Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

• {{Good article}}

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to know! I've added several of these around to some film article. The woman in the article for Vampyr seems to be eying it in a corner. Creepy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Heat

Discussions (again), about the genre of Heat is being discussed here. Any contributions to the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested parameters for Indian films

Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dr. B - good to see you round these parts ;). What about an infobox just for Indian films - I believe there are specific infoboxes for Korean films, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Those parameters could either be added to infobox film (as some other countries' films could also use them), or Indian films could have their own separate infobox similar to the Korean or Chinese film. I would prefer to see the parameters added to infobox film, with instructions specifying what types of film articles should include them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am preparing many pages about Telugu films. I think the infobox films is not sufficient and thereby forcing us to leave some important contributors credited for the success of these films like playback singers and art directors. There should some method to include them in the infobox. Because the guidelines does not permit us to keep the cast and credits in the main articles. A separate infobox for Indian films is welcome.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for Aladdin (1992 film)

There is a discussion here about moving the article to another title. This is a GA-class article, additional opinions are welcome. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting rumors

Sometimes I see that casting rumors are in film articles that are already been deemed not true or true. So would this be adequate to add, "Jennifer Aniston was once rumored to be in the cast of Scream 4".[1] Since Aniston is a A-list celeb, is such verbiage acceptable (while of course sourced)? Or is there no point to add something this inconsequential? Mike Allen 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think rumours such as that add nothing of value to a film article. Even if they have sources (most of the time they don't), the vast majority of those sources will not be of the RS type (basically blogs and tabloids). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Big Bird, in most cases only actual casting are notable (for example: "X" was cast in the role but was replaced by "Y").--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding filmographies

There is currently a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies on the color of filmography table headers. Please join in that discussion if you so wish.  Chickenmonkey  23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-English posters

Ok so what poster do we use for a non-English film? The poster I am talking about is from the film Dogtooth, which is a Greek film called Kynodontas. The original Greek poster has just "Kynodontas", while the new English poster has "Dogtooth". I replaced it with the English title poster, since that's the name the article uses. A user did not like that I changed the poster and cited the Template:Infobox, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox". I would think a poster that is written in the English language should be used for the English Wikipedia and for the Greek Wikipedia, the original poster. Right? Mike Allen 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was common practice to use the poster from the original theatrical release - certainly the case for every film article I've been involved in editing. decltype (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is available, I think the original language poster should be used, as it is the actual theatrical release. If the English one is significantly different, it might be justifiable to include it later in the article, but the English one should not take precedence just because it is in English (even if the article title is in English). This is the same with foreign language novels, and anime/manga series. The original language is generally preferred, if available, as it is the actual original poster, cover, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct MikeAllen. Consensus was reached long ago that a films original poster (no matter what the language) should go in the infobox. You might want to direct the editor who removed to this discussion so that they can understand why you put it in to begin with and why you should put it back in eventually. MarnetteD | Talk 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So should the poster be the rather plain wave form, or the one of the girl in the swimming pool? BTW - the film is amazing - go see it! Lugnuts (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If it can be determined which came first or was most widely used, then that one, else I'd probably go with the girl in the pool though the wave seems unusual for a film poster. Best of all would be if there were reliable sources explaining the drastic changes between the two :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the one with the pool the festival poster? I was under the impression that festival posters could be used more like DVD covers, as a second choice when nothing else is available. Otherwise we would have to change many posters for films which premiered at festivals. And I too prefer the Greek poster because it's more memorable than the alternatives. Smetanahue (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On a similar question to this, when I was working on the article for Hard Boiled, I could not find a really good quality image of the Hong Kong poster. I assume to take this into consideration when uploading posters to to use the best quality poster you can find in general first before using an original language poster. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quality should be taken into consideration. If the only images are too low quality to meet our basic standards, then I'd go with the original language home video release cover, if it is available. If neither is available, then English poster, and if it isn't available, English home media release cover. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd still go with an English poster over a VHS or DVD image from the original country. Especially since posters generally look better than DVD covers and they aren't plastered with film ratings (like on UK DVDs) or just bad general art like on some old Hong Kong ones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Posters are preferred over home media covers, original language posters are preferred over English translation posters and higher resolution images are preferred over low resolution ones. Sometimes those three guidelines will work against each other, hence WP:IAR exists. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is accurate, but a Google Image search shows that the pool poster is used more often. [2] Mike Allen 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if you search in Greek: [3] If "theatrical release" excludes festival screenings a festival poster should be regarded just like any promotional poster. Like the ones that were released prior to the theatrical poster for Inglourious Basterds. Smetanahue (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese nudity, problematic editing

Following repeated addition of unsourced/OR material to City Without Baseball by User:Tai kit and anonymous IPs, I have attempted to start a discussion at Talk:City Without Baseball. Before it becomes an edit war, I would appreciate any opinions or comments from uninvolved people, at the article talkpage. It affects other film articles too, but the recent activity has been on this one. As I've gone on a bit there, the issues in a nutshell are: unsourced claims about media coverage of nudity in the film, too much detailed description of genitals, too much info about other films that doesn't seem relevant in the article and, most importantly, a WP:BLP violation with details about the actor being ashamed of the size of his penis, and then quite pleased after all because it was comparatively big - unsourced.--BelovedFreak 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OR and box office currencies

In Box Office Mojo's international section the revenues for a number of film markets are reported weekly in dollars, for example South Korea May 28–30, 2010. Above the chart the current exchange rate is shown between dollars and the local currency, which also is updated weekly and corresponds to the rate at the end of the reported week. Would it be considered original research if I multiplied the dollar numbers with the exchange rate to get the gross in the original currency? Or do I have to present the gross in dollars if I can't find any other source? Smetanahue (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CALC, as a subsection of WP:OR, states "This policy allows routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Strictly speaking, your scenario would not be considered original research in that case. I would, however, always suggest first presenting the figures provided in a source and then (perhaps in parenthesis) presenting the approximate converted figure. Also make sure that you are using the conversion rate listed for that particular week rather than the current rate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonrunners

The article has the entire openning credits. Is that normal or even desirable? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section. You're correct, it's not something that should be included in Wikipedia film articles. The infobox should list the major roles whereas a "Cast and crew" section can be created to describe other production and film crew in prose. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured that was the case. BTW, good call on the other changes to the page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion at P.O.W. The Escape

There is a proposal to move P.O.W. The Escape to Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film). Additional input would be welcome on the article's talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

IMDB reliable source?

The Wikipedia:Notability (films) page states that, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have a question about notability in regard to the popular Internet Movie Database. If a film is listed as forthcoming in the IMDB, can this source be considered reliable? I know that anyone can enroll in the IMDB for a fee and list his or her credentials and upcoming films whether these credentials or films are fantasy or not. Does the IMDB qualify as a reliable source, given that IMDB film listings and film information may have been put there by people who are not "independent of the subject"? Is the IMDB a reliable source, given that people can list information there that is in their own self-interest and not objective? Thanks in advance to the community for taking this under consideration. SCFilm29 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

After "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", WP:NF goes on to state "... excluding the following: Trivial coverage, such as ... the Internet Movie Database." IMDb is usually considered fairly reliable for basic information (such as cast, etc) but it does not count as "significant coverage" to deem a topic notable. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To expand further on IMDB being reliable, its considered "okay to use it to build out a cast list" but it is not really considered a reliable source in terms of actually citing it in the article. It is a convenience versus having to type up the credits from the film, and it is common to put a link to the IMDB page in the EL section, but nothing more. As Big Bird notes, inclusion there is considered trivial coverage, as IMDB pretty much lists any film. Significant coverage would includes multiple news reports (not including press releases), magazine articles, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Again expanding, its considered "okay to use it to build out a cast list" of released films. IMDB has been found to be unrelieable when it comes to future films, often posting speculative information and rumors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for considering this topic. The reason I brought it up is that the Julie Dash article (Julie is a director) has for some time listed two movies, "Making Angles" and "The Seraporist," that the article says Julie is currently shooting and will be released soon (the article originally said the films would come out in 2007; now it says 2009). As a source, the Wiki editor cites the IMDB, but I wonder if the IMDB is reliable. It looks to me like these movies aren't going to be made, and I wonder if it's proper for Wikipedia to list them. It seems right to me to wait until a movie is actually shot and released to list it in Wikipedia, especially if the movie is an indie and funding is precarious. SCFilm29 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a indie film, it's a good chance that someone associated with production, maybe even Julie herself, added it to IMDb. Especially if it's on IMDb Pro (and it is). Though it's still not good enough. Keep an eye out on IMDb news, it's a repository for third party news articles. Check to see if any of the notable and reliable sites have anything saying she is attached to either film. Mike Allen 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying these film titles should be removed from article, pending a better source than the IMDB? SCFilm29 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I think so. That's usually the case when a reliable source isn't included so editors can verify material. Mike Allen 04:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help determining copyright for old publicity still from Laurel and Hardy film "Babes in Toyland" (1934)

Hello,

I found a neat publicity still from the 1934 Laurel and Hardy film Babes in Toyland in a thrift store. I am trying to determine the copyright status of this, as it would add to its Wikipedia. Can someone please tell me how to research this to find out if this film and its advertising materials are public domain?

Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can try leaving a question at WT:PD and see if someone more knowledgeable as an idea. Although the film is in the public domain, I don't think that related marketing items count. I could be mistaken though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may get an answer at media copyright questions. I believe that a work published in 1934 is PD unless it was published with an explicit copyright notice. Even with such a notice, copyright would have to be renewed for it to be protected today. decltype (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bandit Queen (1950 film) is currently a DYK frontpage item

Hello, I saved this article from a sure WP:CSD and improved it significantly. As of 21 minutes ago, The Bandit Queen (1950 film) is on the frontpage as a DYK item. I've never written a film article before; so please excuse me as I probably made a lot of rookie errors. Still, the article made first base. Enjoy! ----moreno oso (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Finally, someone who gets on with it! Excellent work on the expansion and saving of this article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As one of my favorite instructors used to say all the time, "I'd rather be lucky than good." This one just fell into my lap and all the pieces of the puzzle were put together in a somewhat coherent manner. While I got "lucky" with my edits, I know your WP can improve this article. I'd like to see the quotes center aligned for example. A great example is The Times-News (North Carolina) citation. I love the way the caps are used and offset - almost looks like an old movie poster. It would be great to have the "A GUN. . .A WHIP. . .A KISS!" offset in the same manner as the clipping. Plus, the The Southeast Missourian citation, "A Week At The Cape Theaters" has more information that could be built into the article. More FREE Google news items are popping up since I reworked the article. In addition, the there is Foundation group that can get "pay-per-view" items for free (I believe). The LA Times probably has some great archived stuff but their vault is pay-to-view. Maybe a section about "Production notes" could be built to incorporate some of the lede material and expounded upon.

I used a couple in the lede paragraph and was proud of the African American Google news paper citation I found. E.B. Rea wrote his "On The AVENUE" ala Hedda Hopper. It's hard to believe he doesn't have an article.

Thanks for visiting my talkpage with the barnstar. I will do something with it and a bear pic I want to modify. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review of The Empire Strikes Back

I have nominated The Empire Strikes Back for a featured article review. I feel it has lost the formatting, grammar, and sourcing required to be considered amongst the best articles of Wikipedia in the three years since it was nominated. The review is located here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed it; please read the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The film is Today's featured article so it won't be very stable. Per the FAR instructions, you should wait at least three days after it's been featured to list it at FAR. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed those further instructions after the fact. My bad. However, the article is still a disaster. Looking back to the days prior to its assumption to the throne of TFA, it was in no better a state. The entire plot section is unsourced (the robot self destructs? Looks like they shoot at it), the cast section is actually a characters section (again unsourced), and the prose in general bounces back and forth between topics (notable in the Production section). It seems like nobody took a look through it before it was decided to put it on the main page. I wish something could be done, but it seems that isn't possible. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the plot doesn't need an explicit source - the film is the source. Only interpretation needs a source. Ditto the basic cast list. However, besides that, I agree it really isn't FA quality. Looking further in the article, quite a bit of the Marketing section is unsourced, and the article is citing unreliable sources in other cases. It is a shame it wasn't given a review to ensure it actually still was FA quality before being featured on the first page, particularly when was promoted in early 2008. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just another reason that we should be continuing to clean up the spotlight articles. We should ensure the FA articles actually meet the criteria, so that they can have the potential to reach the front page. In the future, it would be best to mention here a few weeks in advance that a film article is going to be on the front page (or about to go through the nomination process), so interested members can take a chance and at least cleanup the most obvious MOS issues, improper non-free images, IMDB insertions, etc. If anyone here has brought an article up to GA/FA status, it's a good idea to go through the article at least once a year to remove vandalism, poor grammar, and uncited additions that may have snuck past your watchlist. It's a great way to further improve the article by looking for more recent sources and fixing dead links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

need help with images

Hi, I am almost done with an overhaul of the Barbara Hershey acticle and plan to nominate it for GA. I need assistance with the images. I have added some that I feel certain will be deleted. I find the image uploading process on Wikipedia frustrating and unrewarding. Any help will be greatly appreciated.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfree images can only be used when they meet the non-free content criteria. The one that most obviously fails the criteria is the infobox image. A non-free image can almost never be used in an article about a living person, merely to identify the subject of the article. As for the others, they may be suitable if they can be said to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. I doubt that the use of all of them can be justified in this way. Besides, multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Although that is good information, I still would like some help, if possible, locating at least one image that will fit the accepted criteria. --Ishtar456 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Finishing the MoS Updates

Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)#Table section of the MoS to get this missing section hopefully completed. Thoughts appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect (film)

Hi there,

I'd be grateful for any help developing The Lazarus Effect (film) - it's a documentary, to raise awareness of AIDS in Africa. Movies aren't my thing... lots of sources now (and more each day) gnews, etc. Help please?  Chzz  ►  05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Movie Guide

A list of films has been added to the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Movie Guide

Please take a look. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RJH - I've done some redirecting. What's the notability of The Scarecrow Movie Guide? IE, how does it compare to other film guides? Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD notification

Hi folks, just thought that I should let your project know that I've nominated Black swan story for deletion. Regards, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Writer of Original Work in the Infobox

A discussion has started at Template talk:Infobox film#Writer Parameter concerning the current practice of including the author of the original work used for a film adaptations in the "writer" parameter of the film infobox. Additional participants in the discussion would be welcome. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DreamWorld Motion Pictures

• DreamWorld Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No categories, no sources, completely unreferenced. Could use some cleanup, perhaps stub down to workable amount and then rework with adequate sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Budget field in the Film Infobox

Can I just clarify that it is the production budget that goes here? I reverted an edit that added in the marketing budget but it was then reverted [4]. This reference [5] is being used to back up the claim that the film's budget is $280 million. The article clearly states the production budget is $150m and that the marketing budget is a further $130m. As I always understood it we only documented the production budget in the infobox. I checked the template documentation but the instructions are ambiguous,so I'd appreciate it if it could be cleared up. On most articles it seems only the production budget is entered in this field, but its usage should be consistent across all articles really. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only the production budget. It's just the budget that goes into making the film. We don't include the marketing of the film because that's not actually part of the "budget". You don't hear of movies going over budget because they made too many trailers. Marketing budget is something completely separate and typically dictated after a film has been made. It has no bearing on the actual making of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, do you think it is worth stressing that it's only the production budget in the Infobox documentation? Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think adding the production budget and marketing budget together ($280 million) is definitely misleading and shouldn't be done. But I originally had the production budget and marketing budget noted separately. The financial success of a film would take into account the cost of marketing the film, so I thought it would be important to note it in the infobox as well. - Kollision (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the production budget should go in the filming section and the marketing budget in the marketing section. I'm not opposed to adding the marketing budget in the infobox (though separately), especially if it's notable. Mike Allen 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's a misnomer. A budget means they have a fixed amount to spend. That isn't true with marketing "budgets". They have a production budget, which is determined before filming starts. Then, they have marketing "costs" (which are mislabeled as a "budget"), as the marketing costs just grow until it is no longer cost effective to market the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cursed Videotape

FYI, "The Cursed Videotape" from "The Ring"/"Ringu" has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cursed Videotape.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have two different formats for budget and gross in film infobox?

• Is it appropriate to have two different formats for budget and gross in film infobox?

Please see [6], followed again by [7]. It does not make sense to report one value to three digits (budget), and and the next value to seven digits (gross revenue). The infobox should have uniformity with number values, and both should maintain the same format style, namely, that of the budget, precise to three digits. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The easiest (and logical) way to resolve this is to leave the revenue and format the budget as XXX,XXX,XXX because the revenue would be that format as well.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Agreed, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also stated like so at Template:Infobox film, which I am sure was done a few years, not even months, ago.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Alright, sounds good. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be concise and brief. I don't see how adding the zeros makes any difference. I think it's a personal preference, and shouldn't be a cause of an edit war. Mike Allen 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also if we have a budget that is two estimates (like this); I feel that just putting "million" suffices. Maybe that's just "me" though. Mike Allen 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox Character

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An item for the members of the project to check

An enthusiastic editor has created the following article Fantasia (film series). To me this does not seem to contain anything that is not already mentioned in the two articles that already exist about the films. I am also not sure about its encyclopedic value. Unfortunately, I am short of time to examine it further so I am asking the members of the film project to check it out and come to a consensus as to whether it can be improved or if it should be listed for deletion. I will inform the editor about this post before I log off. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless - just set up a redirect to the original Fantasia film. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not sure about a redirect since two films are involved. What about WP:AFD. Now I really do have to log off. Thanks again for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AfD along with that table/template thing they made. My Bambifan radar is tingly too...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the AFD/T work. I had the same tingling while I was out getting Sunday chores done. I appreciate your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

[SOCK EDIT removed]

• smells like dirty socks around here. Jack Merridew 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it...

