Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Peer review for Juno (film) now open

The peer review for Juno (film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Please Help!

I need serious help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side of AIDS. Schuym1 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the manner in which you've presented your message implies canvassing, which is not acceptable. The AfD is already transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film, and that's as much as can be done. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavian task force

Hello, i'm new to WikiProject Films but i noticed that there is no Scandinavian task force. I would like to gauge if there is an interest in creating a Scandinavian task force, focusing on the cinema of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be an excellent task force, with the caveat that it be the Nordic task force instead. This is mainly because Scandinavia does not always include some of the nations listed above; additionally, it will be more consistent with other WikiProjects' task forces covering the same region. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That's true Nordic task force would be a much better name. Scandinavia sometimes refers only to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. I don't know how many people on Wikiproject Films are familiar with Nordic Cinema but i hope this task force becomes a reality.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, since Dogme 95 is not even mentioned for example in History of film, Nordic cinema in general could use some more attention on WP.--Termer (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential member signup

  1. Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
  2. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. The Bald One White cat 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Termer (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Created. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job! The Bald One White cat 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be very useful for the northest part of Europe, great job. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fly (1986 film) fair-use images

Someone please take a look at this. IMO (13) fair use images in this article is way, way way too many. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just plain insane! Yes, that is way way too many. Almost all of them are pure decoration. Blech...that article has quite a few other issues as well. Always saddens me a little to see an article on a film I'd think should be GA or FA quality still a Start class :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the ones which aren't used for critical commentary The Bald One White cat 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all of them, then. Actually, I can see a rationale for the "seven stages" of Brundlefly's development, provided the section is appropriately sourced (it isn't at present, but this must have come from somewhere; anyone have the DVD?), but none of those in the "Plot" section make the grade, IMO. I'll leave a message on the article's talk page and if no-one presents a good argument for their retention, I'll be bold and remove them. All the best, Steve T • C 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Edited as being redundant due to Gary's bold removal of the images. Steve T • C 17:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think one image per stage is needed. That entire section is way too detailed. The only image that I think is really necessary is one in the plot that shows how he looks like as the fly, or at least partway through. There was an image that showed the guy and the girl meet for the first time, which was definitely unnecessary, as we know how it generally looks like when two people meet :) Gary King (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New stub proposals

Just to tell all that Category:Danish film stubs up and running. I;ve also proposed Iceland, Norwegian and Czech film stubs if you would kindly chip in at the stub sorting proposals as well as a proposed split of documentary film stubs as it concerns WP:Films. Any suggestions, particularly with how we should split documentary film stub would be appreciated. I figured that Iceland and Norwegian stub categorie swould be useful to the new Nordic task force. Hope you are all well. The Bald One White cat 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Moviehole?

I'm wondering if the site Moviehole.net should be used as an official source of information. I think so, because it explains who the editor is and the fact that he's involved in the media industry. [1] I'm not saying that makes it reliable, but just interested to know people's opinions. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be OK for some purposes; results confirm it has been cited in bona fide reliable sources, such as IGN and New York Magazine. What are you looking to add? Steve T • C 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, nothing. I was just wondering about the reliability of it. Seems to be OK. Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cited Moviehole a few times in the past, but I think if an article wants to stand up to scrutiny during a Featured Article nomination, better sources should be found. I think that for movie websites like Moviehole, interviews are probably the most suitable coverage to use. Other coverage where the source of information is not immediately clear (for example, "It was reported that the movie has been put on hold...") probably should not be used. I don't know if Moviehole has reviews, but I would avoid them, too, since there are plenty of better sources for film reviews elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Boogie Nights

After seeing this film on DVD I checked out the Wikipedia article about it, and in my opinion it's a mess. There's a lengthy background section filled with "facts" but no references to support them. An entire section is devoted to one deleted scene. Since there are ten deleted scenes on the DVD, why is this one discussed in such detail and no mention is made of the others? It seems rather subjective to select one and ignore the rest. This article is in need of serious attention and hopefully someone will be able to clean it up. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely an article in need of improvement. It is entirely unreferenced, which is too bad, since I think that this kind of film would have some interesting coverage. I think you should delete the "Deleted scene" section in its entirety since we would usually only detail such scenes if there was real-world context for it (such as being too controversial or being cut for length). Do you want to take initiative and clean up the article yourself? Just look at our style guidelines, and I'll be happy to dig up any useful citations for you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Erik. I believe that the whole section is one, big, unreferenced WP:OR violation which I couldn't even verify. The section contains a supposed quote by Paul Thomas Anderson about the scene but I was unable to find a source for that quote by Googling cut-and-pasted sections of the quote. The section was added on this edit and no part of it has ever been referenced. I say be bold and delete it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed Erik's suggestion and removed the section about the deleted scene. I streamlined the synopsis a little. Since the cast of characters just repeated character descriptions or information about their roles in the film that was already included in the plot synopsis, I changed it to a cast list. I expanded the awards section and added critical reception. I did not touch the background section other than to add the last paragraph with a reference for the source of box office data. although I agree with SWik78 that most of it should be removed. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided to "be bold" and removed all unsourced material. I hope someone will protect me if I come under attack! :) 209.247.22.166 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin American task force and Portugese language task force

How about something to accomodate Latin American film? Notable industries like Mexican and Brazilian cinema at present has very little focus. I'd be happy to merge the Argentine task force. Another suggestion might be a Portuguese language task force which accomdates for Portugal and Brazilian cinema. Latin American film in particular on wikipedia is neglected somewhat and what we are missing notably at present in our groups. I have a few potential members in mind although I;m sure if it is enough to sustain a group. Anybody thoughts anybody? The Bald One White cat 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Interested wikipedians in the Latin task force

  1. The Bald One White cat 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC) - weep weep am I on my own?

Comments

While I am certainly supportive, we may need to hammer a few points out before starting a signup. (For instance, which task force is your signup for?) First of all, though, let's decide which scopes are worth pursuing.

What I'd propose is that we concentrate first on a Latin American task force, which would cover all countries in Central and South America (but not the Caribbean). This would include Brazil, as well. My reasoning is that there is a great deal of co-production, cross-training, etc because of the common languages. (Spanish and Portuguese are close enough that speakers of one usually can understand the other, or so I'm told.) From what I've been able to discern, there actually isn't much interaction between Portuguese and Brazilian cinemas, aside from a few like Manoel de Oliveira, while Brazil is very connected with some of its South American neighbors - and Portugal likewise with Spain. Therefore Portugal could either be its own task force, or perhaps merge with Spain for an Iberian one.

As for the Argentine task force, I don't really think that there's need to merge it - as a substantial task force, it can simply be integrated into the Latin American one as a sub-task force, and thus be kept in toto. (This is also something I'd like to do with the Indian task force in regards to a potential South Asian one.) Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea, and what I also had in mind. Indeed Argentine and Mexican cinema are well connected and there is some considerable overlap between Argentine anf Brazilian cinema too. Latin American task force is a must though to cover those industries I noted. Nasically it would be Mexican cinema and South American cinema including some of the other notable industries like Colombian, Venezuelan and Chilean. Central American cinema, well it is very low key but would be including in the "Latin"title to include Mexico. The Bald One White cat 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Great to know others share my enthuiasm!! The Bald One White cat 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Animation Task Force

I suggest the creation of a task force for animated films. Animated films are one of the most popular types of films, yet are largely ignored by this WikiProject. Additionally, not a single animated film has been listed as a core article. Such ignorance towards something so huge needs to stop. 98.21.142.209 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Animation is definitely a huge subject -- so WP has an entire project dedicated to it. You should check out WikiProject Animation, which has a group of editors working solely on animation and animated films. They currently have 649 articles, including 9 FA class and 21 GA class. I know that they are always looking for more editors to help develop articles. If you are interested in the subject, you should consider joining. — CactusWriter | needles 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is untrue that we don't have any animated films in the core - we include My Neighbor Totoro, as well as the animation article itself. However, I agree that we should have a task force for animated films, as a joint task force with those relevant WikiProjects - Animation, American Animation, and Anime/manga - whose scope extends well beyond just films. This would allow us to bring our project resources and style guidelines to the table, while working with editors from these WikiProjects who would have more subject knowledge and presumably better references. (It would also of course benefit in the Core department from picking up an additional ten slots in the core list.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors interested in joining

  1. Your signature here

Comments

IP editor User talk:98.195.154.176 has been editing since June, and as far as I can tell their only contribution has been to add "ASC" and "BSC" to the names of cinematographers. They've done this in the lede: James Wong Howe, A.S.C. ...", in the infobox listings of film articles, and even in the titles of infoboxes on cinemtographers's articles. I don't mind seeing "ASC" or "BSC" occasionally, but we don't do this for other guilds, so it might be best if they weren't quite so rampant as this editor seems intent on making them.

I'm going to leave a note for this editor and see what happens. Others might want to follow up, if you think it's worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the ranking MOS would be on this, but I'd consider it equivalent to some of the British honors, such as OBE, or a professional certification like a PhD, MD, or JD - which is to say that it can be acknowledged briefly in the bio title, for example, but should not be a part of the regular usage within articles. My two cents, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest these fall under professional degrees and that we follow the MOS for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles which says "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name." Rather they should be included in text, for example: Howe was a member of the American Society of Cinematographers. This avoids the listing of dozens of initials after names. Plus it avoids trying to determine which degrees, honors, and memberships are important for inclusion and which aren't. — CactusWriter | needles 09:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with CW's suggestion: mention their guild association in bio articles, but otherwise not in infobox entries, etc. This makes sense to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why Use ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) and BSC (British Society of Cinematographers) Acronyms in Wikipedia Film Articles

Hi Ed. My purpose in adding the ASC (or BSC) acronyms after the names of cinematographers and special effects experts in Wikipedia articles is to provide a more complete profile of these film professional's careers, as well as to highlight the unique cinematic achievements attained by these individuals in having being designated ASC (or BSC) members--the top of their profession.

The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) is not a labor union or a guild, but an educational, cultural, and professional organization. Not all cinematographers can place the initials ASC after their names in motion picture credits, and this has become one of the highest honors bestowed on a professional director of photography or special effects expert.

My criteria for inclusion is that if a cinematographer has received this honor anytime during his career, I will add the ASC (or BSC) designation in that person’s Wikipedia biography twice--after their name first appears, and inside his infobox. I will also add the acronym to the person’s name in the Wikipedia cinematography infobox summary of the film, if the person was a actually a member of the ASC (or BSC) at the time of the film’s release. This is done only after verifying that the cinematographer was listed as a member of the ASC or BSC in the actual motion picture credits. By listing this information, Wikipedia's infobox about the film is more complete and professional, and it is almost a mirror image of the screen credit.

I did not start the trend of including the ASC acronym in the cinematographers’ biographical infoboxes. Several infoboxes already displayed the ASC acronym, but I have continued the practice believing it is an excellent idea--and it really looks good. I did start the concept of adding the designation ASC (or BSC) after the cinematographers’ names are first listed in their biographies.

I agree with the opinion of some editors that once the ASC or BSC designations are mentioned at the top of the biography (and in the infobox), they should not be mentioned again in the body of the article. However, I would argue against deleting the ASC and BSC designations at the top and in the infobox, just because there is a mention buried somewhere in the article indicating that the profiled cinematographer belongs to the American Society of Cinematographers or the British Society of Cinematographers. That buried reference is not enough, and can be easily missed by the reader. The ASC (or BSC) acronym after the cinematographer's name cannot be missed.

While I concur with Cactus Writer that under the Manual of Style, acronyms of academic degrees should not be listed after names, the ASC is not an academic degree. It is a unique professional cinema designation. By the way, any ASC members authoring articles or mentioned in the American Cinematographer Magazine (the ASC’s official magazine) are always followed by their ASC designations. I do not propose including the ASC letters each time a name appears but just once at the top of the biography, and in the infoboxes.

If the movie industry considers the ASC and BSC designations significant enough to be prominently displayed in thousands of motion picture credits since 1920 (and in countless television credits since 1947), they should also be considered significant enough to have a prominent place in Wikipedia articles, as a recognition of the unique achievement that these letters represent to these prestigious cinematographers, and to the films they were involved in. Wikipedia prides itself in being thorough, and this is a good example.

Therefore, I urge you not to eliminate the ASC and BSC designations from the cinematographers’ biographies, nor from the corresponding infoboxes. Thank you for your time and consideration.

