C 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've cut and pasted the above at Talk:Marat/Sade so editors can contribute their opinions there. MovieMadness (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)