That User:Wildhartlivie can unilaterally declare a particular book an unreliable source? Do all active editors have this power, or only ones with their own private cabal?—Chowbok ☠ 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this was posted here. WP:RSN might be more appropriate (if more neutrally worded, of course). As a general observation, have you asked Wildhartlivie about their statement? It seems to imply there is consensus somewhere confirming that book as unnotable. That would seem to be a reasonable first step. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors", which would rule out the use of Hollywood Babylon as a source. I suppose it could be worth mentioning if the rumour in itself had a significant impact on the article's subject, but otherwise not. And in that case you would still need a source independent of the book to verify its impact. Smetanahue (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Eli plot twist

For uninvolved editors who have seen the film and know the final big twist or those who have not seen it and do not care to be spoiled I am in the midst of a dispute as the the exact nature of the final twist. I have been using Sight & Sound as a reference for the twist, and have provided a link to the shooting script which also confirms the twist, however two editors do not feel that Sight & Sound and the shooting script are good enough sources; could I have as many extra pairs of eyes on this as possible. The twist seems obvious however the ambiguity built into the film, designed to hide the twist, is being interpreted as the exact opposite of the twist. Any help, etc, etc. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film so don't want to become involved, but the film itself and the script would qualify as primary reliable sources (although interpretation is another matter - so make sure that the plot description is limited to what is just shown on screen and not implied), while I can't think of any reason whatsoever why Sight and Sound would not be considered a reliable secondary source. Sight and Sound is publshed by the British Film Institute and is a high quality film publication featuring writing by many top writers on film. You next step should be to have S&S's status as a verifiable source clarified at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As Betty notes, Sight and Sound is certainly a reliable source by all accounts. It is a highly respected publication from a expert organization. Why do they feel it is not reliable (avoiding looking at article myself as I haven't seen the film yet :-) ). Are there other reliable sources that offer a different view of the twist? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, is that the film makes no sure decision on whether or not [spoiler removed]. Sure, it suggest that, quite strongly, but it never puts the hammer down one way or another. If the film is ambiguous in this matter, then the plot summary should be ambiguous as well. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you keep the spoilers confined to the article talk page please, two people have specifically stated here that they aren't getting involved because they haven't seen the film. If this is for the synopsis, something must happen in the scene for S&S to believe Eli is blind, so can't you just describe what happens in the scene? For example, if Eli walks into a wall wielding a blind cane can't you just say "Eli walks into a wall holding a blind cane"? The Usual Suspects article handles this scenario very well and limits the twist description to what is actually seen. For actual discourse on the film's twist, S&S's interpretation is as good as any. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of hints throughout the movie, but that is pretty much all we get; hints. Things such as his good hearing and smell, constant wearing of sunglasses, milky eyes, having braille bible, and other things have been cited for him being blind, but they are not definite indicators of blindness. He could just be sensitive with hearing and smell, like his shades, have a condition that affects his eyes, and know braille because that's the only bible he could find. So while all of these things certainly suggest that he is blind, we get no definite answer by the end of the film. That is why, in the plot summary, it must be referred to as an uncertainty and not as the truth. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

S&S weren't providing an interpretation though, they were quoting the script. It was clear according to the script that at a certain part of the film, something definite was revealed about a character. That's the difference. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But the film itself never makes a distinction that he is blind or not. That is our primary source, and should take precedence over the script. The plot of the film suggests that Eli is blind. That is it. It doesn't say whether or not he is blind, but it suggests that he is. The script says he is blind, but the film never made it absolutely beyond doubt that he was blind, either through saying something or him doing something. So making a decision in the plot section is not right. Some other part of the article would be more appropriate to point this out, but given that the script isn't as reliable resource as the film itself, we should let the film be our source in the plot section. The production section can have a paragraph on it. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A recent AMPAS press release about membership

This press release:

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2010/20100625.html

list the latest membership invitations by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Below is a mechanical wikification of the list I did in order to see which invitees might have articles. I've made no attempt to deal with any disambiguation needed in some cases (e.g. for LaTanya Richardson Jackson). I would suggest that being invited to become an AMPAS member is an achievement that goes a significant way towards establishing WP:CREATIVE notability for people. 72.244.204.61 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This can be helpful for indicating notability for creating articles on some of the below people, but it's not necessary to start a stub just to say that the person was allowed be included in the Academy membership. Ideally, there would be focus within the article about what filmwork, animation, directing, etc. they accomplished to warrant an invitation. Pursuing other sources indicating notability will also be necessary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   * Tobin Bell – “Saw,” “The Firm”
   * Vera Farmiga – “Up in the Air,” “The Departed”
   * Miguel Ferrer – “Traffic,” “RoboCop”
   * James Gandolfini – “In the Loop,” “Get Shorty”
   * Anna Kendrick – “Up in the Air,” “Twilight”
   * Mo’Nique – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Phat Girlz”
   * Carey Mulligan – “An Education,” “Public Enemies”
   * Jeremy Renner – “The Hurt Locker,” “28 Weeks Later"
   * Ryan Reynolds – “The Proposal,” “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”
   * LaTanya Richardson Jackson – “Mother and Child,” “Losing Isaiah”
   * Peter Riegert – “Traffic,” "Crossing Delancey"
   * Sam Robards – “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” “American Beauty”
   * Saoirse Ronan – “The Lovely Bones,” “Atonement”
   * Zoe Saldana – “Avatar,” “Star Trek”
   * Adam Sandler – “Funny People,” “Punch-Drunk Love”
   * Peter Sarsgaard – “An Education,” "Boys Don’t Cry"
   * Gabourey Sidibe – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
   * Shaun Toub – “Iron Man,” “The Kite Runner”
   * Christoph Waltz – “Inglourious Basterds”
   * George Wyner – “A Serious Man,” “American Pie 2”

Animators

   * Ken Bielenberg – “Monsters vs Aliens,” “Shrek”
   * Peter de Seve – “Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” “Ratatouille”
   * Steve Hickner – “Bee Movie,” "The Prince of Egypt"
   * Angus MacLane – “Toy Story 3,” “WALL-E”
   * Darragh O’Connell – “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty,” “Give Up Yer Aul Sins”
   * Simon Otto – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Kung Fu Panda”
   * Bob Pauley – “Toy Story 3,” “Monsters, Inc.”
   * Willem Thijssen – “The Aroma of Tea,” “A Greek Tragedy"

Art Directors

   * Kim Sinclair – “Avatar,” “Cast Away”
   * Dave Warren – “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” “Bridget Jones’s Diary”

Casting Directors

   * Laura Rosenthal – “The Messenger,” “I’m Not There”

Cinematographers

   * Barry Ackroyd – “The Hurt Locker,” “United 93”
   * Christian Berger – “The White Ribbon,” “Cache”
   * Hagen Bogdanski – “The Young Victoria,” “The Lives of Others”
   * Shane Hurlbut – “Terminator Salvation,” “We Are Marshall”
   * Tom Hurwitz – “Valentino The Last Emperor,” “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib”
   * Dan Mindel – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III”
   * Tobias Schliessler – “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,” “Hancock”
   * Stephen Windon – “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift,” “House of Wax”
   * Robert Yeoman – “Get Him to the Greek,” “The Squid and the Whale”

Costume Designers

   * Catherine Leterrier – “Coco before Chanel,” “Avenue Montaigne”
   * Janet Patterson – “Bright Star,” “The Piano”

Directors

   * Jacques Audiard – “A Prophet,” “The Beat That My Heart Skipped”
   * Juan Jose Campanella – “The Secret in Their Eyes,” "Son of the Bride"
   * Lee Daniels – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Shadowboxer”
   * Claudia Llosa – “The Milk of Sorrow,” “Madeinusa”
   * Lone Scherfig – “An Education,” “Italian for Beginners”
   * Adam Shankman – “Bedtime Stories,” “Hairspray”

Documentary

   * Nancy Baker – “Rehearsing a Dream,” “Born into Brothels”
   * Rick Goldsmith – “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” “Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press”
   * Davis Guggenheim – “It Might Get Loud,” “An Inconvenient Truth”
   * Tia Lessin – “Capitalism: A Love Story,” “Trouble the Water”
   * Cara Mertes – “The Betrayal,” “My Country, My Country”
   * Frazer Pennebaker – “Al Franken: God Spoke,” “The War Room”
   * Julia Reichert – “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant,” “Seeing Red”
   * Morgan Spurlock – “Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?,” “Super Size Me”

Executives

   * Christopher W. Aronson
   * Jim Berk
   * Philippe Dauman
   * Sheila DeLoach
   * Donald Peter Granger
   * Nathan Kahane
   * Andrew Karpen
   * Ryan Kavanaugh
   * David Kosse
   * David Andrew Spitz
   * Emma Watts

Film Editors

   * Robert Frazen – “Synecdoche, New York,” “Smart People”
   * Dana E. Glauberman – “Up in the Air,” “Thank You for Smoking”
   * Joe Klotz – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” “Grace Is Gone”
   * Bob Murawski – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man”
   * John Refoua – “Avatar,” “Reno 911!: Miami”

Live Action Short Films

   * Joachim Back – “The New Tenants”
   * Gregg Helvey – “Kavi,” “The Knife Grinder’s Tale”

Makeup Artists and Hairstylists

   * Kris Evans – “X-Men The Last Stand," “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”
   * Jane Galli – “Knight and Day,” “3:10 to Yuma”
   * Mindy Hall – “Star Trek,” “World Trade Center”
   * Joel Harlow – “Star Trek,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
   * Jenny Shircore – “The Young Victoria,” “Elizabeth”

Music

   * Christophe Beck – “The Hangover,” “Bring It On”
   * Bono – “Gangs of New York,” “In the Name of the Father”
   * T Bone Burnett – “Crazy Heart,” “Cold Mountain”
   * The Edge – “Gangs of New York,” "GoldenEye"
   * Brian Tyler – “Fast & Furious,” “Aliens vs. Predator Requiem”

Producers

   * Stephanie Allain – “Black Snake Moan,” “Hustle & Flow”
   * Gregory Jacobs – “The Informant!,” “The Good German”
   * Jon Landau – “Avatar,” “Titanic”
   * Marc Turtletaub – “Away We Go,” “Little Miss Sunshine”
   * Glenn Williamson – “Sunshine Cleaning,” “Hollywoodland”

Production Designers

   * Kirk M. Pertruccelli – “The Incredible Hulk,” “The Patriot”
   * Edward S. Verreaux – “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra,” “Jurassic Park III”