JAG 98.195.154.176 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many British honors as well which have post-nominal letters, such as OBE, CBE, etc, but the MOS above generally is considered to apply to them as well - in short, honorifics should be confined to the initial mention of the subject name on their article, and nowhere else (unless the conferral of their honor is being discussed). I'm very well aware of the significance of the ASC and BSC honors...as well as the SOC, ACE, MPSE, etc - but these have no place within an encyclopedia article at every mention of a name. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the term ASC can be reasonably argued from a variety of viewpoints -- as a professional degree, an honorary title, an achievement award, or even just denoting membership in a restricted fraternal organization. However, in the end, it does not matter. There are two good reasons why the guidelines of WP (and most every encyclopedia, reference, and news organization) avoids the use of these titles:
1.) It is not the name, nor a part of it. For example, at the top of Sven Nykvist's infobox we find Sven Nykvist, A.S.C. -- which is not the name he was known by. If he was Sven Nykvist, Jr. or Sven Nykvist III, than it's appropriate to tack on abbreviation. However, Sven Nykvist was his name, pure and simple, and the infobox name as well as the article name and title should reflect that
2.) Encyclopedias, news orgs and reference guides try to avoid pushing POV by placing undo emphasis on titles. We also don't want to get into "measuring contests" about which titles, awards, organizations etc. merit addition behind a name, which ones don't, which ones get to be first, and in general -- try to avoid the resulting absurdity in which a name is followed by dozens of abbreviations and acronyms which can promote a false sense of notability. Simply because one cinematographer can add ASC after their name in the credits, does not necessarily make them a greater cinematographer than someone who was simply never invited to join -- and yet that is the implication of applying a title after someone's name. Most of the only times that ASC is used after a cinematographer's name is within the film industry's magazines, journals and press releases and on credits. Fortunately, WP is not a reflection of the film industry and takes a more egalitarian approach to this problem. Simply give the person's name, provide the person's information within the text, then let the reader decide about their greatness.
JAG, I can appreciate that you want the WP articles to provide complete and accurate profiles. That's great. Toward that end, it is of tremendous help if you can add in the information about a cinematographer's degrees, affiliations, awards, honors or memberships. However, it should be added in the text rather than as an appellation. Or, if you wish, you might request the addition of a "professional affiliation" cat. in the infobox. In regard to articles about individual films, you make a good point. Since we do try to provide information on the crew in an "as credited" format, I can understand placing the ASC, BSC, etc. in crew lists to reflect the way the name appeared on-screen. — CactusWriter | needles 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't much mind the "ASC" or "BSC" in a film's infobox cinematographer entry, especially if, as CW points out, the person is billed that way, but I do think having the initials connected to the first mention of the name in the lede of bio articles is a bit offputting (as opposed to mentioning membership in ASC or BSC in words fairly high up in the lede). Where I most object to it, is in the title of the infobox in the bio article. See this as opposed to this.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

National Cinema

How about some section on National Cinemas, e.g. Cinema of France, etc. or some kind of template at least, like the 'how to improve this article' thing for films. Cause I've tried editing these pages before but came to a stump cause I wasn't really sure where to go. Gracias. - Dalta (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the articles linked at {{Worldcinema}}? You could maybe use the stub templates found at Category:Film stubs by country. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the question is more, "why isn't there a style guideline for Cinema of X articles?", at least that's how I'm reading it. This is a good point, because it touches upon something I've been glossing over from time to time - we need to create a host of seperate MOSes for popular topics that we cover which aren't individual films (e.g. awards, festivals, film technology, etc). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I could understand having a style guideline for different cinema, though I've never tried my hand at writing that kind of article. I think that for other aspects of film, such as technology, there may be existing style guidelines. It may be more appropriate to write film technology with a technology-related layout and film organizations with an organization-related layout. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Results of WP:FILM Coordinator Election 3!

The third election to fill the roles of coordinators concluded yesterday! Eight candidates vied for seven slots, and based on the results, the seven coordinators will be Bzuk, Ecoleetage, Erik, Girolamo Savonarola, Nehrams2020, Sephiroth BCR, and Steve. Girolamo Savonarola will continue his role as lead coordinator The results will be published in the upcoming newsletter. We seven coordinators hope to pursue the continuous improvement of WikiProject Films, and remember, non-coordinators are always welcome to help shape discussion! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather their arguments sound like they dislike the actual appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this brings up an interesting question on how to go about tagging articles. I think that if there is initial resistance, it may be ideal to take a three-pronged approach. 1) Explain the tags you've placed, 2) attempt some improvement of the article to reflect what can be done, and 3) leave possible resources that editors could explore to continue the improvement. It may that editors are more receptive to this kind of active involvement (tags or no tags) rather than someone who only stops by for a second. Definitely could convert the time edit warring to making the article better. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Without expressing any opinion whatsoever about whether the tags were accurate or necessary, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why people can't fathom that if a person came to Wikipedia looking for information about this film, and saw this, they would be totally disinterested in going any farther and looking at the article. These warnings are so incredibly off-putting, that they make a wonderful case for my contention that tags should be somewhere else other than at the top of the page -- on the talk page, at the bottom of the article page, on a seperate tab, almost anywhere else.

Each and every Wikipedia article serves as an advertisement for the project and an inducement for people to return. A well-written well-structured, visually attractive article, with good, reliable information will encourage people to come back again and again, while the page above, where the tags take up almost the entire content seen by the reader, is a positive discouragement to people. I'm sure that the intent is to say: look how honest we are, all our faults are in sight for everyone to see, but what it actually says to people is "Look how shitty we are, this article isn't worth your time, go somewhere else."

Please note, that I am not in any way dispargaing the motivation for placing these tags, I'm certain the only purpose was to help provoke a better article -- which, in this case, seems to have happened to some extent -- but we are well past the point where Wikipedia is in its infacy, and we need to be much more cognizant of how we present ourselves to the public. There must be a way that we can keep the goals and purposes of legitimate tagging without defacing articles and driving away our customers! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are all great issues to discuss, and I don't entirely disagree. The problem, however, is that the removing editors were trying to make a point, which had no place at the article-level - criticism of the tagging guidelines and policies is not germane or relevant in the Talk: namespace. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed, your argument seems contingent on the assumption that people will not read a Wikipedia article if these tags exist. Wikipedia is not just there for reading, it is there for editing. Without tags, there would not be exposure to the policies and guidelines to follow for improvement when people come across a subpar article. Not everyone has the time or resources to make the proper improvements, hence the tags. While I am fine with tagging, effort should be made to discuss improving the article. If the article is improved by editors, it can stand proudly tagless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
GS: I agree, and disagree. Policies and guidelines are discussable anywhere and everywhere - they are the air we breathe and the ground we walk on, and nowhere should they be discouraged from being discussed by well-meaning good-faith editors. On the other hand, removing tags without justification is not a good idea. If there is justification to remove them -- as, for instance, someone has slapped on a tag without following up with a discussion on the talk page, or a tag is placed that is obviously not appropriate -- then removing the tag is allowed and should be encouraged (too many people seem to think that once a tag has been placed, you cannot remove it), but simply taking it off without justification, or to be disagreeable - I agree that is not a good thing.

On the other hand, my argument above is that putting that amount of tagging on an article, although certainly allowed by convention and consensus, is also not a good thing, for the reasons I've enumerated. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik - Not that no one will read it, but that some percentage of the potential readers will be turned off and will turn away. I think there is really no doubt about that, people generally come here looking for quick information, and are going to go elsewhere if they are doubtful that the information is going to be reliable.

As for readers vs. editors, if Wikipedia is to be successful (and it is on the way to being that, but not totally there yet), the class of readers will be vastly larger than the class of editors (i.e. readers who become editors), and it is that first class of people, plain-vanilla readers, that we must focus on, after years of being focused primarily on editors. Those who want to edit will find tags that are elsewhere other than the top of the page (a new tab seems like the most likely choice to facilitate that), just as they find now all the other aspects of Wikipedia, through exploration and experimentation. But in the meantime, turning off all those potential customers so that a few potential editors can be lured in seems highly counter-productive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I can see your point, Ed, about wishing the tags anywhere but at the top of the article, what you've also got to consider is the reader who comes to this article thinking they might be getting truly well-cited and encyclopedic information on the subject. To my mind, the tags don't just serve as an incitement to editors to improve the article, they serve as an honest admission to the casual reader that the article they're just about to read may not be up to the best standards. It might even lead said reader into to editing here for the first time, in an effort to improve things. But at the very least, it doesn't see them leaving the place with a false impression that this is the norm. Steve T • C 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You've got to also see that while the tags function as notices, they also have other functions - for example, they create hidden categories which allow editors focused on particular cleanup areas to target and rectify those issues, and additionally, they do have a partial role in limiting Wikipedia's legal liability in the case of the OR and V issues by disclaiming that parts of the article may not be reliable. While that may indeed be somewhat offputting, I find that a grossly deficient article lacking such tags - and thus implicitly claiming to be reliable - is far more offensive and dangerous to the project itself and any conclusions that readers may come to or apply towards real-world application. When I am looking at what is strongly suspected be a faulty product, I want to be informed of that fact, whether that's a webpage or a piece of equipment. It's about full disclosure and due diligence, really. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Steve: Yeah, I know that's one of the purposes, but then, frankly, if that's the case then the design of tags should be a little more geared to that instead of being the real-estate grabbers they are now. Better yet, the top of the article should have a single Caveat lector icon of some sort which directs the reader (and editors) to someplace (a new tab, the talk page) where the problems with the article are listed. What we've got now feels like a quick-fix solution that grew like Topsy, and it's starting to create more problems than it solves. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
GS: Sure, but if the system was something different, new solutions to those problems would come about easily. None of what you mention should be an impediment to making a change to a clunky and inelegant system. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
By all means. But making a stand on an article page is the wrong way for editors to go about it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aggregate as Reception?

I've been out of the loop a bit, so I must have missed something. When did the RottenTomatoes "fresh rating" become a reliable indicator of a film's reception and something worth including reception sections?? To me, that's as useless as putting in Amazon's sales rank or IMDB's user ratings. Why are RTs somehow okay? And ditto the MetaCritic one? Shouldn't we be emphasizing real reception info, like sales and reviews, not something that seems pretty arbitrary? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On its own, the RT and Metacritic information will leave the reader undernourished, but in conjunction with a well-written reception section that summarises reviews from a good spread of critics, I haven't a problem with it. But only if the hard statistics are quoted (e.g. "20% of critics gave the film a positive write-up"), rather than this "fresh" nonsense. In most cases (films made after, say, 2002), the sites give a good indication as to the critical consensus, and aid in ensuring the reception section is fair and balanced. If you're interested in the discussion that led to the change, this can be found here. Steve T • C 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve's thoughts on the matter, and I think it's important to note that Rotten Tomatoes only provides a part of the big picture. In my opinion, RT and Metacritic provide a pretty fair assessment of current films since retrospective opinions can't yet exist. RT and MC have criteria for accepting reviews, so it's not like accepting user ratings at all. From what I've noticed in following Rotten Tomatoes and other coverage of films that have come out the past few years, its percentages are pretty well correlated with the films' accolades. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in MOS:FILM

I have written a draft that would clarify the style guidelines' stance on non-free images in film articles. Please see the draft here and leave any comments or suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with Aaron Sorkin

I know this isn't the most natural Project to approach on this, but you all are my best option for experienced editors, considering the situation. Aaron Sorkin was brought to WP:FAR by a newly-registered WP:SPA who has done nothing but work on Sorkin, and went straight to the Sorkin article after registering. I'm worried about what I'm seeing at FAR. No other editor is involved, and from what I can tell, it looks like a featured article is being slowly dismantled. The new editor is removing citations all over the place, and I'm just not sure about the quality of the editing that is going on there. I could be wrong, but a close look is needed; it almost seems like agenda driven editing, and what was a cited article has had a lot of citations removed and is now littered with cite tags. The original editors are apparently MIA. If anyone can help, please do, because a close look is needed to see if the article is actually being damaged or helped. The tone at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin just feels off, for example, the response when I asked that notifications be done, so my antennae went up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I would almost certainly agree that the edits are agenda driven. It seems as though, for whatever reason, the editor wants the article demoted and is working towards that goal. Among others, Homely Features has said the following things about the article in the above mentioned FAR:
  • could we still de-list this article when we all agree it is not up to par
  • It should never have been an FA and it will take much much much work to ever achieve FA. There is no criticism of any of his works. There is a lot of quirky bits here and there... God damn strange article if you ask me. Time to roast this article and let it earn its way to the top.
  • I believe I am going to have a heart attack if I read anymore of this article. It's terrible.
  • This article is so bad that I am shocked at what I'm finding
  • It is also a very very badly written article.
  • I can't stress enough how much fixing this article needs.
  • The previous state of the article was ridiculous.
Also, please notice the wannabe_kate edit summary of the editor in question. 172 edits on the Aaron Sorkin article and 32 edits on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin since registering on September 20 with virtually no contribution to anything else in any namespace. In a case like this, I would say that an WP:RFCU might not be inapropriate to see if this is someone who knows exactly how to get something they want because they've done it before. He just doesn't come across as a newbie to me, that's all. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems rather transparent that this editor is not acting in good faith. We don't actively promote article demotion, and working towards that end is arguably a highly-evolved form of vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I spent an hour this evening going through a good proportion of the editor's contributions to the article after seeing this message. To save time, here's what I said elsewhere: "What is of concern is the editor's lack of civility, both in edit summaries and at the FAR page. The "hacking and slashing" noted above, and the speed at which this is being undertaken, is also hampering efforts to determine whether the edits are truly constructive. Despite all this, I haven't seen too many edits that I would consider harmful to the article, and those that could be construed as such in isolation do ultimately seem to be part of a wider plan of improvement. I wouldn't endorse every diff I've seen, but I think we've a chance for a net gain here. In short, I'd be content to leave the article be for a short time to see what Homely Features manages to do with it. As far as the FAR goes, and the improper edit summaries, I'll leave the editor another note to see if it gets through that the page isn't for posting a running commentary on his/her improvements, and that nor is it for issuing borderline insults to the article's previous contributor." Which is what I've done. I think a lighter touch might have a chance of benefiting us in this case; let's see what the response is. Steve T • C 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... everyone, aside from Steve, is out to get me because I'm trying to correct what I consider a very malicious and erroneous article? I appreciate being quoted above, I still stand by those statements. I think it should be demoted. Then when the facts are all true, and the sections "Writing characteristics" and "Common themes and motifs in Sorkin's works" are written and properly sourced it can try to achieve Good Article status. Then maybe Featured Article status. I feel bad for all the people who were reading the previous version of the article. It really was bad. I can't sugar coat that at all.Homely Features (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved with this article since I don't have much experience with biographical articles. However, Homely Features, I want to say that civility needs to be practiced. It's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. So yes, sugarcoating is necessary considering what the article has already experienced. I think it's completely possible to outline what needs to be fixed in an article without sounding condescending about it. Your edit summaries could be more focused on what changes you make. If you disagree with what an editor wrote in the article, don't dismiss him or her as useless and not worth contacting. People do make mistakes, and if you are truly in the right about something, simply explain what the source says or what could be elaborated. You have to realize that people are averse to criticism. If you discuss content with an original contributor, you have to be more complimentary upfront then ease into what you think needs improvement. For example, "You did a nice job explaining Sorkin's background with this project. I think, though, that we could expand it a little more. I noticed in pg. 87 of the citation that there was mention of..." You know what I mean? Just my thoughts on that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing cast list

How should I reference the source of a cast list obtained from the film's website if it's not yet released and IMDb isn't accurate? Can you footnote the section header? (such as ==Cast<ref>==) Mjpresson (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say the IMDb page is incorrect. Mjpresson (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been told that putting links or refs into a section header is not a good idea, as it fouls up screen readers. How about putting the ref on either the first cast member listed or the last one? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks, Mjpresson (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume the film has not yet been released, otherwise you wouldn't need the reference. As Ed suggested, just put the reference next to each cast member. What you do is use "ref name", instead of just "ref". If you aren't familiar with that, it will look like this: <ref name="cast">{{cite web|url....}}</ref> ... Use that on the first person. Then, for each succeeding name, all you have to do is use <ref name="cast"/>, and that will pick up the original reference tag each time you use it. It saves you from having to put the entire reference 20 times in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's necessary to put multiple refs, one for each cast member. I would think one ref, at the top or the bottom, with an indication of where the entire cast list came from, would be sufficient. A ref for every actor seems a bit like overkill to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't when you have a "list", and not a paragraph. When you have a paragraph, it's easy (and best) to list the reference once, to indicate you're sourcing the whole paragraph. Unless the cast list is in a table, you cannot look at the article (from the non-editing screen) and know that that single source covers all the names listed. Since, professionally, we don't put "This source covers all the names" out there for the reader to see, it's best to just go ahead and source each individual name. Eventually, time will either give us more information about the characters (with more sources, thus negating the need for the repetitive first one), or the film will come out and we won't need any source for them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, cast lists that are in list form should have a reference on each list item. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For a future film, I don't see why the list can't be prefaced with The following cast members have been confirmed[1], followed by the list. That would appear to resolve the concern, no? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Might as well put it in prose form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
GS: Seems reasonable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Bignole, "might as well", but I think we're both well aware that this is neither likely nor (given the current MOS) enforceable. Pragmatism has to play its part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For the time being I will refname each entry on the list until mainstream information is obtainable. I've seen another one like this on the new Harold and Kumar film but I thought it looked awkward. Another thing, as with that article, now that the cast list for that film is now on IMDB (Harold and Kumar) would it be inappropriate to remove all the footnotes from the cast list? Every footnote is the same multiref and the list looks somewhat outside of the standardized way we do lists in film articles. Mjpresson (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is a new H&K movie that I'm not aware of, both have been released (on DVD), so no citation is really needed. If someone needed to verify that actor X was in the film (unless it was some cameo appearance that was not actually credited) then they can just view the film's credits (primary source).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will try Girolamo's suggestion as a slightly bold experiment as it sounds reasonable too. You have all been very helpful and I thank you for the help. Mjpresson (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And thanks Bignole. Mjpresson (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC) The article I'm speaking of is Embodiment of Evil. Mjpresson (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 contest

A temporary department has been created to run our Wikipedia 0.7 contest. We'd like to improve all of our articles selected for the Wikipedia 0.7 Release Version before it is published in December of this year, and have therefore put together a contest to help accomplish this with a healthy dose of fun added in. Many awards are available for editors who are able to bring any of the 201 articles up in assessment classification, including several service awards for basic participation, barnstars for exceptional levels of participation, and a competition for the prestigious Bronze, Silver, and Gold wiki awards for the top three contributors. We hope to see you all there, and look forward to distributing a healthy amount of "lucre" amongst our active editors! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Action film actors at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on fair-use, er, use

In the production notes for the film Changeling, it says that Clint Eastwood was "shocked" at the physical similarity between an actor and the real life character he plays. With that in mind, do we think that this is enough of a rationale to include this image (or more likely, a variation on it using a better photo of the actor; this was thrown together using the first I could find)? I'm reasonably sure "not", but thought I'd invite a second opinion. Thanks, Steve T • C 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My first question would be, is the left image copyrighted? The right image (of the actor) can probably be attained freely (unless he doesn't wear his hair like that), given the fact that it's such a close up of his face.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you use this image, you will have to describe each component separately. I imagine that the mug shot is public domain, so maybe you could find a way to upload the mug shot first, then create the composite, writing a fair use rationale for the actor (whether it's a screenshot or a production still). I think that if this was possible, you could accomplish this. I don't think that there has really been much comparison of appearances in drama films, so this would be a good addition. (And Bignole, the article says that they looked very much alike when the actor wore make-up.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On the second thought, maybe it would be best to hold off on this composite image. The supporting content is not quite critical commentary, instead coming from the production notes for the film. It would not be a bad comparison to use, but let's see if others make this judgment before using it. After all, there could be some coverage about other aspects of the film that could fit better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
With a bit of luck, maybe some lazy hack will read the article and "note" the similarity themselves, making it suitable for inclusion :o - I'll hold off for now anyway, I have a high-res of the mugshot and no doubt a more suitable screen grab will present itself in time if it is noted, and something better can be thrown together. Cheers, Steve T • C 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the concern here? That the cited information in the article does not come from a third-party source, and is therefore not regarded as "critical commentary"? I'm not sure I agree with such a rigid definition, to be honest. Use of such an image in this context seems perfectly acceptable to me. PC78 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that there are a number of factors involved here. First, production notes are pretty close to the primary source (was he really "shocked", or were they tooting their own horn when it came to historical accuracy?), the one sentence is not very much to warrant an entire non-free image, and there will almost certainly be more coverage coming up as the film debuts. For the latter, there may be coverage addressing another aspect of the film more in-depth, and we can't necessarily stock the article with non-free images. I think that the production notes sentence should be part of additional content about what the actor wore to match the role (prosthetics and what-have-you) -- hopefully more information can be forthcoming. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't quote the word "shocked", nor does it need to to get this point across. On the other hand, the direct quote by Eastwood in the source should be bulletproof, regardless of this being a primary source. If the question being asked is whether or not this source is acceptable in making a case for fair use, then I think the answer is yes. PC78 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Remember that "critical commentary" is a term of art in U.S. Law. It does not equal film criticism. Rather, it is a legal shorthand for section 107 of the copyright act, which talks about "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... , scholarship, or research". Essentially "critical commentary" means criticism or serious commentary. If the image really is significantly helping a serious discussion or presentation of the film, then it is likely to qualify. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I now agree with the others here who reckon the image, or a better one like it, would probably require more than one offhand, possibly biased, comment from a primary source in order to properly qualify for use. I was just being impatient. :) Thanks, Steve T • C 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, if he does look particularly like the character, the image itself substantially verifies that. The actual quote is just added colour. Jheald (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was wondering how this applies to screenshots. It seems pretty evident that if the purposes are reflected in the article, then a screenshot could be appropriate to include. Can an editor argue that a screenshot implicitly falls under such purposes, such as saying that it is important to show what the main character or the cast looks like? Or is it more proven to have these purposes previously established in the article? For example, in an article about a romantic comedy film, an editor wants to include a screenshot of the man and woman from the film. It can be argued that to show them is important, even though nothing in the article talks about their specific appearance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that mere identification of cast members could be construed as being "important". A screenshot should have some purpose that goes beyond this. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think if one was in a court of law, the argument would almost certainly be viable. A still from a film can convey a lot that improves the sense the reader gets of the film, over and above the points made in the text - the look of the characters and the film; costume, style, lighting, production values; chemistry between the actors even. So long as the purpose of the article as a whole is "critical commentary" on the film, I think one could argue that all those cues the image implicitly provides help to more completely achieve that purpose. On the other hand, WP's image police tend to like to see some value of the image spelt out in the caption or the main text. One could discuss whether or not one thinks that's unnecessarily unimaginative as an attitude. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Such things as costume, style, lighting, production, and the other things you mention should be commented on in the article text and supported by reliable sources. If you're just drawing your own conclusions from a screenshot, then that falls under original research. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the reader is able to draw their own conclusions from looking at the photo, regardless of whether there is explicit textual support for it.

Images are not text, and text are not images. Images are not secondary and inferior to text, they are fundamentally different, and tgo require that every image be accompanied by painstakingly sourced information to support what the reader can see for himself is as ridiculous as requiring that every piece of text be accompanied by a verifying image -- after all, how do I know it's true unless I see it?

We need to lighten up a bit here -- we are able to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia because of American fair-use regulations, so let's take advantage of it and not deliberately hobble ourselves out of some need to be pure. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that having supporting text for images is as ridiculous as having every piece of text be accompanied by a verifying image. Like you said, readers can draw their own conclusions about images. The same can apply to editors who add images. I'm sure that any one of us can argue for the inclusion of a particular image. I just find it the best approach to find outside support for images because it minimizes any subjective arguments we may have. (Of course, we're left to arguments about which images to choose for limited display in an article.) Text can be provided on two different levels: direct quotation or paraphrasing. We usually paraphrase on Wikipedia, obviously, and we minimize quotations. Thus, it seems easier to manipulate text to go with images. It's easier to demonstrate with text that a particular shot has been iconic in the history of cinema. Vice versa, non-free images are not free. There's no manipulation possible to mold them for an article. I wish that there was more lenience in terms of fair use, but I've preferred to take a demonstrably workable path in showing outside textual support for images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed my point, Ed. Images most certainy are secondary to text; after all, you can have an article without images, but not an article without text. We don't use images in isolation, they go hand in hand with text, i.e. the image caption. And it should go without saying that images are not a substitute for references. When it comes to non-free images, the image needs to have a purpose, it has to be important or significant within the context of the article. This is not something to be arbitrarily and subjectively determined by a single editor, it needs support from reliable external sources. Take the image that sparked this discussion as an example. You can't use the image by itself to say that the actor resembled the real life person he portrayed; it needs the sourced text that goes with it. PC78 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

TomCruise.com

IP 24.69.160.243 (talk · contribs) has been adding http://www.tomcruise.com/ to the Tom Cruise's film articles. I think the website appears valid, which is why I left it at Tom Cruise, but are its web pages sufficient for inclusion in all the "External links" sections? I hate to see editors indiscriminately peddle one website across multiple articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, Erik. On that basis you could justifiably include the official websites of all people involved in a film, which would do a film article no good whatsoever. If people want to read more about Tom Cruise, they can go to Tom Cruise and take it from there. PC78 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Otherwise, we'll have a dozen links to individual webpages for actors in a film, none of which probably further enhance the information on the page they reside.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Point #13 of Links normally to be avoided advises to avoid linking to external sites "that that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". It further says "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked." Interpreting that, I would say that tomcruise.com is "indirectly related" to a subject of an article when that subject is a Cruise film. Furthermore, if that same website has subpages dealing with individual films, then those specific subpages might be appropriate to link directly from a film article main page. I would remove the link to tomcruise.com from all other articles other than Tom Cruise based on that interpretation.
I hope that makes sense. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The editor actually has been linking directly to the subpages, as seen here. The webpages usually consist of photos, a trailer, and a synopsis. Wasn't sure about how substantial these were. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have looked a little closer. Looking at the specific links though, I still don't think they pass WP:ELNO since they don't add anything unique that the article wouldn't have if it was an FA. I support your decision to remove them, Erik. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SWik78 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FamousLocations.com

FamousLocations.com is unique and presents movie and TV filming locations across the world. Would the site FamousLocations.com be able to be added to Wikipedia as a valuable external link resource? Some links by other users have already been added in other Wikipedia languages. We have appeared in several newspapers recently, for example: The Guardian (UK), The Argus (UK), North Florida News Daily (USA), Huntington News (USA) If you search on Google for FamousLocations.com you will see some of these entries. We have 233,000 movies and 10,000’s of filming locations and the movie pages could be added using a template on all movie/tv shows pages on Wikipedia as a resource or in the External Links section. We have also been featured on Radio stations including last weeks interview on The Team Sports Radio (http://www.theteam1260.com/). Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.58.77 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on previous discussion about this website, I don't think that it is a useful link to standardize across film articles. Locations are not as big of a deal for films compared to cast and crew, box office performance, and critical reception. If there are important locations, they can be detailed in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Body of Lies

Hello, there is discussion for a requested move of Body of Lies (film) to Body of Lies, currently a disambiguation page. Body of Lies (novel), the source for the film, also exists. Editors are welcome to discuss the move at Talk:Body of Lies (film)#Requested move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended scenes and deleted scenes being listed in articles