Public Relations

   * Dwight Caines
   * Suzanne M. Cole
   * Tommy Gargotta
   * Sophie Gluck
   * Josh Greenstein
   * Pamela Levine
   * Wendy Lightbourn
   * Michele Robertson
   * Tony Sella

Set Decorators

   * Maggie Gray – “The Young Victoria,” “Ella Enchanted”
   * Douglas A. Mowat – “Role Models,” “The Sixth Sense”
   * Caroline Smith – “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” “Match Point”

Sound

   * Frank Eulner – “Iron Man 2,” “Hellboy”
   * Adam Jenkins – “I Love You, Man,” “Crash”
   * Tony Lamberti – "Inglourious Basterds," “Sideways”
   * Dennis Leonard – “Disney’s A Christmas Carol,” “The Polar Express”
   * Tom Myers – “Up,” “WALL-E”
   * Paul N.J. Ottosson – “The Hurt Locker,” “Spider-Man 3”
   * Resul Pookutty – “Ghajini,” “Slumdog Millionaire”
   * Gary A. Rizzo – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “The Dark Knight”
   * Michael Silvers – “Up,” “Ratatouille”
   * Gwendolyn Yates Whittle – “Avatar,” "The Simpsons Movie"

Visual Effects

   * Matt Aitken – “District 9,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”
   * Karen Ansel – “Angels & Demons,” “Men in Black II”
   * Richard Baneham – “Avatar,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”
   * Eric Barba – “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Zodiac”
   * Paul Debevec – “Avatar,” “King Kong”
   * Russell Earl – “Star Trek,” “Transformers”
   * Steve Galich – “Date Night,” "Transformers"
   * Andrew R. Jones – “Avatar,” “I, Robot”
   * Dan Kaufman – “District 9,” “Ocean’s Thirteen”
   * Derek Spears – “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor,” “Superman Returns”
   * Steve Sullivan – “Avatar,” “Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith”
   * Michael J. Wassel – “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” “The Bourne Identity”

Writers

   * Neill Blomkamp – “District 9”
   * Mark Boal – “The Hurt Locker,” “In the Valley of Elah”
   * Geoffrey Fletcher – “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
   * Nick Hornby – “An Education,” “Fever Pitch”
   * Alex Kurtzman – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III”
   * Tom McCarthy – “Up,” “The Visitor”
   * Roberto Orci – “Star Trek,” “Mission: Impossible III”
   * Terri Tatchell – “District 9”

At-Large

   * Darcy Antonellis
   * John Lowry

IMDb budget figures

So.. I've discovered that IMDb has a "Box office and Business" page for films which lists the budget and filming dates. From what I've seen the filming dates seem accurate (for articles I work on), but maybe they got the dates from the Wikipedia articles... who knows. ;-) The budget is what I'm wondering... is it "reliable", especially since they own Box Office Mojo? The Resident Evil: Afterlife page says the budget is an estaimated (of course) $56 million. It doesn't seem so implausible considering the previous film in the series' budget was $45 million. Note that Resident Evil: Afterlife was shot in 3D which would explain one of the many possible reasons the budget is more this go-around. So the question I have is--where does this number come from? Anyone that edits IMDb? Thanks. Mike Allen 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted information to IMDB in the past, but never for box office information. I'm assuming that it's user-submitted (it does have a update link at the bottom of the page) or just pulled from BOM. The best bet is to just go to BOM directly for citing budgets. If a number is found though on that IMDB page, try searching for that amount along with the film's title on Google to see if any news articles pop up (as readers probably update IMDB from other sources anyway). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quick question, do you see the problem with this page? I'll give you a hint...it's missing something very important. Since IMDB owns BOM, why is it that IMDb has a budget listed for Resident Evil, while BOM doesn't have anything? IMDb may own BOM, but they don't dictate what's on their pages, nor do they do the research to find out those figures for BOM. Given that you can still edit the business section of IMDb, I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't be using it. It doesn't say where it got the estimate from, and BOM doesn't even list a budget at this time. But, just to help you out, Producer Jeremy Bolt does say that the budget is under $60 million.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The IMDB budgets are not reliable because budgets are not released by studios so must be user input, and the Box Office Mojo ones are frequently inaccurate, or at least at odds with what you see published in the likes of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times. When they are accurate you can often find much stronger references to back it up with a quick google search. BOM reliably reports grosses which are openly released by the studios, but it's not clear where it gets its budget information (since the studios don't release this information) and who vets it so I would avoid both IMDB and BOM for budgets. They are often useful as a guide for search criteria but if the budget is known you can probably find stronger sources. Journalists like Claudia Eller, Sharon Waxman, Brooke Barnes, Anne Thompson and Ben Fritz are usually very close with their budget estimates. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Variety reference for you: $60 million http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118018774.html?categoryid=4006 Betty Logan (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::@Nehrams: Well, IMDb was and is not my first pick. Someone added it to the RE page and I thought it seem ok. The budgets usually aren't released until it's closer to the film's release. The LA Times Company Town page adds budget for films in their "Movie Projector" the Friday the films are released. That's where I snatch film budgets; been doing that for a while actually. @Betty: In all honestly, most production companies don't publish the "real" budget anyhow so who really knows. They are just simply estimates, but it's the best and all we got. I'll axe that IMDb source, the film is being released in September. It can wait. @Bignole; good point. However, BOM also don't release budgets until it's close to the films release. I just wasn't sure if the "Business" part was edited by just anyone on IMDb or reliable people associated with that film. Thanks for the replies and that interview. Mike Allen 07:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks more for that Variety article. Mike Allen 07:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguating by year of release

The naming conventions for disambiguating films by their year of release defines the year as the first cinematic release, excluding film festival showings. I've started a discussion on whether this is the right decision at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Disambiguation by release year. Fences&Windows 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Casting Controversy on The Last Airbender

This is an link to an Wikipedia article that said it doesn't exist yet it's still visible if you go in the article The Last Airbender there's an link to it in the template below and there it is. Even if you try to edit on it Wikipedia says it doesn't exists. Is this on purpose or an big error? Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Something is borky with some stuff it seems.[8] I did get it to to load and mostly it is a copy/paste of the main article, so I've redirected it back to the film article as a bad split per WP:UNDUE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Weird. I do agree it was an article that wasn't necessary. So much I was going to put an prod on it yet I couldn't go on the edit section of it. Thanks for fixing it though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Typhoon966 and film distribution

Typhoon966 (talk · contribs) has been adding the film distributor to "production companies" in the infoboxe, separating the film and video distributors, and generally making changes which don't seem to be accurate or sourced. If those changes are generally inaccurate, he should be blocked. If this project believes them accurate, I'll keep out, but some of the changes (and the vast majority of those I've checked) seem not to match the actual information. 76.174.188.251 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Distributors shouldn't be added to the production company field unless they are credited as a producer of the film. You're entitled to revert additions if they are not sourced. Generally only theatrical distributors are included in the infobox, but the infobox documentation doesn't preclude video distributors. I'd only be inclined to remove them if the infobox became cluttered. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, you're right, I was wrong to put theatical distributors as "Production Companies" and video distributors to films. IMDB puts film distributors as "Production Companies". But what about films which are distributed by different studios in different regions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhoon966 (talk • contribs) 02:48, July 4, 2010

Generally, only the distributors of the film in its home region need to be listed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

U2 3D

U2 3D is currently a good article and I feel as if it's ready for FA-status. But last year I nominated it for A-Class and the nomination sat dormant for about 3 months until it "failed". No reason was given for its failing, it just failed the nomination because no one commented on it for so long. I really want to nominate it for FA-status but I don't want the same thing to happen again. Since I'm not that active with WP:FILM, I was hoping to get some feedback here on what step I should take next. I don't think a peer review is necessary, but I'm willing to do another one if uses on here suggest so. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As A-class reviews are no longer taking place, your best bet is to make sure the article is in compliance with MOS guidelines (including this project's). Ask a few more editors to take a look at the article and try taking it to FAC. I'll leave some comments on the talk page soon. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images in The High and the Mighty

I started a discussion regarding the use of multiple non-free images in The High and the Mighty on the article's talk page. Other comments would be helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Release Dates

As dscussed here: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 7#Start date template, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 10#Release dates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 19#Release date problems, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 4#Release date. It appears that the only release dates that should be noted is the: Premiere, a festivle or public gathering, the country it was produced in, and the first date it was released. In the Twilight articles, (Twilight (2008 film), The Twilight Saga: New Moon, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse) there seems to be some disbute on whether this applies to the articles. I don't see any reason why [[9]] cant be used. Is there any opinions out there?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Premieres should not be included in the infobox per WP:FILMRELEASE. The goal of the infobox is to be brief and give the broadest information. Including a private screening (not open to the public) would not be a public screening, which is what WP:FILMRELEASE class for. It is certainly something that should be covered in the prose though. BOVINEBOY2008 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would think it should be "Country produced by" not "produced IN". A UK studio could produce a film, but if Warner Bros. decides to film something in China, then that film's release in China doesn't mean anything extra than it's release in Russia (exception being a film about Chinese culture).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bovinboy, wait, I thought the premiere is included in the infobox? Mike Allen 04:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy, WP:FILMRELEASE does say "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, ..." which means to include the premiere date even if it was a non-public screening. - Kollision (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable dates should go in the infobox and this is restricted to the film's earliest release and the general release dates in the production countries. I'd say this covers a world premiere, and can anyone honestly argue a world premiere isn't notable? As to whether this applies to the article body, in the guidelines on the release section MOS:FILM#Release explicitly states Do not include information on the film's release in every territory. In addition to covering the above dates in the text of the article, I would also include the "overseas" premiere too since that is generally how a film's reception is covered: worldwide, the film's home market, overseas. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I stand in the opposing view. As long as everyone agrees, then the premiere should be included in the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 in film content dispute

The 2010 in film has been protected due to a content dispute. I bring the question here for the broadest attention. The dispute is over the death of Elżbieta Czyżewska should be included in the article. I personally support it as she has been in several films, both American and Polish, many that meet Wikipedia's notability guideline to have an article. However, some editors have consistently removed her entry, with these explanations in the notes: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Comments are requested please. BOVINEBOY2008 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the page has been filled and that her re-entry has damaged the page. Now every time a new name is submitted it will just indent off to the side and it will be a problem to fix for it has been protected. I wish we didn't have to remove her, but her re-entry has been confirmed as the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdi7457 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a simple formatting difference that can be easily changed, not a legitimate reason. BOVINEBOY2008 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But she was not well known as an actress. She was in a couple of small roles, but she sure is not as notable as people like Dennis Hopper or Corey Haim. I never even heard of her. TDI7457 23:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

She is notable by Wikipedia standards. Maybe not in your eyes, but by the eyes of some. BOVINEBOY2008 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY. SOME. ZYou have been constantly deleting other people's entries just so you can have her on the page. I have been watching the page SINCE this petty thing you started began. She appeared in a few american films like Cadillac Man but you persisted. I not only recommend her swift deletion, but the swift deletion of your account.BovineBoy has also constantly deleted or revised other people's contributions, i believe he creates edit wars deliberatlyTDI7457 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and remember to WP:AGF. Recommending anyone's account be "deleted", particularly editors who have been here for some four years, is rude and is certainly not conducive to discussion. Further, your accusations of "creating edit wars" deliberately, seems to be very far off the mark, and is unsupported by evidence. If you have evidence to such a claim, then it belongs in WP:ANI, but certainly not here in a discussion on the question asked.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

> BovineBoy has also constantly deleted or revised other people's contributions

BovineBoy deletes or revises contributions that need to be deleted or revised. Please get a better attitude. —Codrdan (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list lead and the actress, she certainly seems to belong there. A formatting problem is not a valid reason to remove her. She is an actress who was in films, and she died in 2010. Tdi7457, if you feel she does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then you should send the article to AfD and get community consensus that she is not notable. If the article is deleted, then it shouldn't be in the list. As long as she is considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, she belongs in the list, regardless of whether any one editor thinks she is not "as notable" as any other actor. I would recommend checking into the subject first, though, as a very quick search finds that she is discussed in multiple books, news articles, etc, with her name pulling over 4k hits in Google Books alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

She seems to be notable enough for an NY Times obituary who describe her as a "a star of Polish movies and television" [14]. I have to say that I don't think this would be an issue for an actress with a comparative career in English language films. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Anma. If there is a question regarding her notability it needs to be taken to the proper channels (AfD). Also I can't believe that Tdi7457 is citing a "formatting" issue as their main reason to exclude her from the list. Really? Mike Allen 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Tdi7457 is unfamiliar with the Wikipedia notability requirements and is worried about space issues. She is notable and qualifies for being on the list. Even for the most obscure of actors, if they unfortunately pass away during 2010, there's no reason not to include them, even if the majority of people have no idea who the person is. Even if the actress is only important to some, she's still notable, and being listed on the page is one way for more people to learn about her (that's the point of Wikipedia). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I never even heard of her is possibly the worst reason to remove content. Your own ignorance is not justification for removal of information about someone who is clearly notable. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to keep her, we might as well add the more notable films she was in like Music Box or Cadillac Man. And Lugnuts, i'm not ignorant, i only concerned myself with adding the more familliar of names, so your arguement has no stake in this conversation. Tdi7457 (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

She's a Polish actress so her Polish work should be just as well represented as her American work, provided it is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others, Tdi7457. I understand the intent to keep the list to familiar names, but that is relative. I have not heard of her, for example, but the New York Times having an obituary on her demonstrates a fame independent of my own personal knowledge. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"if we're going to keep her, we might as well add the more notable films she was in like Music Box or Cadillac Man". That would only be true for someone who considers Hollywood to be the only notable film industry. For someone who is familiar with her filmography it's clear that nothing comes close to The Saragossa Manuscript in terms of relevance. One of the best films ever made. Smetanahue (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved now this idiot and IP sock have been blocked? Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this is resolved regardless. It's obvious what the consensus is. Once the protection expires in two days time we'll add her back in, and anyone who doesn't think she should be there should come here first to make the case for removing her. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The user is indef blocked. If another IP pops up from the same range doing the same stuff, I'd just report to ANI or AIV. Meanwhile, I think it would be great if the article on Czyżewska were expanded with all the wonderful sources found during this discussion :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A new user, Giordano Adams, has made edits going against this consensus. I have started an ANI thread here. BOVINEBOY2008 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And now an SPI. BOVINEBOY2008 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, since she's causing this many problems that lead to an edit war and three accounts blocked, wouldn't it be wise to remove her from the list so it woun't cause this much hassle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.24.103 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. She isn't causing the problems. One bad editor who has some strange personal issues with her is the only problem, hence his being blocked three times and hence his likely to continue being blocked every time he keeps trying it until he gets a clue (and please do not think you are fooling anyone by jumping IP ranges). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Film}} obsolete parameters

Does someone knows who decided to remove the needs-prod/cast/plot/synopsis parameters and why? I don't think it was a good idea. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The parameters were removed in November 2009 following discussion between this project's coordinators and other editors here and reaching consensus here. I think this was the right thing to do for several reasons. This project has 45,653 stub articles out of a total of 64,919 articles. Almost all of these stub articles would have been tagged with those three parameters (in addition, some Start class articles would also be tagged with at least one of these parameters). They would all have gone into a category such as "Category:Film articles needing a production section". I think it is unlikely that anyone would go through this category of 45,000+ articles and say "hey, I'm going research the production of that film and add a production section. (or watch the film and add a plot summary, or find a cast list and add it to the article)" It is far more likely that an editor would just pick a film that they would like to improve the article of and then work on it. Most experienced editors would already known just by looking at the article that a plot summary/cast section/production section needs to be added. They don't need a notice on the talk page or a category to tell them that. Those less likely to know what needs to be added (readers/unregistered users/newcomers) are probably not going to look on the talk page or in categories (they probably aren't even aware of their existence). And they usually do these kinds of things without any instructions from us anyway. Editors who do expand articles by looking through categories could look through Category:Stub-Class film articles instead. Additionally, I think the second B-class criteria (coverage and accuracy) has superseded these parameters. If an article lacks a plot summary/cast section/production section it would fail this criteria. Adding B-Class-2=no to the Film banner template will add the article to Category:Film articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy and display the criteria as "not met" in the banner's B-Class checklist. An {{Expand}} template might also be added to inform others on missing content. Basically, I think the parameters were removed because they do not translate into real results and hence, tagging articles with them was a waste of time. ...I mean, the parameters have been gone for over 7 months and I think you're the first person who complain about it. - Kollision (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not complained about the use of those parameters. I have participated to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2009-2010 and I added all of those parameters to about 2000 articles (when they were needed, of course), and today I received a message saying that they all are obsolete. When I get a moment, I'm continuing to assess films' articles, but I do not want to create problems unnecessarily and/or waste of time. Anyway, thank you for all the info. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a complaint though. The production tag is pretty much useless and I only commented on that as I was asked to comment on something I couldn't really give a fuck about. But the needs-cast is essential IMO. And it didn't have one all encompasing category of 45k-plus articles, it was broken down by task-force within this project - IE Category:Spanish film articles needing a cast section, etc (or words to that affect). So instead of someone browsing the category, seeing 45k articles, and then quickly clicking the back button, they could see the further sub-division and hopefully start work on an area of cinema they were interested in. It's really hard to judge just how affective maintenance categories are and if anyone sees them as a starting point. I only started editing because I saw the popcat tag on the category for black-and-white films, about 4 years ago, which literally had only about 70 articles in it! People adding cast lists based on task forces can then go on and add in the notable actors who are missing articles. It can only be a good thing. It's a low maintenance tag that a bot can add either to the talk page, or as a hidden category, that could enhance this project. Even if one person only added one cast list for one film, it's worth having. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly did not mean "complain" in a bad way. I was just saying he was the first person to express dissatisfaction about it after 7 months to demonstrate that no one has really missed the parameters. Nothing negative about that. - Kollision (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give some input on a CfD

Please see here I have no idea what Category:Videos and DVDs even is and it seems like a perfect candidate for deletion; can someone (preferably multiple persons) give some input there? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Buena Vista

There seems to be some discrepencies in regards to this company. Our own article on it says as a brand it was retired off as a theatrical distributor in 2007 and that Walt Disney Pictures now directly distributes its own films. In the case of Burton's Alice in Wonderland both Allmovie and Box Office Mojo say it was released by Buena Vista, while IMDB states it was released through Walt Disney Pictures. Is this a case of reliable source Allmovie being wrong and unreliable source IMDB being correct, or is Buena Vista still the legal name? Can anyone clarify this? Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there more than one Buena Vista? Buena Vista was one of the foreign distributor for Saw VI. See [15] and [16]. Surely that isn't the Walt Disney company? Mike Allen 01:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that it was Disney that made Pulp Fiction through its Miramax subsidiary! Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say the reliable sources are correct to some degree. Buena Vista appears to still be in use as a brand, now coupled with Disney[17] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Revenue and Budget