Are this necessary? I see it as trivial at best, and it's simply not key information about understanding the film. See the recent edits of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for just some examples. The same thing applies to easter eggs (which also seem to popup in articles): how to find them, what they detail and so on. They are also trivia, and shouldn't be in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at MOS:FILM#Home media. Perhaps a compromise could be to find worthwhile external links that readers could follow to find out about the specific extended scenes and deleted scenes? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This dispute here is over whether a very different version of the film merits a plot summary. I'm not going to bother fight. Alientraveller (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones WikiProject created

User:Mister Alcohol has started WikiProject Indiana Jones. Thought'd you'd all like to know. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A good start would be to photoshop the hat to the right colour. :) Steve T • C 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This should really be a task force and not a WikiProject. There are not enough articles to warrant a whole project devoted to Indiana Jones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
True. But I at least fixed the hat for him. :p Steve T • C 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that this is more properly a task force. I've left a detailed note on his talk page, and also notified Lady Aleena of the Media franchises WikiProject. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be a task force, rather a work page. Is it really worth a task force on such a small number of films? Isn't it a bit narrow in scope? WOuld anybody approve of a Free Willy task force? A Rambo task force perhaps? How about we create a Die Hard task force too seems as there have been 4 films. The Bald One White cat 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more than just the movies. There are video games on Indiana Jones out there too, also according to the page there are theme parks, and I believe there is more. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth browsing the category. I don't know of a quick way to count up all the articles under a category and all its subcategories, but it looks like there are a few dozen articles related to Indiana Jones. I don't think that a WikiProject Films task force is that appropriate... under WikiProject Media franchises, it may be better off. I'm not sure if there is a specific need for a film task force. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are video games and the rest as I am well aware, then it is a media franchise and would be better under WikiProject Media franchises if it is really worth it. I fully agree with Erik that I don;t see the use in it for a film task force given its extremely narrow scope. I would completely object to any task force set up by WP:Films for it. There are far more film series which would seem to have a greater scope than Indiana Jones. The Bald One White cat 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can think of one, Superman movie series, would you say that Superman movie series would be good enough for a task force? There are several Superman-related movies, and not just the ones in the main movie series. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that setting up a task force is a worthwhile use of time, effort, or resources if it is only to cover a handful of titles. The appropriate structure for such a limited scope would be topic coordination. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

African task force

How about an African cinema task force? While not as developed as the rest of the world, it's still an important topic. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to create it if there is sufficient support. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors interested in joining

  1. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Second opinion on proposed changes to List of films about the RMS Titanic

I had intended to re-write this list so that it conforms to criteria set out in WP:MOSDAB since list articles like this one really are disambiguation pages of sort. What I'm mainly refering to in WP:MOSDAB is the removal of pipe-linking in the links (except to italicize part of the link, ie, name of film as per the subsection on WP:PIPING) as well as removal of all other wikilinks except links to the film articles being listed/disambiguated (see WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries). I wanted to see if anyone thinks this is not a good idea or if there is a precedent to this sort of thing.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unknown movie

So I want to find an article of a movie that I think I can work on, but I cannot remember the name. In the plot, a gang travels from the outskirts of a city to inside of the city for a large gang meeting, but someone dies, chaos ensues, and the gang has to reach their home. This sound familiar to anyone? -PatPeter 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps The Warriors (film)? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you could find two better places to ask this -- the entertainment reference desk and IMDb's boards. One of the boards, I think, specializes in identifying films based on details like yours. Not sure which one, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have community discussion about whether or not external links should be used in film infoboxes. Discussion has taken place at the infobox's talk page about the merits of the external links. The infobox currently has three fields for external links: IMDb, Allmovie, and official website. These links are nearly always replicated in the "External links" section of film articles. The redundancy has been brought up by outside editors every once in a while, and with the latest discussion, I think that we should seek a lasting answer. My position is that the "External links" section is more than adequate for having these links as well as other links, but my issue with removing these fields is that it would leave some film articles without such links if they were not duplicated. What do others think about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your concern. Are you saying that if we remove the field then people won't put the link to those places in an EL section? I don't believe that will occur, or, at least won't be a big issue. It's so common seeing those links in the EL section that anyone starting one will probably know to include them, and if they don't I'm sure that there are plenty of us that surf random film pages that we'll notice it and add them in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. When I do massive editing and go through a lot of articles, I've noticed that there is a percentage of articles that have the imdb_id= field filled out, but no {{imdb title}} in the "External links" section, if there is even one. I think that the links should shift to the sections, but I also think we need to see what kind of strategy we can pursue to adequately clean up the redundancy (depending on the consensus of this discussion). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the reason for this is that there have been editors who felt the two links were redundant so they'd remove them from the EL section. If consensus agrees the links in the infobox should go, maybe someone could write a bot that can remove the tags and check for one in the EL and add if missing? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering about. I don't have any bot experience, so I am not sure how capable one could be. Is it possible to have a bot that checks for {{imdb title}}, and as it removes the ID from the infobox's imdb_id= field, it plugs the number into the template as well as copying the title? I also ask about copying the title because when a film article has a disambiguated title, a template with only the IMDb ID will process something like Doomsday (film) at the Internet Movie Database. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking one could do it, from what I've seen other bots do. I think the big issue would be getting someone to code it up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted in the other discussion, I agree. I do not think there is any need to have the IMDB and AllMovie guide links in the film infobox (or any other non-official website). In addition to being redundant and, to me, adding no real value to the infobox particularly when IMDB is rejected as an RS, it seems to give extra emphasis or special focus to those two sites over other legitimate ELs. I have not seen any other media project have these particular kinds of links in their infobox, and it seems to be something unique to the film project, and not necessarily in a good way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before (it probably has; I've only been here 14 months). Anything that declutters the infobox, giving more prominence to the high-value information, is fine by me. External links are best placed in the appropriate section. Steve T • C 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it could be there and not the EL section because those particular editors feel that it is redundant to list them both. To answer your question/statement about how to devise a strategy to clean up the redundancy, I think we could probably create a bot that would clean up this. Something that would remove all the external link fields from the infoboxes of articles and replaces them with their http... counterparts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Almost every film article will have an IMDB link -- in fact, it would be hard to get an article about a film past notability concerns if it didn't have a listing at IMDB. Given that, having an IMDB listing in the infobox is simply a matter of convenience for our readers, so they can more easily get to IMDB to find the kind of information that many of our articles (especially stubs) do not have. Convenience is also the reason for duplicating the IMDB link in the EL section -- there's no reason to make the reader go back to the top of the article at that point. So I would argue for keeping the IMDB link in the infobox.

After that, if we were going to have another link, it should be TCM and not AMG, but I don't see a compelling reason to have either, so I'd be happy enough if IMDB was the only link.

Here's another, and I think better suggestion -- how about replacing the IMDB infobox link with an internal wikilink that goes directly to the "External links" section, where the reader can choose which site to go to? This would serve the same function as the IMDB link, but without us "endorsing" one site over another. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same thing as being able to click "External links" in the table of contents? :) It's not exactly drawing a bead of sweat to jump via TOC as it is arranged systemwide. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note on the struck out part, but an IMDB link does not speak to notability at all. There have been several films that were deleted or merged because all they had was an IMDB listing. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Collectionian: It's not that an IMDB listing confers notability, it's the other way around, that it's practical impossible to be notable without an IMDB listing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I can see I'm the first one to disagree with this. Anyway, I find the link to IMDB useful because when I look up a movie on Wikipedia, I can get straight to IMDB, that's convenient. It does belong to the infobox in my opinion, sure I can go straight to the site and search there, that won't be a problem, but I still like going to a Wikipedia article and then to a IMDB.
My arguments suck, don't they? Ah well, I at least tried... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, about, again, convenience. Depending on the article, the bottom of the infobox will generally be below the bottom of the ToC, and in stub articles, there *is* no ToC (but, of course, for stubs the EL section will be right there.) It's just providing a service to not make the reader bounce all around if it's not necessary.

I guess I'm not understanding your concern here. Are we looking at change for the sake of change? What's the philosophical purpose of changing things? How are we providing more functionality or better information resources by making a change? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If we were concerned about EL convenience, the entire section would be at the top of the article. External links are not meant to be the primary focus of articles, or even a major focus. Why elevate any of them to the infobox at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it is more about addressing feature creep. I don't remember when Allmovie was added to the infobox, but I don't think it was there when I first began editing. It seems unreasonable to put these three specific sites forward when we could argue for easy-linking to box office performance, reviews, or other sites with special content about the film. It's a matter of herding the links to one spot to let the reader pick fairly. (Of course, we could argue about the order of these external links...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If excluding them from the infobox means the links will all be included in one place, then I do support this idea. Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find I am in agreement with TheBlazikenMaster. Certainly for stub articles, the External links section is close at hand, and yes, one can click the External links link and get to it quickly, but for the longer film articles it is a looooooong way down to External links and often there can be dozens upon dozens of El's to search through for IMDB. I personally like the professional look given an infobox that has a quick link to IMDB or Allmovie. And too... there are editors that feel IMDB is so very untrustworthy (yes, pros and cons for the specificly different informations being souced) that some may simply delete an IMDB link in "externals" as un-nessessary and against guideline. I myself am one that feels the links are fine as long as they information is uncontentious and has other sources as support... but others are not as forgiving. I might almost suggest moving the External links and reference box further up in an article so as to more quickly be studied and searched. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best to remove all three of the links and divert them to the external links section to avoid redundancy and cut down on the size of the infobox. If we're not concerned about the length of the infobox, removing the links would leave room to add other parameters if we believe them to be relevant to the infobox. I've made numerous edits in the past removing the same imdb link that is found in both the infobox and external links section, but it was then again readded later because editors were unaware of the the link's presence in the infobox. If we can get a bot to fix these all for us, it will make for a much better transition. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Michael, I am not sure length is an argument because the table of contents is available for navigating to a specific subtopic or outside information ("Further reading" or "External links"). Navigation seems like a small issue. I'm also uncertain about your argument that editors would remove IMDb from the "External links" sections... if they were so rampant, they'd target the infoboxes' IMDb fields, too. I think we need to remember that Wikipedia articles are supposed to cover the films in detail, and external links supplement that coverage. Some have become accustomed to links being right there, but there also have been some who wonder why the links are repeated. It seems to me that an additional click on "External links" in the table of contents is worth the fairness of having IMDb, Allmovie, and the official site with the other links (if they were not already there in the first place). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Response to Erik Okay...here's my thoughts.... I believe the IMDB link in the Infobox serves an immediate purpose at that location that improves Wiki. There is information included in the Infobox that is rarely covered in the article. Having that IMDB (or Allmovie)link right there makes sense. ANd too, having that link there is also an accepted use of the IMDB website. I have seen too many editors remove IMDB from external links as being contrary to WP:RS to believe that having it there and there alone will be for the best of Wiki. And too, many film articles (see the list at films and television) are still waiting for Infoboxes... but that's a different story. What I believe would be absolute best would be to have the link in the Infobox if the Infobox is available, and in the external links only if an Infobox does not exist... with a caveat to editors that there are occasions where the use of the IMDB link is acceptable, even if not "generally" considered an reliable source, and the automatic removal of such is NOT policy. So.... in both places is fine by me. But in an available Infobox seems the best way to present a speedy link to those informations IN the Infobox that are not in the article... and if the Infobox has not been included, having the link temporarily in externals should be fine. Those of us in this discussion have a pretty fair idea of a value (limited as it is) of an IMDB link... but others may not and again, I have seen such links deleted in the name of policy if found in externals. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The style guidelines identify IMDb as one of the primary links to have in the "External links" sections. If editors are removing them, the style guidelines can be referred to, and discussion can take place here at WT:FILM. If the editors were so driven, wouldn't they remove imdb_id= and the ID from the infobox, too? It does not seem like a grave concern to me, based on my personal experience. I've seen many, many additions of IMDb, but I cannot really recall an incident in which IMDb was being removed outright. Repeating the link does not seem to defend against removal if an editor were so inclined, and no external links in the infobox is only a slight hindrance to navigation. The large majority of Wikipedia articles have "External links" sections, so if readers don't see links in the infoboxes, they can check these sections. Such a systemwide change will obviously throw people off a little, but they will realize the most consistent location of links to supplementary content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should be a little bit more clear about my point. My point is it's easy to go to a movie page on this site and then click the infobox to get straight to the movie site. But it won't be as easy if I have to get to the bottom of the page. I hope I cleared some confusion I could have been making. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

N2020: It's not always unawarness -- I think the link should be in both places -- again, there's no reason to force the reader to go back to the top when they've reached the EL section and decide they want to go to IMDb for more info. It's not a resource drag -- Links 'R' Us, after all, and we should be servicing the needs of the reader.

Feature creep and length of the infobox are more of a concern. Here's what I think, if no one's going to be reasonable and pick up on my idea of an external link shortcut instead of a link to a specific site, I'd vote for IMDB only in the infobox; if that can be done only if IMDB is not allowed in the EL section, then I'd vote for no external link in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 19:42, September 29, 2008

I agree that it should be on two places, after all, it is a famous site. (you guys say that anyone can edit it, but can you guys tell me the reason why I couldn't fix invalid information I found?) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the reliability of IMDb is an issue here. I think that the link should exist for cast/crew information as well as what else the website has to offer. I just disagree with it and the two other links being propped up in the infobox. It exaggerates the importance. If anything, IMDb is probably the most useful of the three. Allmovie seems pretty basic, and the official site is always going to be promotional in nature. It just seems like we could put all of them in one spot, with no repeats, and the reader can choose where to navigate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the notability of IMDB as a source at all is the key issue here. IMDB should not be used as a reliable source for information, as has been already discussed multiple times in depth at Template talk:Infobox Actor/archive1 Erpbridge (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are for article-building. Having IMDb in the infobox is not equal to using IMDb as a source for the article. It's an external link that's not supporting anything specific in the article. I don't think IMDb should be cited in the article body, but it is acceptable as a go-to link. I highly, highly doubt that you are going to sway a majority of people to exclude IMDb in its entirety from Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason I started this dialog was the fact that adding IMDB_id as a link has been rejected many times in Template:Infobox Actor, and the reason given for that link addition being rejected was because IMDB was not deemed a reliable source. Since IMDB was not a reliable source, they have removed the imdb_id link from the template. However, over on Template:Infobox Film, the link imdb_id exists, and has been defended against removal, stating IMDB as being a reliable source. It seems a bit of a double standard in the way the two are being treated, where one is rejecting the link to IMDB as not being a RS, yet the other stating the link to IMDB is a RS and uses that as a defense. It seems that some sort of consensus should be made: Should imdb_id be kept in the template box on both templates, or should it be removed, and what is the reasoning? Also, is IMDB a RS? Are links considered as unreliable sources worthy of being included ANYWHERE in a Wikipedia article? Erpbridge (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume that even though IMDb is excluded from Template:Infobox Actor, IMDb still exists in the "External links" sections of actors' articles. I don't think that WP:RS directly applies to evaluating external links. WP:EL says, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." For sourcing, it points to WP:RS and WP:CITE. This is not to say that external links should not be evaluated at all, but there is less scrutiny involved because it's not directly being used in Wikipedia articles. IMDb has a lot of features, such as forums, so it works in a different capacity than Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The IMDB link provides a larger focus on the film in the areas Wikipedia doesn't cover. As an external link, it is being used as a general place readers can visit for a more comprehensive look at other aspects of the film (such as the trailer, ratings, the entire cast, posters, etc.) Like Erik said, it is not being promoted as a reliable source by being included, but will be another area that readers can go to after reading the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ed that we shouldn't trim these links to the infobox only. It is more because the standard format of a Wikipedia article is to have an "External links" section after the article body for accessing supplementary information. Ed, though, I'm not sure why we need a shortcut. Doesn't the "External links" anchor in the table of contents suffice? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Ed Fitzgerald, edit conflict) That's great, I've never seen "N2020" before! I do recognize that it is not always new editors/IPs being unaware, but it is for the majority of the ones that I have interacted with, when I have asked them why they kept readding it. It will be easier to require that we keep the three links in the external links section then it would be to prevent people from adding them to both places (since we could just remove the external links parameters from the infobox). Once the infobox is modified, editors could then only add it to the external links section. We do have the table of contents that can easily guide readers to where the links would be at if they're at the beginning of the article. Once a reader is at the bottom of the article, there would be no reason for them to scroll up (if it's a long article) to find the links, as they would already be present in the external links section. I don't think we need two of the same links twice in the same article, and I believe the point of this discussion is to determine where we want them to be. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the entire picture, it seems that, at some small expense to reader usability, eliminating all the external links from the infobox is the best course of action. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the other comments that it's great for navigation and information. While I hear you're saying that reliability is not a significant reason to have it removed, because we're talking about a film, the "facts" about it on IMDb are significantly more verifiable (release date, box office, etc) than biographical information (like Julianne Moore's first husband), and having external links is part of the internet. —Fitch (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Fitch, we are not at all discussing the total exclusion of IMDb from film articles. IMDb often appears twice in film articles -- once in the infobox, and again in the "External links" section. We are talking about trimming the redundacy. Is it a problem to only keep the link in "External links"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think it will be a big problem either way (whether to include the link in the infobox or eliminate it), I don't think redundancy is a good reason to do it. Strictly, all of the information in the infobox should be redundant as it is just a summary of the main points from the article in a clear, standardised format (similar to the way the article lead is a summary and will repeat information from the rest of the article). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say in retrospect, that this does seem like a good idea - trimming a lot of fat just where it isn't needed, frankly. (I say this having been instrumental in including AMG back in the day...well, we all learn as we go along!) I really don't think that we need too much hand-wringing about "losing" any links - first of all, the amount of template-based EL-linkage across all of the articles is of widely-varying quantity per-article, and secondly, I while marginally useful, none of those links are truly essential for any wiki-based evaluation - even FAC, I dare say. Therefore, my simple, quick, and dirty recommendation, is simply to remove infobox support for those parameters. This will turn them off without requiring anyone to re-edit the infobox; they'll just gradually be removed by random editors over time concurrently with other infobox-based edits. Concerned editors for particular articles who notice a lack of linkage for one site or another presumably will rectify the error in the EL section of the article. If someone really is up for extra credit bot-design, then this also is an optimum solution, since the parameter calls will still exist within the articles - they just will be non-functional vestiges. And those would be my thoughts for the moment, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much to add to what's been said above. In a nutshell I support the removal of the IMDb and Allmovie links in the infobox, but think that Official Website should be retained. I agree with the arguments made above regarding the redundancy of these links, but also believe that the reliability of these sites is also a factor - including them in the infobox gives them a sense of endorsement and legitimacy of which they are undeserving. It's also rather arbitrary; why not include other websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, TCM, or others? Ultimatelty the purpose of the infobox is to provide a summary of salient facts about a film, not to serve as a repository of convenience links to external websites. Official Websites are different of course, and such a link is a standard feature in infoboxes across Wikipedia, hence my reluctance to have it removed here. PC78 (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In what other infoboxes are official websites commonly seen? Obviously, official websites are acceptable as external links, but my question is, why the redundancy? Sometimes the websites are bastions of film information, sometimes they just want you to sign up for the latest superhero sweepstakes. I guess my thinking is that the Wikipedia article comes first, and the supplementary content comes second. I don't know how widely this applies, but it seems that when you Google a film title, you will usually get the Wikipedia article, the IMDb page, and the official website in the top ten results. In addition, Wikipedia is primarily about third-party sourcing, so I don't know about putting forward a primary source at the get-go. I think that if we had to choose to cut it down to one link, I'd rather have IMDb than the official website, however questionable IMDb may be at times. (Just a hypothetical action.) So I guess, again, the same argument applies, why seek the redundancy at all? We're still providing access to all these websites, it's just that the Wikipedia article comes first a little more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The main ones I can think of are the television infoboxes (and, if I remember correctly, it allows for two official sites), and company/website infoboxes. It wasn't something I considered in this discussion at first, but I do agree that the official site links in the infobox are an extra amount of redundancy. While its an "official" site, it is still giving too much emphasis on an external link when ELs are traditionally the least important aspect of an article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "official" websites: There's a slight tendency (thankfully not too widespread) for this entry to be used for unofficial or semi-official websites, so I wouldn't mind seeing it go away. (On the other hand, I primarily work on non-contemporary films, made before the web existed, so that probably skews my sample.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll put my comment this side of the section break, since it's a direct response to what Erik says. You'll find that many infoboxes have an "Official website" parameter: {{Infobox Person}}, {{Infobox Actor}} and assorted biographical infoboxes, {{Infobox Settlement}}, various company/website/buisness infoboxes (as noted above). The justification, I suppose, is because it's a primary source; third-party sourcing is only relevent where referencing facts about an article - wasn't that a distinction you made above? With regards to redundancy, the infobox is by it's nature a summary of key points that should already be in the article, so it's really a question of whether or not you think such a link is significant enough for inclusion. I don't advocate "cutting it down to one link"; what I do advocate is retaining the "official website" link by itself or at a push getting rid of the lot. But I do see it as distinct from the other links, and believe it should be considered separately. PC78 (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep It has become customary to link them at both. I can see why some might think it redundant but I;ve always found it useful, particularly if the article is a long one and it can be quickly accesse din the infobox. If any should be deleted I;d rather see the external link removed rather than the one in the infobox The Bald One White cat 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I really agree with you. But shouldn't that comment be poseted in running tally? I'd treat it as a section break too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems a little circuitous to say keep it because it's been kept, I think. Like I've said before, the table of contents is always there to jump to any point in an article regardless of length, including the "External links" section. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the external links should be fairly grouped. IMDb is certainly not consistently more important than Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo. There are different strengths to be had, but it seems unfair to put IMDb ahead other links that are just as useful. It's not realistic to load the infobox with even more links to compensate for that, hence the suggestion to keep them all at the universally designated spot. I mean, if it's a concern to remove imdb_id= when articles lack {{imdb title}} in "External links" sections, perhaps we can pursue a drive to clean that up before making such a change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Running tally

Just to tally up the preferences as of October 1 14, 2008:

Since the discussion is long, just wanted to consolidate figures and see where we stood so far. If there is anyone who stands differently than I perceived above, let me know. I've also added mention of this discussion in the coming newsletter to facilitate more community involvement since this has systemwide implications. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [Updated with one editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)]

How can there be only two editors that prefer it in the infobox? Only two? I don't believe it, are you sure you counted correctly? Well, maybe you did, but it's pretty hard to believe that only two editors prefer it in the infobox. Anyway, if anything, I think it should be removed from the external link section, I can agree that two places in one article is too much. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That was how I judged the responses so far. I may not have gotten it perfectly, but feel free to check the discussion above. I'm not sure if keeping these links only to the infobox is the answer. When weighing expectations, people will expect more for these links and other links to be in the "External links" section. I am sure there is probably a percent of people who will expect infobox links, too, but I think it is likely that they will check the "External links" section, since it is a standard section across many Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I clarified my position above just now. I believe Infobox IMDB links best serve Wiki, as it is a quick conect to information in the Infobox that are themselves rarely covered in the article. If no infobox is available, then an IMDB link in externals is fine until someone adds the infobox. Once the Infobox is on board, the link from external should be removed. However, and my greatest worry, is that hearfelt editors that state IMDB is not an RS have deleted it from externals, perhaps not understanding that externals are not being used for reference citing and have a modified standard. Does that clear up my postions? Or lead to more confusion....? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
And one last thing... is important to also keep Wiki "user-friendly" for the non-wiki-savy citizen that browse the pages. The average Joe does not know not care about the hows and whys of external links or references or in-line cites, etc., etc., etc. Having the Link in the infobox makes sense for universal use of Wikipedia by non-Wikipedians. That is really an important point to remember. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that in terms of "user-friendly", the external links are more obvious than an infobox link - I mean, it's a whole section dedicated to links, it's titled so, and often contains a handful of them. As for the EL/RS issues, to my knowledge, no one has ever made the point that EL links need to conform with our RS policy - they merely need to be relevant and the EL guidelines delineate this in clear detail. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to the uninitiated (and i was so once myself), the infobox, being right up top and at hand, lends itself to the visual connection between the information contained therein and the link to IMDB. The external links section, navigable by contents box or no, does not have that same feeling of immediacy to the information being connected, and so feels disassociated. The Infobox is more convenient and available to the non-Wiki-savvy who visit the encyclopedia. I myself have personal knowledge and experience with ALL external links (including IMDB) being removed from articles (not to be rehashed here). I wish to prevent that happening elsewhere whether through a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the guidelines concerning ELs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Michael, I responded to your concerns above. Feel free to continue the discussion below this message (treating "Running tally" as a section break). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I do understand what you tell me, but if one looks through the eyes of those unskilled or unschooled in procedures... having links handy and right where they have a relationship might seem the better way to go. Wiki is more for them than it is for us. We are volunteers who do what we can to make Wiki easier to use for others. If there is an Infobox, let it have its related links. If there is not one, let the related links be in externals until an Infobox becomes available. This improves Wiki's usefullness to the non-wikipedians. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but this seems to make the existing links more predominant than any other link that could exist in the "External links" section. It seems like artificial standardization of these three with no room for leveling the playing field (as opposed to room in the EL sections). Like I mentioned to Blofeld above, websites like IMDb and AMG are not going to be consistently useful compared to other potential external links, whether they're the staple links or an incredibly informative analysis of a film. Keeping external links in the EL sections makes everything fair. There are certainly a lot of things one could do to make an article more useful, like having quick links to Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, and what-have-you at the top, but on Wikipedia, the article comes first. Any other website is not impossibly out of reach with the quickness and ease of search engine results and the availability of the table of contents to jump right to the external links if needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this change and would prefer keeping the links to IMDB and Allmovie in the film infobox. It is quite convenient and has been helpful to me in the past with ease of research - and I also agree with the rationale provided by others, above. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there inconvenience in accessing the anchor link to the "External links" section where IMDb, AMG, and more useful links reside for research? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is inconvenience. It is more convenient to retain both options, which would be the most preferable way to go, IMO. Cirt (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you not think that this presupposes the importance of IMDb, AMG, and the official website over any other kind of external link that rests at the bottom of the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It's just an added convenience. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, I doubt we're going to change each other's minds. :) I was wondering, hypothetically, do you think that the infobox could be more convenient with the addition of links like Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, or some other useful link? Or is three the most reasonable number? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The current convention is fine. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