It seems that there is some disagreement over how to present budget and revenue facts. If something is budgeted at $160 million, logically it should be presented in the infobox as $160,000,000, in order to line up with the revenue which would be presented in 9 (or less) digets. However, if it is presented as $160 million in the infobox, the gross should relfect this. For example, Avatar (2009 film), which grossed 2,730,850,547 would then have to be rounded to $2.7 billion and then I could see some editor in the future arguing the gross is closer to 2.6 or 2.8 million, though I don't exactly know how, and then we have another issue which could have been prevented. And though some argue that the budget is not "an exact number" and is just an estimate, wouldn't the gross be the same? How do we know Avatar grossed exactly 2,730,850,547? It could be $50, $100, $1000 off. ChaosMaster_Chat 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Which billion is being used (on WP, not just this article) - the incorrect US one, or the correct UK one? Lugnuts (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to use terms such as "correct" for this, but the policy can be found here. Doniago (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate Box Office Mojo is when it comes to grosses, but accuracy in the Wikipedia context relates more to how accurately we present the information rather than how accurate the information is (since WP:RS should in theory take care of this). I don't see why they both have to adopt the same format since they are different types of data. We should present the information as accurately as possible so obviously if $2,730,850,547 is the figure stated that is the number we should use, but using $160,000,000 instead of $160 million suggests a level of precision which the source doesn't indicate. Things are often presented a certain way for a reason, and with numbers the presentation often determines the precision so it's probably best to present the information as the source presents it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan. He's edit warred with me yesterday about this.. and pointed me to "consensus" on some other film talk page and it was User:Cirt asking which way to format it. He's still hasn't grasp what and what isn't consensus. Anyway, my point is that $160,000,000 is the same thing as $160 million. Same thing. It's formatted as a whole number because it's an estimate. The only time a gross is formatted like that is when it's also an estimate (Friday nights/opening nights) but it is usually as exact as possible: $2,730,850,547. Maybe I've explained that correctly, I suck at math. Mike Allen 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Happy Endings?

I have an RFC over at the talk page for the documentary Happy Endings? and was hoping to get more opinions of people who have so far not been involved with editing the article. The initial RFC that I put on the RFC requests page has so far not brought anybody in from outside the existing discussion, but perhaps some here will be interested. The disagreement concerns the appropriateness of mentioning the film (and linking to the article) from the bio pages of a number of public figures who appeared in the doc. The RFC can be found here: Talk:Happy Endings?#RFC: Links to/Mention of this film in other articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested parameters

Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dr. B - good to see you round these parts ;). What about an infobox just for Indian films - I believe there are specific infoboxes for Korean films, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Those parameters could either be added to infobox film (as some other countries' films could also use them), or Indian films could have their own separate infobox similar to the Korean or Chinese film. I would prefer to see the parameters added to infobox film, with instructions specifying what types of film articles should include them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am preparing many pages about Telugu films. I think the infobox films is not sufficient and thereby forcing us to leave some important contributors credited for the success of these films like playback singers and art directors. There should some method to include them in the infobox. Because the guidelines does not permit us to keep the cast and credits in the main articles. A separate infobox for Indian films is welcome.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If Nehrams doesn't want to add the few parameters needed then we should indeed create a new Template:Infobox Indian film. Personally I see the argument against adding Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers paramters to the infobox a weak one. It will hardly make any difference to infobox size. You want a bloated infobox look at infobox settlement. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case I suggest a different name than simply "Indian film", since all Indian films aren't musicals. But I am all for adding new parameters to the standard infobox film instead. Choreographers are for example also very important in martial arts films. Maybe the parameters can be added with a note saying that they only should be used when it's really relevant? I don't understand why we have special infoboxes for East Asian countries either, since the only difference is that they include original titles - which isn't something unique for Asian films to have. Smetanahue (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just discovered that Template:Infobox Japanese film has a parameter for art director. I think it should be added to Template:Infobox film and that all the film infoboxes should be merged. Smetanahue (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to bring this discussion up on the infobox talk page as more people will probably comment on adding any new parameters. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Last House on the Left

Please visit Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film)#Genre to discuss the identified genre for the film. I'm tired of looking at edit wars back and forth with this article over the specific "genre". I'd like some more opinions so that a clear consensus can be made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Toy Story 4

I know the film has not been confirmed, but i feel there should be a sub-section on the Toy Story 3 page of a possible sequel.  Winchester Admiral  (Contact me) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you provide reliable sources, then there shouldn't be a problem. And your signature makes me want to tear my eyes out. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would do better on the Toy Story (franchise) article, but that is just my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't confirmed, then it isn't warranted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What I read is that they are going to try to do something to keep the characters going and the (writer I think) made the ending of Toy Story 3 pretty clear. That doesn't mean a Toy Story 4 -- maybe a spin-off. I wish I could find that source, maybe I read it on Wikipedia. lol. Mike Allen 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussions that could use additional opinions

The following discussions related to our project are currently under way:

• Talk:List of RealD films#Requested move
• Talk:Alien (Alien franchise)#Requested move (2010)
• Talk:Golden Lion#Requested move
• Talk:3-D film#Requested move

Additional input would be beneficial and appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB as source for main-body-text on BLPs?

Is IMDB okay as an WP:RS source for main-body-text section on BLPs, or just filmography tables? Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_appropriate_to_add_unsourced_information_to_articles_on_BLPs_.3F. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, IMDB is not a reliable source at all as it is user editable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly people disagree. Even Jimbo Wales. Wow. [see link provided by Cirt] Mike Allen 06:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was more of him wanting to have something there to support details even if it wasn't the best source available. He likely wasn't familiar with the community consensus on not using the site for sourcing information. I've already reworded the article to remove the link as a citation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) appears to still be confused about this source, and is still using it, see [18]. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Give him a warning and if he continues report him at WP:ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we add the language about IMDb used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films#Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources. This issue pops up too often -- perhaps we need to place it more prominently among the project pages. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement about IMDb now appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources#Unreliable resources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There can be a difference between a reliable source and a resource. Some resources on that page list reliable sources that can be used, while other resources can be used in articles as reliable sources. I don't think it makes sense to say that IMDb is an unreliable resource. It is useful as a resource, but caution should be exercised in using it (which is why we have "Notes and limitations"; see FilmReference.com's notes). IMDb's trivia pages are unreliable, for example, but they can be used as launching pads for research. For example, a trivia page may have a silly casting rumor, but it may also have details about the film's production that are worth looking for elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The point here is to have a place within our own guidelines to which people can refer. We agree that after numerous discussions over the years there is a consensus policy about the limited usefulness of IMDb. But the common inquiries about IMDb (including these two within two days) shows it would be helpful if new editors had a place to look -- and that they should not have to rummage through years of old discussions to get an answer. You are welcome to alter the language or place an IMDb within the table format but it should expressly state the extreme limitations of it as a resource. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And now with shortcut, WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDb not an reliable source

I am just curious because I know I saw it before. Where in the guidelines does it say IMDb is not an reliable source. I need to know this so I can explain to somebody that it isn't an reliable source. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick: [19]. There was a policy proposal for IMDB at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb but it wasn't successful. Given that there wasn't a consensus to pass the proposal then I guess there isn't a consensus to cite IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

None of those is what I remember seeing but I thank you. I will ask you this though in the article Films considered the greatest ever The Dark Knight was ranked at #1 on IMDb and that was listed there. Is that acceptable for Wikipedia since the rankings are done by average people. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but off the cuff I'd say yes. Many audience polls from magazines and TV shows are mentioned on articles, so I don't see why the IMDB poll should be excluded. The IMDB poll is probably the most comprehensive and best known audience poll for films so it certainly qualifies as notable. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that user polls aren't considered reliable and should not be included. When I've seen them in articles I've tended to remove them. Doniago (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can refer editors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources#Unreliable resources now. (I copied the language which was already present at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films#Resources.) It has a link to an extensive recent discussion. Concerning audience polls, like the IMDb one -- these are largely subject to outside manipulation and tend to change dramatically over time. IMHO, they are of little significance and should be taken with a large grain of salt. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:FILM#Critical response has this answer: "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." If you check the demographic breakdown of IMDb ratings, they're typically young males (people who tend to be online more than everyone else), so it's not the best representation. I mean, the fact that The Dark Knight is the best movie of all, all time... really? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

.....you mean it's not? (ducks!!!) Doniago (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We should all know that that's an debatable subject. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And now with shortcut, WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kisses and imdb

Hello all. I recently saw Kisses and enjoyed it quite a it so I created the article (still a stub, any help appreciated). I used imdb initially as the information source for the film's awards, which I am now attempting to source more specifically with each award organization's official listing, and it appears that imdb got it very wrong. This is apparently IFTA's official list, which does not jibe with what I listed from imdb in the article for Kisses' IFTA nominations. Am I missing something or should I just not trust imdb on such matters?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that generally IMDB should not be considered reliable as any user can edit the information presented. Using it for cast lists or as a secondary source is okay, I believe. There's a discussion on this further up on this page, actually. Doniago (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not considered a reliable source for exactly that reason. It is user edited and full of errors. At best, it can be used for easier copy/pasting of cast and staff names, but those should always be confirmed by at least glancing at the film credits or actual reliable sources to be sure they are correctly given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See also, WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Obviously I need to go to the source material for all of them or find a good secondary source. Strangely, some of the film festivals don't appear to have any list anywhere on their sites for past nominations and winners. Yet, I would think having that would not just be ubiquitous, but would be the most prominent material at their sites other than listing upcoming nominations and festivities.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Film lists at AfD

Discussions on two lists nominated for deletion can be found here and here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional opinions needed at Trading Places

There is a discussion started here that could use a few more eyes and opinions. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 spamming Dread Central

I think we talked about Zombie433 (talk · contribs) here in the past, and I noticed today that he is continuing to spam dreadcentral.com, such as here and here. Did we do something about this before or not? If not, what is the proper action here? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have already reported him. I don't think he ever responded to anybody. He may work for DC, or just a big fan of the site. We'll probably never know. Mike Allen 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he might have added such URLs because pages are ranked by the number of websites that link to it. He might have seen adding dreadcentral.com links to Wikipedia articles as a way to do this, but Wikipedia adds "nofollow" to all links that are added. Although... is this only true for external links, or is using it as a reference a workaround? In any case, he left a bit of a mess: List of horror films: 2010 has a lot of dreadcentral.com references, highlighting a lot of red-link film productions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only is he adding these spam links, but half the things he cites are not in their supposed citations. The list of horror films now contains barely any references at all that tell the actors, release date or even if they are horror films or not. I admire the effort to get a good..oh, 1000 cites in there but if half of them don't do what they say then this needs some fixing! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know; I wanted to fix it, but my Internet connection is too slow right now to do anything quickly. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of this list some time ago, to save it from an AfD, but it's virtually back to the same state. I'll have a look at some of this over the next few days. Recommend removal of any redlinked film AND director entry as a starting point too. Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. - Kollision (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see these previous discussions:

• • Archive 24
  • Archive 25
  • Archive 26

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizzazione (?)

We're having a discussion over at La strada on how it and other foreign films should be capitalized. I'd like to get a consensus and WP:MOSFILM updated. Ciou. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion. No opinion right now; will need to investigate. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of Saw VI

I'm having the article Saw VI that I have been working on since—well since I've began editing here—peer viewed. It's already been reviewed by two editors but if there are any comments from the Film Project, it would be appreciated (mainly someone that copyedits, since that is a big concern). And if not, I understand. Thanks. Mike Allen 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I left comments on the talk page. Others are welcome to comment there as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I kind of got side tracked with Comic Con and the release of Salt, I haven't even checked for new comments! Also I see that I didn't even add the peer review link above.. lol that I would have helped. I'll go through it later tonight. Thanks! Mike Allen 01:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the peer review for everyone interested. (You're welcome, Mike.) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Green Hornet

At the talk page of The Green Hornet (2011 film), there is a request to move the article to The Green Hornet (film). It appears that the 2011 disambiguation exists because there is a 2006 short film titled The Green Hornet. I researched the 2006 film, which is French in origin, but I sense that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I used Google News Search in French but only found this. The 2006 film's article also has this, but that appears unreliable per a domain whois. Since the 2006 film's article presence is muddying the discussion to move the 2011 film's article, I was wondering if others thought the 2006 film should be posted for AfD or if there can be significant coverage found for it. The requested move for the 2011 film can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say post it for AfD. It's not made by anyone famous, hasn't won anything (released directly on the internet) and is only mentioned in one trivial article. I'm not even sure if it should be mentioned in The Green Hornet's main article. Smetanahue (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I looked too closely at French-only results. I was going to post it for AfD, but a broader search revealed this and [examiner.com article w/ link commented out]. I'm not sure there's a clear-cut case for deletion, even though the notabilities of the two films in question are undoubtedly skewed. EDIT: According to this, the short film was included on a Green Hornet DVD collection set. Maybe what could ultimately be done is mention the short film in one paragraph at The Green Hornet and have the 2011 film be at the (film) disambiguation with a hatnote anchor-linking to that short film's paragraph. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it should still be sent to AfD. I'll like to think AfD is Articles for Discussion, not just blatantly deletion. If anyone can "save" (find notability) a film article, it's Michael Schmidt, so maybe drop him a note. Not sure about what to name it, the naming conventions are so confusing to me. Mike Allen 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Accolades write-up

I added an "Accolades" section to the WikiProject Films guidelines (see here) and have provided comments on the guidelines' talk page. If you have anything to add, I invite you to do so. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Avengers (2012 film)

An AfD for the article is now open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Was wondering if these sources were reliable with regards to award nominations and wins. movies yahoo and the oscar site Thanks for any help Monkeymanman (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Yahoo! is somewhat okay but still incomplete. IMDb shows more than what Yahoo! has. My preference is to cite the "source" (the awards' main websites) as references when including awards in the article. For lesser-known awards, independent reports in newspapers would suffice. (As not all film critics' circles are notable, thus their awarding may not be worthy of note.) As for the latter site, I would just cite the main Academy Awards database instead. I recall that it is a dynamic URL, but I think you could note parameters used when citing it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Eric. I have been doing exactly what you recommended i.e. cite 'the source', but unfortunately i have found out that the Academy Awards Website only goes back to 1980 with detailed awards nominations / wins. I think i should be able to find another source outwith that though. Thanks again for the advice. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this? The "Award Year(s)" drop-down menu goes back 1927/1928. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but it might be useful if reliable sources for this sort of material were kept in an easily accessible location. MOS:FILMSOURCES came to mind, though I have no idea whether that's a good idea. Doniago (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! I added the Oscars database to WP:FILMRES#Reception. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks eric, maybe its just me, but their website did not seem the easiest to find records like that. Thanks very much again. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox discussions about writer field

There are currently two discussions going on about the writer field in the infobox: One on splitting off the original work the film was based on (novel etc.), and one on how the tasks in the writers field should be grouped (screenplay, screen story, characters, etc.). Some input would be appreciated. Prime Blue (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyeballs for Death Race (film) please?

So this film was marketed as remake and the director makes a passing comment on the DVD commentary to thinking of it as a prequel to the 1975 film of the same name. Consequently, there is an editor who insists on labeling the film a prequel (for months on end, seriously) but without engaging in much discussion about it. A brief discussion has occurred on the talk page on the issue, however prequel editor has not chimed in at all. Erik and I are the only folks who have engaged on the talk page and I'm inclined to go with his assessment; this amounts to mention prequel per DVD commentary but describe film as remake. Could anyone interested take a look at the page itself, and the relevant section on the talk page and add their two cents? I'd love to either find a way to describe the issue in the article and stop this endless reverting or get a better sense of consensus. It feels a little silly to revert per consensus when only two people are actually talking. I dropped a note to the editor in question to bring the issue to the talk page (months ago) and continue to ask that he does so in my revert summaries. SO far, nothing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Project input requested

As individuals involved in development and improvement of film articles, many of us have been able to research and add sources to film articles when their authors did not. We have also been able to gauge the volume of coverage for such articles so as to see if they might meet WP:NF or, if unreleased, WP:NFF. However, I feel that in some cases the guideline NFF is in occasional conflict with policy, and so I would appreciate input (both pro or con) at a discussion I have opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

British Film Institute EL template

An IP attracted my attention to the {{Bfidb title}} template with this, and a brief investigation makes me question the value of having this external link (or the template itself) in film articles. While the British Film Institute is excellent (especially with its Film Index International), I am not sure of the value of the set of web pages being linked to here. Here are some examples of links from the template.

• Father's Little Dividend: 1
• The Match King: 2
• Blind Young Things: 3
• More Than a Secretary: 4
• Silver Saddle: 5

Per WP:EL, external links should be included when they can serve as unique resources. In reviewing the above sample of links, I cannot find their value as external links. (The only relatively unique detail from there is the production start and end date, which should be included in the article anyway.) I'd like to do without what I perceive as link creep, but I wanted to find out others' opinions. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As for use as an external link, I think it think it might be a useful resource for British films since it includes British-centric information that might not be included in the article. For instance, it maintains a list of UK TV transmission dates: [20]. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of "for instance". The TV transmission dates is the only detailed sub-page of a film's page in that database, and I'm not exactly sure if that's highly desired information. If we did want to include it, we should link to it directly, but I think the original goal of the EL was to add to the link farm (in good faith). This is not the right approach; we're supposed to keep ELs limited and make sure the ones included are worthwhile. IMDb may not be a gold standard, but it's reputable enough for widespread inclusion. This one, not so much, and does not have enough information for dissemination. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a case of "for instance" actually, because you are looking for instances of information that are not usually included in the article but might still be of interest. It also provides lots of corporate information too, which is usually omitted from articles and is often erroneous on IMDB. The British Film Institute is certainly more reputable than IMDB, at least within the UK - I think there probably is a case here for replacing the IMDB links on the British film articles with the BFI links since the information isn't user generated. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera

I know it is not project-related, but I've got some really sad news to tell everyone here at this WikiProject: AnmaFinotera, our coordinator for nearly the past year, has just announced her resignation earlier today due to her permanent retirement from Wikipedia. The link announcing her resignation can be found here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I commented over there. Mike Allen 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of epic films for deletion

Please add your thoughts on the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformers source dysfunction

All four pages related to the Transformers movies are plagued by some serious source issues to varying degrees (with the franchise page and the 3rd film having the biggest issues). Most of their sources are coming from www.tfw2005.com, a fan site (a few of these are okay as they are actually interviews with cast and crew, but very few). Other fansites being used include a blogspot blog run by no one of any consequence. I'm not sure what tags to put on. Editors way more experienced than me advised that these refs should be pulled a few weeks back. I did this on the upcoming film and now all of those fansite refs are back in place (predominantly in the casting section). Frankly, trying to clean up these refs is entirely too overwhelming for me, as I don't play with refs too terribly often and typically break the page a few times in the process of fixing it. I can has help? I was thinking I could just tag the pages but I'm 1) sure that the tags will get removed and 2) not sure what tags would be appropriate. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Album infobox