I will admit my inexperience in implementing project-wide consensus, but so far we have nine editors arguing for compressing the external links to the "External links" section and three editors who want to keep them. This isn't a typical XFD discussion, and I think it's rare to get 100% agreement on project-wide or system-wide changes. There is not much room in the discussion for compromise, it seems... the links go in the infobox or they don't. A thought is to have an outside, independent editor (of good standing) evaluate our discussion and share his or her perspective of the consensus so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus has pretty much been reached, but if you can think of anyone independent to take a look at this, I'm down with that. Whom do you suggest? Or... we could just do it. Maybe a statement here saying, "this is the consensus we've reached; if no compelling arguments or opposition turns up in the next three days we'll make the change." Steve T • C 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
...and three editors who want to keep them. Make it two, I personally don't care anymore. I more commonly go to the site itself than going to the page from here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the above tally is a bit oversimplified, as not everyone's comments can be summed up as neatly as "remove all" or "keep all". But if that's the choice we're left with, then I would much rather remove them. PC78 (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I only tallied it up because I think everyone involved in the discussion are editors who have worked with film articles often, so there is not really a weak argument. I also included the discussion in the newsletter, but I don't know how many people actually followed the link and noted the discussion. The discussion has a lot to do with presentation and navigation, and there's nothing really clear-cut in policies or guidelines to make such a decision. That's why I was requesting for an outside editor to weigh in. If we do go through with the change, I want to at least ensure that the affected articles won't be deprived of IMDb, AMG, and the official site. Anyone familiar with what a bot can do to help? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that I am coming to this discussion a bit late but here is my two cents. I don't really disagree with the arguments for removing them. However, there is one place that I have found having the link in the infobox useful. When you go to a page for a film like The Last Emperor or Gandhi which are quite long it is very convenient to be able to get to the link to IMDb without having to scroll to the bottom of the page. Now I know that this is small potatoes in the scheme of things but I will add my name to the keep section. I will also volunteer to help remove them should the consensus go the other way. I would suggest that, should the consensus be to remove them, that we announce this in the next film newsletter before we start to remove them to try and minimize backlash from those editors who watchlist their favorite films vigorously defend having them in the infobox and remove the link from the Ext. link section if it is already in the infobox (I see this happen quite often.) I know that we won't be able to please every editor in this situation but this might help a bit. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the consensus currently is for removing them. As I think I stated before, the easiest way to do this would be to "turn off" the parameters in the infobox template - this would not require any changes to the individual articles. Presumably, a bot could then find all of the articles with the parameter and move the site down to the External links section, but I'm not well-versed in that, so I'll consult about the best way to achieve the desired effect. If anyone has any objections or suggestions - to the method and my conclusions, not the issue which has already been discussed - please let me know. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Marnette, I agree that we need to make sure that there is a good transition. I was hoping to find a way to set up a bot to fix these external links; I asked here, but there has not been a response. It is a good idea to mention it in the next newsletter; we can identify the {{imdb title}} and {{amg title}} templates to use in the "External links" sections. I doubt that everyone will be happy with a systemwide change, but I think that in the scheme of things, it's not devastating -- the links themselves aren't totally excluded from the article. It was convenient to have a link in the infobox, but there's a few that would be convenient to have, too -- who's to say that it wouldn't be nice to jump to a film's Rotten Tomatoes page or Box Office Mojo page from the get-go? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Not so fast! IMDb including IMDbPro.com is the most respected source among professional filmmakers. it doesn't make any sense to compare it with Rotten Tomatoes page or Box Office Mojo like suggested above that are targeted to general public for their entertainment. My take on the question: keep per The Bald One and remove the things from external links section if felt necessary.--Termer (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but IMDB is not a considered a reliable source HERE at all and as IMDB Pro requires a subscription is isn't considerable at all. Box Office Mojo is. Nor should the infobox show such blatant favoritism to two specific external sites. And frankly, IMDB is not that useful a source once the article has any decent amount of content - it does not add significant value to the article, and certainly not enough to warrant calling attention to it immediately. Neither does AMG. No other infoboxes do this kind of non-neutral EL pushing. At most, others have the official site, that's it. Convenience is also not a valid reason to keep it. If that was all we cared about, the infoboxes would also have nice order links to our favorite retailer sites as well, make it easier to find it in stores and all. And every last EL in the EL section would just be moved up to the infobox to make it easier, why have a separate section at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I very much doubt that IMDb is "the most respected source among professional filmmakers". For the film articles I tend to work on it's next to useless, and there are much better alternatives. PC78 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Who exactly is not considering IMDB to be a reliable source HERE? In case anybody has any doubts, please feel free to take the question to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and I'd be sure to get back to you on that-one. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, all of Wikipedia. You feel free to ask over there, or just read the archives, or any attempted FA trying to pass it off as one. Consensus has agreed multiple times over, IMDB is NOT a reliable source, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A cursory search of the archives of either this talk page or the RS noticeboard will demonstrate that the IMDb has consistently been rejected as a reliable source. See also the failure of a citation policy for IMDb on WT:CIMDB. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In respect to WP:RS please make a difference between primary tertiary and secondary sources. For WP purposes IMDB is considered a primary tertiary source, see WP:sources, it doesn't mean its unreliable, only that articles on WP have to be based on secondary sources. Meaning, you can't just make an article based only on IMDB like you shouldn't make an artilce on WP that is only based on Encyclopedia Britannica since it is also a primary tertiary source like IMDB. The fact is IMDB gets cited and quoted in the restricted form of "internet movie database" @ google scholar 2,890 X and has 743 returns @ google books. None of the books on the list have questioned IMDB's reliability by itself. Please anybody don't hesitate to back up the claims about IMDB by referring to any books published, any professional film-making sources, film historians etc. out there who have questioned IMDB reliability? --Termer (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PPS. in the context according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact and that's the only functionality IMDB has and should have on WP.--Termer (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is NOT a primary source at all, except for an article about the site itself. It is not a primary source for any film anywhere. That would be the film itself and officially released publications, press releases, and sites. IMDB is none of the above. Being cited and quoted in other works does not make it reliable here either. Wouldn't be the first books to use sources we do not considered reliable. And, quite frankly, it doesn't matter if those books question IMDB's reliability or not. The fact is that Wikipedia does NOT use user-edited materials as reliable sources. There have been books and articles that use Wikipedia as a reliable source, but we do not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source for use in other articles within the site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I meant to say a tertiary source since that is what for example Encyclopedia Britannica is as well. And in that context Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.--Termer (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't that either, and, again, consensus has agreed multi-times over that it is not a reliable source. -- ;;Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is and WP:consensus can change any time and currently there isn't one on the subject.--Termer (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a major consensus on it, you just don't seem to want to accept or acknowledge it. Sure, consensus can change anytime, but it hasn't changed on this topic in any recent discussion nor has it changed for months (if not years). Nor is this the place to change it. Standing consensus is IMDB is not a reliable source. Unless/until you change that, your claim that it is is unsupported. Further reading: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IMDb (a current discussion discussing whether to RfC it and be done with it which may be of interest to the project as a whole), Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are IMDB and personal websites reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Amazon.com a reliable source? (which has a slew of links to other previous discussions) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a minute, if consensus said "remove from infobox" how come thousands of movie articles still have it there? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Because Termer argued against the edit protected request to remove it, so the admin refused to do the edit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Because anybody who has bothered to take a look at the discussion above can see that there is no consensus of any kind on the subject. Sorry for pointing it out so that it was also confirmed by "the admin".--Termer (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This is starting to verge on IDHT... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed (also all off the topic of the links being in the box and into whether IMDB is RS which are separate issues). :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we're agreeing on something! I wouldn't go so far like Girolamo Savonarola by calling a false presentation of WP:consensus a IDHT like it was attempted at template page. Although in case anybody likes to challenge the reasons why IMDB ID was included in the infoboxes in the first place, after all the decision had to be based on a consensus as well, the arguments forwarded should be better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also the argument about reliability of the facts in IMDB in it's true sense has no basis whatsoever. It is a valuable source that doesn't mean it should be blindly trusted and in that sense it differs in no way from any other source out there.--Termer (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, I'm pretty sure that IDHT was talking about you, not me. And thus far, the only reasons given to keep the links in the infoboxes have been WP:ILIKEIT because its "convenient" to certain editors. Whether IMDB is a reliable source is, really, irrelevant to the issue of whether there should be a link in the infobox or not. Its a separate discussion and has nothing to do with the infobox nor ELs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone was talking about me? Please avoid comments on the contributors in the future.--Termer (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Film list up for deletion

The list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is up for deletion here. Lugnuts (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Round 8 eh? Wonder it it is the most frequently AfDed (and kept) article there is...or are there more?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this one is the most nominated article for deletion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow...scary that it took 18 to actually delete it! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Daniel Brandt is in second place with 14. And this is actually 11 for this page. See here for a list [2] Darrenhusted (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Like I said in the nomination, I believe that page will beat that record, and judging by how often it gets nominated, I believe it won't take long at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bloopers

Does a section on bloopers have a place in film articles? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unless they are otherwise exceptional. Bloopers are generally considered trivia, and in some cases may verge upon NPOV/NOR issues. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:C-Class Korean cinema articles

Can someone in the know weigh in with an opinion on this CfD? I've tried to have this category deleted on the grounds that neither us nor WP:KOREA uses it, but speedy deletion has been declined twice. PC78 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest did you try CSD C1? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, as that doesn't apply to project categories. I used the generic {{db}} tag and stated my reasons. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely there is no difference, a category is a category is a category. If it is empty then it should have been CSD C1. But I think your problem was the hangon, not the CSD used. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Such categories are prone to becoming periodically empty, but it doesn't mean that they aren't being used and need to be deleted (there are currently no articles in Category:A-Class film articles). That's not the case here, though - the category is just plain unused by either WikiProject, though I seem to be having a hard time convincing others that this is the case. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#External links revisited. This is a proposed cosmetic change to the infobox which will leave these links intact, but cut down on space and clutter which was one of the concerns raised in the previous discussion. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of khmer film

This recently created article appears to duplicate List of Cambodian films, so I have tagged it for a merge accordingly. I'm mentioning it here should someone feel the inclination to tackle it (which I don't at the moment). PC78 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Filmyear

Members of the film community will, I think, be interested in this notice just received on my talk page. (A reminder that "Filmyear" - shortname "fy" - is a template that expands "{{fy|XXXX}}" to "[[XXXX in film|XXXX]]". It's a shortcut for linking to "year in film" articles for release dates and so on. It's currently used on about 1000 film-related pages.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Filmyear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New Hollywood needs serious help

New Hollywood has been tagged "This article does not cite any references or sources" since August 2007. As it stands, the article is basically somebody's essay, original research, or opinion. Anyone would be entirely justified in in starting an AFD of this article at any time. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Google Books and Google Scholar, "New Hollywood", or "American New Wave", is a valid topic. Perhaps the article could use clean-up, and AFD is not a method of clean-up if the topic is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Thetan

I was wondering what other people think about this article. So far as I can tell, and in spite of the 17 references used, this "film" appears to be nothing more than a tabloid rumour with little basis in reality, and indeed Tom Cruise seems to have denied the whole thing. Frankly I'm staggered that the article has survived two AfD's, but I would like to get a few more opinions before I think about nominating it again. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest just putting the info in Tom Cruise's article, and redirecting the title. Per WP:NFF, we don't create pages for films without notable productions, let alone those that aren't even in pre-production.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Already nommed. Steve T • C 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Afd nomination for A Bullet in the Arse

The film A Bullet in the Arse has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. — CactusWriter | needles 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

italics?

Could someone please tell me where all the italics went on WP? All the titles are not showing italics now. --Melty girl 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Still present as far as I can see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried switching off the internet and switching it back on again? Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
All the double apostrophes don't make italics appear for me. I thought maybe there was some new preferences issue or code change or something else I dodn't know about. --Melty girl 19:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Could it be something wrong with your browser? Have you tried another? It could even be something wrong with the fonts on your machine. Does everything else display OK? Steve T • C 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this work? Or this? Steve T • C 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that you added to Perrier's Bounty to Cillian Murphy's filmography today. Is that what you can't see as italicized? It looks fine to me so I'm also thinking it's your browser or something. Rebooting sometimes fixes these things. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel silly now. Something's wrong with Firefox, but Safari shows everything looking as normal. Thanks, everyone. --Melty girl 04:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lassie Films

Due to continuing issues with User:ItsLassieTime I have removed all of the Lassie articles from my watch list, including the many film articles I had on my to do list to fix up and take to GA and/or FA. "Mediation" with an admin basically resulting in being told to let her do whatever she wants despite her refusing to follow any basic guidelines and her assertions that both the Film and General MoS are meaningless things that she can ignore at her own whims because she prefers to do things her way. She also fluffs up articles with fairly useless trivia and seems to be replicating most of the Ace Collin's book across all of the Lassie articles rather than using a variety of sources. In any case, she refuses to allow me to edit any of the articles, and even went back and removed valid and useful content from some articles, such as The Painted Hills just because I'm the one who added it.

I would still like to see these articles get up to the level they could be. If I can get various Sci Fi B movies and made-for-television articles up to GA, surely such classics can be taken there as well. :-P Particularly Lassie Come Home, as it launched the franchise and won several awards. As such, I'm asking if anyone(s) in the film project would be willing to tackle some of those film articles. I'd be happy to help provide anyone with sources and research, I just won't edit the articles myself directly. As a fan of the films and characters, I own them all and can provide plot write ups, sources from books and articles I own, and I'm happy to do library research as well. A list of the films can be found at this template she made Template:MGMLass (and someone may want to fix that up as she tried to decorate it with a non-free image). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck with that, I loved the films as a kid Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested speedy deletion of The Island of Dr. Moreau (1994 film)

The above article refers to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) as even the article's IMDB link suggests. The article was probably created by mistake and that's the reason why it's never been edited all that much. I don't think that there's any reason whatsoever to keep it around but I'm afraid that it currently doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria and I find PRODing or listing for AfD not necessary in this case. If I were to make the article a redirect to The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film), then I believe it would quite easily qualify under speedy criterion WP:CSD#R3 as an implausible misnomer. I'd like to have an available administrator to take a look at this and hopefully speedy delete this article if you agree with my point about the lack of need for The Island of Dr. Moreau (1994 film) as an article or even as a redirect.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you can CSD it under G6 (housekeeping), and just use the wording parameter to note that it is a duplicate of the existing article and would have no use/value as a redirect. I've used that before for some other dupes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It was originally created under the wrong title. I've merged the histories. Flowerparty☀ 16:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)#Zac Efron

This discussion would benefit from more eyes. –xeno (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors, including User:John, are editing articles to remove all linked years. As shown by recent threads at WP:ANI concerning Lightbot and User:Lightmouse's actions in delinking years, there is no consensus for the wholesale de-linking of years, but, more to the point, there is a long-standing consensus among those who write and edit film-related articles that linking film release dates to "Year in film" articles is legitimate. This remains true even under the new WP:MOSNUM regime, which calls for links to be appropriate and to add context and information to articles. This is certainly the case with links to "year in film" for release dates, birth and date dates of actors etc, and other significant dates in film history.

Those who wish to weigh in on this might wish to add their comments here on the talk page of the Marlene Dietrich article, where User:John and I are in edit conflict concerning this issue. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to personalize this. "Regime" indeed. Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, these links add nothing, especially as they are hidden, easter egg-type links. Anyone wishing to retain them or even to add more as Ed has done, needs to demonstrate some encyclopedic utility that they add to articles, and a current consensus that this utility outweighs the advice in the style guideline linked above. I currently do not see either. --John (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
John, there is no personalization, merely a description of what has occurred. As demonstrated by these threads on WP:ANI: [3],[4], [5], even under the new date-linking guidlines ("regime" was not used in a pejorative sense, but in the sense of "a way of doing things") at WP:MOSNUM, there is no consensus in the general community for the wholesale de-linking of dates. The lesson to be learned from these threads is that de-linking needs to be an evaluative process, and not an automatic one.

In the present circumstances, it is, as I mentioned, a long-standing convention in film articles that release dates of films are linked to the relevant year in film article, since those articles provide additional context for the reader as to what else occured in the film world at the time of the film's release. In filmographies, where many films are listed one after the other, only the first instance of the release date is linked, in order to avoid unnecessary overlinking. Other dates which are significant to the history of film, such as the birth and death dates of actors, directors, etc. are linked as well, but dates of ordinary events are not linked, either to "year in film" or to the general "year" articles. This seems to me to be a reasonable scheme, and well within the requirements of the new date-linking guidlelines.

While it's reasonable and helpful to go through articles and strip out the occasional unnecessary link, the wholesale removal of them is neither useful or beneficial, nor is it in line with general consensus, as the WP:ANI threads above show. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add that I object to these links being referred to as "easter eggs" since there is nothing hidden about them. When you read the article, the year is highlighted just like any other link, and when you roll the cursor over it, it says "XXXX in film", just as any other link would reveal what it is linked to. An "easter egg" is something that is hidden from the user, and that is not the case here. I would very much appreciate it if you would drop this particular usage during this discussion, as it is inaccurate and misleading. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to evaluate the appropriate context in which years can be wiki-linked. For example, the first mention of the year in an individual film article (i.e., "Wikimaniacs is a 2008 film...") should wiki-link to "2008 in film". On the other hand, though, I am not so sure if it is appropriate to wiki-link "year in film" for a release date in the film's infobox. The date is unique for that particular film and not part of a chronological category like my "2008 in film" example. Beyond these two instances, there would be different context for how "year in film" was used. For example, if we said that Wikimaniacs was the first 2008 film to cross the $100 million milestone, it seems appropriate to wiki-link "2008 in film". Looking at Marlene Dietrich, I do not think that it is relevant to wiki-link the birth year and the death year of the actress. It's not pertinent to what was going on in film that year. On the other hand, the "Years active" attribute's years are appropriate. Hopefully you see the difference there. John, I would caution against mass edits like this. It is not like overlinking is a grave threat to Wikipedia, so I think it is best to build consensus before embarking on a series of edits like these. We can fine-tune the task that needs to be done, and once we find common ground, we can make the edits and refer any inquisitive outsiders to the discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [Struck out incorrect statement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)]

If you look at any article at the end of the year which sums up what happened in any particular subject area, the death of major figures is always included. This year, summary articles about the film world will certainly mention the death of Newman, and longer articles may even have a list of prominent actors who died that year. Now, we are not a print encyclopedia, and are not bound by the physical restrictions that print vehicles have, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be extended to the birth and death of actors in general. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot that the "XXXX in film" articles had "Notable Deaths" sections. It's a good point, though I was wondering, how are we addressing film actors who were also TV actors and theater actors? They have their own similar sections. I understand that Wikipedia is flexible, but I just want to see if we're not trying to force a square peg into a round hole in terms of linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Great. I removed two easter eggs, Ed added 99, and I am being criticised for "mass edits". Let's make this really simple. Where is the consensus or policy that makes adding 99 hidden links acceptable. I'm not looking for opinion here, but for the previously described consensus to use links indiscriminately like this. --John (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've retracted part of my statement accordingly (sorry, I did not have time to look at the contributions on all sides). Let's all refrain from further "year in film" edits and see what kind of consensus we hammer out. John and Ed, are there other editors who are involved? Is there a reason to dispute the ANI outcomes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs)
Thanks for keeping your comments accurate. I would welcome a proper discussion of the utility of such links. Does anyone else feel that adding 99 indiscriminately is a little pointy?--John (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, please, the only reason I added so many was because the filmography was totally unlinked, a rare occurence in a film-related bio. By this time most of the major stars' filmographies have already had their release dates linked for donkey's years. Let's not only keep this accurate, let's also make sure that the proper context for actions is recognized.

In a representative edit of mine to film-related articles involving linked years, I would change a number of straight linked years (i.e. to "the year XXXX") to "year in film" links, while at the same time removing links to day/months, so let's please not frame this discussion as unwillingness to adhere to the new MOSNUM guideline. We're talking about differeing interpretations here.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) / Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, back on topic. I am still not seeing the claimed pre-existing consensus (ie not a woolly statement like "we've always done it this way", but a link or a diff to where it was agreed), and I am still not seeing a coherent encyclopedic reason why linking this way brings benefit to our readers (not our editors). Can anybody help me with either? --John (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is going to be a clear answer to when or when not to link somewhere. The intuitiveness of a link can be interpretative. My perspective, though, is that it seems best for "year in film" to be linked beside each film in a "Filmography" section. I disagree with linking to "year in film" when writing prose about someone's career, unless context exists (highest box office of the year, one of the most memorable of the year). If a sentence was written, "In 2008, John Doe was cast into Wikimaniacs, and his performance received critical claim," then I don't think the year is relevant. When it comes to the "Filmography" section, though, I think that the films and their years imply "year in film", as in, "This film came out in 2008 with these other films." Like I said, the context is interpretative, and we can't always know for sure how readers will see the link. Dates of birth and death are interpretive, too, though it seems that the latter has more prominence (memorandums vs. Access Hollywood's "It's Tom Cruise's birthday today!") Just my thoughts on the matter thus far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
John, the consensus exists in the general convention that film release dates are linked to the "year in film" articles. You don't have to have 35 editors trooping by here to tell you that, you can see it yourself by looking at those articles.

On the other hand, there is no consensus whatsoever for the wholesale removal of linked dates, as indicated by the WP:ANI threads I linked to above. That's the state of things.

There are plenty of linked dates that are clearly ripe for being delinked: month/days, non-release dates, non-significant events, and so on, and it might be more constructive to concerntrate on those, about which few people (if any) are going to argue.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be a great start if you could stop adding these links which you say yourself add nothing. I would still take your arguments more seriously if you could demonstrate a consensus (evidence) rather than tell me it has always been done that way (opinion). --John (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, John, but I don't understand you. What links am I adding that I myself say add nothing? And, John, as I've repeatedly said, the evidence is in the filmographies and release dates that exist. Do you think that editors such as myself went to the time and trouble to link release dates because "that's the way it's always been done"? Perhaps you should AGF and trust that we took the time and effort because we believe that being able to see what else was going on in the film world at the time adds context, and therefor value, to the article.

In any case, please clarify what links I've been adding that I admit are valueless. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

John: perhaps you should take a moment and re-read the discussion here. The way I read it, I see a clear consensus for linking release dates, no clear consensus for linking birth and death dates, and a consensus that linking other dates in the text is not worthwhile. It seems, at least by the evidence of this discussion, that film-article editors are of the opinion that linking years to "year in film" articles does provide additional value, depending on the circumstances, and this is clearly in line with the new MOSNUM guidelines.

On the other hand, absolutely no one, except you, has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified - so it's abundantly clear that there's no consensus for that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed: perhaps you should take a moment and re-read the discussion here. Remind me, who said "There are plenty of linked dates that are clearly ripe for being delinked: ... non-release dates, non-significant events, and so on...", and who added 99 such links to an article on an actress the other day? I am not particularly interested (no offense) in your opinion of what consensus should be; it is pretty obvious there is no clear consensus here at all as if there was somebody would have pointed to it by now. --John (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
John: Obviously, I was not being clear. There are plenty of articles all over Wikipedia in which dates are linked to plain-vanilla year articles, but which, by the new guidelines, shouldn't be because the links don't provide any real added context or value. These, I suggest, are ripe for removal, and perhaps should be the focus of a diligent editor who wants to further the delinking of dates.

On the other hand, the links I added are to "year in film" articles, and they add context and value to the film articles they appear in. I have never, to my knowledge, added a link of any sort whatsoever, to a date or anything else, that I didn't think was appropriate and added value to the article. I hope that's clear enough for you -- if you need further explication, please let me know. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

State of play

Passing by more personal interactions, I do believe that this (by me, from above) is a relatively accurate summary of the state of the discussion so far:

I see a clear consensus for linking release dates, no clear consensus for linking birth and death dates, and a consensus that linking other dates in the text is not worthwhile. It seems, at least by the evidence of this discussion, that film-article editors are of the opinion that linking years to "year in film" articles does provide additional value, depending on the circumstances, and this is clearly in line with the new MOSNUM guidelines.

On the other hand, [only one editor] has argued that removing all year links from articles is justified

Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that in the absence of any consensus to keep multiple links such as you added to the Dietrich article, they may be removed. The onus is still on you to demonstrate their utility to the readership, their usefulness to ordinary users rather than to editors. Otherwise I'd still see them as overlinking. I'd be looking for the utility to be demonstrated by multiple editors, which I haven't yet seen. What do others think? --John (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary Ed to keep using bold in your comments?. It looks as if you are shouting at other editors Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FUBAR: The Movie

Can anyone confirm if FUBAR: The Movie is the actual name of this film or if The Movie is some kind of an unofficial designation by the distributors to differentiate it from things like "FUBAR: The Album"? I believe that FUBAR is the official name of the film and that the article's name should, therefore, be FUBAR (film). The IMBD entry lists it as only FUBAR, confirming to me that I may be right. But I'm not 100% sure that The Movie is safe to be removed from the title so I wanted second opinions. Please and thank you. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The official website has FUBAR the movie, but it could still go either way. I'd say look to the sources, but the article is unsourced. What was it called at Sundance and on the Sundance website/promo materials? What about other sources? The article claims it won "critical acclaim" so where is all the acclaim and what was it called when it was being acclaimed by whoever was reviewing it? Random side note: someone needs to move the little ref section above the ELs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FUBAR? Is that German? Doing a search engine test and looking at the official website, I don't think that "The Movie" is a subtitle. If it is, it's not prominently used. I would suggest moving it to FUBAR (film) and cleaning up the disambiguation page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As both imdb and rotten tomatoes list it as simply FUBAR, being bold and making the moves as discussed above. SkierRMH (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impetuous Fire

There is a current debate over whether this meets our film content requirements. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the notabiliy of this film, but I don't think any of those screenshots in the article meet fair use requirements. PC78 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it claims more notability than this for instance. No notability or information either other than being directed by George LucasBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not too sure what your point is (that's a marvelously random example!), I've merged some content there from a duplicate article; hard to believe that two versions of the same article have been around for two and a half years with no-one noticing! PC78 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, Blofeld, the Lucas film is manifestly notable by virtue of the Lucas connection, to say nothing of the Coppola one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Naturally I know this Giro, I am talking about in terms of lack of detail/content (all it said before was .... is a short film directed by George Lucas). Glad to see that resulted in seeing the double articles!!Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I think you're confusing matters - notability has nothing to do with the lack of detail or content. A notable article is always a notable article. The only question is if it is making this notability clear or not, and if it can verify itself or not. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
N.B. Resolved - merged into alternate title Forever and Ever (1977 film). SkierRMH (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination for Category:Films with animal cruelty

Discussion for this problematic category can be found here. PC78 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Standardising the Cast List in Films

How is the cast in films suppost to be set out? Is there a set thing because at the moment to connect actors to there roles there are different connectors such as: "as"; "-"; "..."; "plays"; "stars"; in table form and others. Which is the correct one to use?

If there is not already an agreement on this, please could we put one into play right away as it becomes quite annoying when looking at two different films. Thanks Ste900R (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that different editors use different connectors. From what I can tell, there are different ways to apply the different connectors. For example, I think "..." usually applies to "Actor ... Role" and nothing further. Using "as" leads to a fragment description of the character, "Will Smith as John Doe, a homeless person." Using "plays" and "stars" are usually tied to attempts to write fuller prose, especially to avoid bullets: "Heath Ledger stars as the Joker, a psychopathic criminal who... blah blah blah." I don't know if it is possible to fully standardize something like this since editors have different preferences, though I've always thought that MOS:FILM#Cast and crew information could use clarification in this regard. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely it woud be better though if we at least cut it down to one or two different styles, one where there is the character and the actor solely, and the other where it talks about the character maybe? I intend to go through all the films I know to try and change this, and trust me, I will when I know what to put it as. Ste900R (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I would not mind minimizing the number of styles, but the variation does not bother me too much. As long as you can be accurate about the actors and their roles and try to be informative about them whenever possible, I don't think that the different formats are a huge deal. The only thing I would actively advocate is to deprecate wikitables in Cast sections unless the situation warrants them, such as different voice actors across multiple versions. Wikitable coding is not much fun and does not provide flexibility on expanding with details. I think that this sentiment has been echoed a few times in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it has. Tables look out of place in the middle of an article. Casino Royale (2006 film) has always been a good model for cast sections, (although I would say that)!!Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on deprecating those tables! Ugh... For cast lists where all there is is "Actor ... Role", I tend to also just incorporate the actors into the plot and drop the whole section. If more can't be said about the cast from reliable sources, it just makes it neater, to me. And helps auto limit the cast to just the people of actual relevance to the plot, rather than some of the monster IMDB copy/paste jobs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think that the cast lists should stay because when you are trying to find out who played the role in a film in a hurry, it is no fun having to read through the whole plot to find it out. Can we please though come to some sort of conclusion though as to which style to put the films in that only have the actor and the character listed? Whether it be "...", "-", "as", "table", or other. Sorry to go on about this, but I've been searching for about 5 hours for a answer now. Ste900R (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that the method of combining minimal Cast sections into Plot sections is a little tricky. On one hand, I understand that the information can be redundant especially with no real-world context, but on the other hand, identifying cast members involves reading through plot detail, which may be problematic in two ways: 1) time-wasting, and 2) possibility of being spoiled. Sometimes I've merged the content, but it's usually when there's not a lot of important cast members, like at Fight Club (film). I do work mostly on upcoming films, though, so I have not had much trouble with finding real-world context. An in-between might be to write prose paragraphs without disclosing much plot detail. For example, "Members of the Anderson family include: John Doe as Bill, Jane Doe as Sally, etc." Just some thoughts on that. We might be moving a little bit away from the original discussion, though. (after edit conflict) I see that my suspicions are confirmed! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind the variation in styles in cast lists, although tables are my least favorite format. Most times, I find that tables waste a lot of space, but there are circumstances in which they help to visually organize the material in to coherent groupings, or keep additional information better organized and more easily connected to actor & character names. (I'll see if I can find a good example later.) I would say that tables should be avoided except when the specific circumstances call for one.

The only other format I dislike is the "....." one, which makes the list look like a direct cut-and-paste from IMDB, and is not very attractive the way our pages are rendered. Any other variations are acceptable to me, although I myself prefer

Actor's name as Character name

because I believe the italics on the character name helps to set it apart from both the actor's name and the "as". (I know some other folks vehemently disagree with my preference about that, but that's what I think.)

As for length of cast list, I do agree in principle that the list should be shorter rather than longer, but I'm also guilty of putting more names in on occasion, when, again, it seems to me that circumstances warrant it. Certainly, I try to cut off the list well before the end of IMDB's principle cast list (i.e. above their divider that says "Rest of cast listed alphabetically), and then put any other interesting cast information – especially uncredited roles, bit parts, cameos, and starting roles for actors who later become notable – into a "Cast notes" section under the cast list. With some frequency, when I'm unsure about which parts are the nost notable, I'll compare TCM's short cast list (in their overview front page) to the cast list on Allmovie, where stars and featured actors are bolded, and just make sure I have all those parts listed, then add anyone else I think is notable.

If the situation seems to call for a long cast list, and it's in list form and not in a table, I also prefer to columnize the list, to reduce the amount of whitespace in the article. In the articles with shorter lists, the whitespace to the right is ideal for an image, especially a screenshot that shows multiple cast members. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ste900R, I think it may be safe to say that "Actor as Role" would be as close of a standard as we'll get. Ed is alright with it, and I think Blofeld endorses it indirectly by mentioning Casino Royale. To my recollection, a number of editors with whom I work use "Actor as Role" as well. If you need an express answer, I think that's the best you can get. Your inquiry makes me think that we should review the "Cast" section at MOS:FILM. Seems like we could iron out a few details regarding the current topic, wikitable deprecation, bolding issues (this may be a little tricky), and guidelines on prose. I may start the relevant discussion since my long-term goal has been continuous improvement of MOS:FILM (was actually working on a "Marketing" component draft the other day). Anyone feel like they want to pitch in that kind of discussion? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ste900R (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Going with what it says in the guidlines, how about having the standard as "Actor as Role: Description of character...". Or if no description is available, having just "Actor as Role" ? For example my efforts on this film? Ste900R (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you need to use bold formatting for your example. You may want to review MOS:BOLD. The instances in which I've seen bold formatting used are usually cast lists where there is multi-line content containing real-world context about the actor or role. See an example here. I don't know if this approach with bold formatting is completely in compliance with MOS, so just giving fair warning. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, going back to somebody else's suggestions, what about it being "Actor as Role: Description of character...". Or if no description is available, having just "Actor as Role" (I'm not sure about the italics), but otherwise it is hard to distinquish where the Role is? Examples of these three different styles are 'bold', 'italics' or 'no italics'. Ste900R (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My 2¢: I personally find that "Actor as Role" sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish names, particuarly when dealing with unfamiliar Asian names and/or names that are not wikilinked. For than reason I tend to use "..." or "—", though I've occasionally had this changed by some users, presumably because the MOS reccommends "as". I'm not sure it's something that needs to rigorously enforced, though. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I essentially agree with PC78. Although I have my preferences, I don't think that strict uniformity buys us all that much in this instance, as long as the information is presented in a way that's understandable and doesn't confuse the reader. If the existing formatting in an article works, leave it alone, if it doesn't, fix it into a format that does. That's the bottom line for me. It's much more important, IMHO, to expend energy on making sure the information is the article is accurate and well-presented, then it is to make sure that the presentation is strictly uniform across all articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't feel this is a major issue, my preference is Julia Roberts ..... Erin Brockovich. I'm in agreement with those who dislike tables. In my opinion, the plot synopsis should include enough of a character description so that adding them to cast lists is unnecessary. Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would take the time to change the format of existing cast lists instead of making more creative edits to articles that desperately need them. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to leave this topic now, as people think that there is no need for standardisation. Ste900R (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Tartan Films releases

Does anyone have an opinion on this article? To me it looks very much like a catalogue of DVDs by a single distributor, and would seem to be a typical example of what Wikipedia is not, but apparently there is a category for this and similar lists. Is this sort of thing OK or not? PC78 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It does look like a catalogue. This article could be counted as an advert, as is therefore not notable in my ponion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take over my film watchlist?

I'm trying to clean up my watchlist and I need someone (or a few people) to watch all the film articles that I've just removed from it. Mostly due to blindness, I'm not at all interested in films - I've only been watching actor articles because of an anonymous user who would frequently make edits like these, adding hoax films and birthdates. I haven't encountered that editor for a while now but these articles are susceptible to unhelpful edits. Some of the actors are very famous, while I don't know if some of them should have articles on Wikipedia. The list is at User:Graham87/Films; if you want to convert it into a format suitable for the raw watchlist function, use find and replace to remove all instances of "*{{la|" and "}}". Thanks, Graham87 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandal is back again. Graham87 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Film infobox. Color??

user page transclusion removed

Hi I was wondering what people thought about adding a bit of color to accentuate the title in the infobox in coordination with most other infoboxes on wikipedia like actors etc kind of like the dead actor silver strip. I would suggest a silver strip at the top to highlight the title only or one at the top and bottom (imdb column) to accentuate it. For example (forgive the strange concoction of Humphrey Bogarts infobox and a film poster from the 1950s) see the sort of thing I mean on the right. Just a small graphical suggestion that could improve its appearance. Any thoughts anybody? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think adding it to the top would be appropriate. It would be more in keeping with most other infoboxes. Not sure on the bottom one though. Side note...when did awards get added to the infobox? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note. What you see there is an actor box!! I mean adding this style to the film infobox (which I can only view not edit), so the bottom section in silver would be the imdb.amg link. I think it adds a nice and a classic rendering which compliments the film posters. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point that many infoboxes already use some sort of color or shading. I would be alright with something at the top, but not sure about adding something to the bottom. Anyone think that this change would be problematic at all? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep perhaps. I was thinking more in terms of the title strip as is shown here. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do prefer the color strip at the top of the infoboxes, so that the title pops out. And do you mean replacing the old IMDb link (which has been discussed as being deleted) with a color strip? — CactusWriter | needles 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not too concerned about the bottom strip rather that the title strip is rendered as in the example. Visually I think it gives more weight to the infobox and has the effect of highlighting what is inside the infbox without being overpowering Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about these coloured stripes, personally. Is it just me or do they look kind of tacky? Flowerparty☀ 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tacky?? Most of the articles across wikipedia have a similar infobox. All of our actors Lauren Bacall etc Salvador Dalí the painter. To you mean to say that all of these articles look tacky? If it was a hot pink colour I might agree but part of WP:Films templates and article templates are designed with similar colours Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is in any way necessary to do this, though I'm not opposed to it per se. We would all need to agree on a suitable color, of course. Are you suggesting silver, then? PC78 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the example to show how this would look in the actual film infobox. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks absolutely fine in silver and would look good in the article. The only thing is that poster isn't a very good model because it has text at the top which changes how it compares to the title banner. Looks perfect I think. One could argue though against many suggestions people make at WP:Films in whether they are really necessary, Indiana Jones wiki projects for one! Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you there, especially about the Indiana Jones WikiProject! I honestly don't mind whether or not we do this, or what colour we use, and will gladly follow the concensus opinion. Just as long as no one suggests using different colours for different types of films... PC78 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree completely on that one. Its awful when there is the option to have any colour and people start introducing really horrid colours. I'm not a fan of the block blue on the painter box either but others seemed to like it. One standard colour for all I think, obviously whats really important is the quality of text and the article itself, but I think it helps the presentation. We don't want anything too overbearing, silver would seemingly be more subtle. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe tacky isn't the right word. But what reason is there to add a coloured stripe, really? To emphasise the title? The title is already prominently displayed in the pagename and in the first word of the article, and it's invariably written on the film poster as well. The stripe just adds visual noise, to my eye. Flowerparty☀ 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you could try asking most of the wikiprojects on wikipedia why they use any color in their infoboxes at all and keep everything plain white. Why do we use gold for living actors and for musical artists and albums etc? Its just for presentation, I agree it should be the least of our concerns but... Many infoboxes that exist are rather more bolder than this. The mosque infobox for instance is just a dark green blob where the text is barely readible, and don't get me started on the beauty pageants one!. Hey with a user name like yourself I'd have expected you to love color!! Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, oh I do. As a matter of fact I've brought this up with several wikiprojects. Try here, for instance (read user:dahn's comments - they're far more eloquent than mine). People add these colours for harmless reasons, but once they're in it's almost impossible to get rid of them (a bit like links to imdb), so I'd rather we not go adding colours just for the sake of it. That mosque green is horrendous, btw. Flowerparty☀ 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think the infobox needs a color bar at the top or bottom, I won't cry myself to sleep if people wanted one at the top -- the bottom really doesn't work for me visually. However, there's a really simple practical reason why we don't need the top color bar: a significant percentage of film articles have a colorful and/or eye-attracting poster right at the top, which generally displays the film's name, sometimes in quite large print. With that big magnet sitting there, the color bar isn't needed. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Big magnet? LOL. Just imagine the damage it will do on the Spy Who lOved Me poster by connecting with the teeth of the giant Jaws! Chuckle. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If there must be one, then silver is fine. As long as it doesn't get silly and go the way that some TV series did last year and try to colour code articles by series/genre -- that was tacky! The JPStalk to me 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we make the change then as a trial? If people don't like it then it can always be reversed later Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be best asking the question over at Template talk:Infobox Film, in case anybody else has any opinion. I'm not sure to be honest; I'm not awfully keen on doing something like this just for the sake of it. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ fake ref
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_21&oldid=1159448324"