Is it normally acceptable to add an album infobox in a soundtrack section of an article? [See here] I'm still working this sucker to a FAC, and am worried about that non-free album cover. Just adding a non-free rationale for Saw VI would satisfy non-free criteria? Mike Allen 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As you probably saw, we never really came up with guidelines for the soundtrack. However, I think that an album infobox is appropriate. The difficulty was more with the inclusion of the album cover. I personally think such an image rarely adds very much, and we should not be compelled to include it. The Featured Article Tropic Thunder has a soundtrack section without using the image, and I think it works fine without. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for additional production credits

Since there is ongoing discussion about making the writing credits more granular in the film infobox, I was thinking of a way to keep the main infobox from being overpopulated with so many parameters. I've considered the cinematographer and the editor parameters to be the least important, relatively speaking. With music, the parameter can vary in importance a lot. In addition, there has been infobox discussion about "missing" production credits, especially those where people can win awards, such as for costume design or art direction. I've attempted an experiment where I use a second infobox in a film article's "Production" section that lists the additional production credits. I used Fight Club (film) as my example, as seen here. (Please tolerate this presentation as a very rough draft.) The credits I included in this second infobox are music, cinematography, editing, production design, art direction, set decoration, and costume design. I went out of my way to create Chris Gorak (per WP:CREATIVE) as a result. I think such an infobox would help highlight these secondary credits, and this kind of infobox could help improve blue-link navigation at the very least for award-winning (and thus notable) crew in the film industry. We at WikiProject Films do try to avoid indiscriminately listing all cast and crew members, but I do not think that credits where awards can be won are indiscriminate. I'm not looking to implement this right away; I'm pitching this idea to see what others think. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder though if something like that would merely create an unnecessary infobox for some articles. Most films don't have award awinning anything, let along specifics for a particular crew member. Would it not be easier to do away with those fields that are (pardon the phrase) "less important" and create a couple of custom fields that could be utilized when you have an award winning position?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea, I like it a lot. The dilemma with the infobox is that the relevance of each parameter varies with different kinds of films, and having a fixed set of parameters indicates that there is such a thing as a standard movie. So a flexible solution would be the best, and connecting it to the production section could be a good way to deal with editors who otherwise might feel compelled to fill out every available parameter - since the list more apparently becomes a summary of the production section. The problem that remains is that it might look weird in articles without a proper production section, but that could also work as an incentive to develop the articles.

Then there is of course the question of where each parameter should go: if the top infobox is stripped of editor and cinematographer, it almost exclusively becomes a summary of the film's release and marketing, with the poster, billed actors, distributor etc.. Smetanahue (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This could definitely work, although it would look best with a developed production section. A few-sentences stub that already deals with a large infobox would probably be overwhelmed with another infobox. If we could somehow encourage the infobox only be used if a production section is included within the article, that may assist in article expansion. Removing the parameters from infobox film shouldn't be a problem as I think those outside of the production fields are what readers predominately look to when viewing a film anyway. For those interested in the production of the film, the new infobox would be a helpful complement to the prose, especially when free images of the production are usually rare. Obviously this is going to look better in more developed articles, so again, we would probably want to encourage their use for articles that wouldn't sandwich the two infoboxes together. This may also help address the issues raised for adding additional parameters for the Bollywood films. To Bignole, I don't its inclusion should only be required if the production members won awards, as it would actually help to guide readers to the positions related to the production of the film, whether award-worthy or not (readers may be interested in who was responsible for a terrible film's cinematography or music for example). We should ensure that there are limitations on what production positions are included, as we don't want the parameters to swell. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem. If you're just creating a box to include the people that we're removing from the original, then it's unnecessary. If you're creating the box to include additional people that we don't already include then we're just becoming another IMDb. Unless those people have some significance to the film, which would most likely be covered in prose anyway, we're just listing crew members. Then you get into a "why isn't this position on there".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd figure one reason that we don't include some parameters to infobox film is that we don't want it running through the majority of the article due to its length. Before a new infobox would be implemented, we would definitely need to get as much feedback as possible on what positions would be most desired. I wouldn't want to see a new infobox that does the same thing in taking up the entire article, especially when only a few positions should be covered. We're going to have to continue to enforce the fact that it simply isn't necessary to list all crew members (and replicate IMDB), just like we have the constant discussions on adding/removing parameters from infobox film from new editors. Establishing consensus on the designated parameters would help in combating new additions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the secondary infobox should be more selective than the primary infobox and would work best in a well-developed production section. I am not looking to make this universal, and in a hypothetical rollout, we would have pretty clear documentation about usage. I only moved the cinematographer and the editor because I thought they were the least needed parameters of the film infobox, but they don't have to be moved. When there have been infobox discussions about additional parameters, I have agreed that we do not want to get too detailed in that area. Regardless, it has bothered me that we would include the cinematographer and the editor but not other crew that are typically found in award categories. I mean, we don't shy away from filling out the cinematographer and editor fields when the people who worked on a given film have no articles. The secondary infobox is a long way from IMDb; we would limit the parameters like we do with the infobox. It would just provide greater balance for that particular set of persons typically recognized for major awards. Such an infobox would be akin to listing the main cast, not just starring, but also the people who don't get that top billing. Anyway, no rush to action; I wanted to plant this idea a la Inception. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Useful link archive site

I may be late on the bandwagon in using this, but hopefully there are others like me that are unaware and could benefit. To help prevent link rot for citations that are being used in articles, I have normally been using Wayback Machine (if links are available) or linking to sites that sell old articles. However, I just stumbled upon WebCite, a free site that creates an archive of a page. To use it, you just need to give an e-mail address so they can tell you the link name once it is done processing. When you find an article you want to archive, you click on a link they provide and it automatically converts it and sends the url to your e-mail. After that, the link can be added to a manually entered citation/citation template and there will always be a useful link for the reader, even if the original goes dead. I'm planning on going through each of the GA/FAs I've worked on, and would recommend others do the same to prevent having to constantly check each link and searching for an archived page elsewhere. WP:WEBCITE provides some guidance as does the actual website, and it's pretty straightforward. Again, if this is already common knowledge, I must apologize for having my head always buried in a book—er, film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've been doing this on articles I heavily edit since January. No more dead and rotted links! Mike Allen 06:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugger. Wish I'd known about that before this one ROlling Stone article went dead (it's used on the Wachowski Brothers' page). Awesome find. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the Wayback Machine for Rolling Stone? All of the Rolling Stone ones I have looked for have been available there.--BelovedFreak 08:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried and couldn't find it. Maybe I borked something typing. I've been sick for a bit so my brain is all fuzzy. I'll try again. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response! Anyway, here. (If that's the one you mean!) --BelovedFreak 08:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the one. My stupid brain; wonder how I managed to bork that one. I didn't want to remove the link from the article entirely since it's available in the print issue. Seemed silly. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, Nehrams! Did not know about this, either. I was wondering, how does it deal with articles that become subscription-only? I'm thinking about The Hollywood Reporter, whose new articles eventually wind up behind a paywall. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is behind a paywall, WebCite will be unable to archive it. If the archive URL is generated before the article gets put behind a paywall, the archive URL will continue to work even after it is put behind the paywall. :D Some websites, such as The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and The New York Times, do not allow their content to be archive through no-cache / no-archive tags, or via a robot exclusion policy. Another useful tool is the WebCite Bookmarklet. I create and add a WebCite archive URL almost every time I add a citation. Since I most likely already have the article open, all I do is click the bookmarklet and an archive URL is created. This little effort of a couple of clicks and two additional citation parameters each time, ensures the article will be available forever. I would recommend all editors get into the habit of creating archive URLs. - Kollision (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Thanks for the explanation. I'll try it out today on an article. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried it out here, but I did not realize that the archived URL would be put at the forefront as if the original URL did not work. This seems problematic to me; I'd rather have the archived URL "kick in" when the original URL is no longer available. While recognition is not being taken away, the original reference would almost certainly be less trafficked. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No Erik, it's not. :) Just comment them out. See example here. When they're ready to be used just remove the comment. I tried to ask on the cite web talk page to make a "archive=yes" or something, they just recommended this. I guess it would be so much trouble to make that parameter. This works though. Mike Allen 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought about commenting out, but it just made me think that if the link does go dead, then that linkcheck bot will grab an Internet Archive URL (if possible) and add it to the template right beside the commented-out WebCite URL. An "archive=yes" parameter is an excellent idea and should be possible when we have WP:CHECKLINKS. Anyway, I added WebCite URLs to most of Black Swan (film). I think a couple of best practices here is to avoid using WebCite for citations of content we will know for sure in due time. For example, we do not need explicit confirmation of certain cast members when we'll see them on screen and listed in credits later. Same for cited synopses since the film will be public then. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't use bots or understand them. I do everything manually. Mike Allen 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

There's a minor controversy at Talk:Rope and Breasts. Would appreciate input. Dekkappai (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing I shouldn't look at this while I'm at work?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not advisable.  Chickenmonkey  06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of war films based on books

There is some work going on by User:Nihonjo, User:*Kat* and me, to improve a series of lists, most of which contain war films based on books. The lists have had a number of issues for a long time, relating to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OWN, to name a few. The original author of the lists, User:Varlaam has long been reluctant to allow others to make improvements, although changes are finally being made. I would like to get others involved if possible, as three editors does not necessarily make "consensus". More info can be found at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, as well as at various article talkpages including Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) and Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926). (Also, check out the article histories of any of the relevant articles.)

It would be a great help if other editors could join in, either to help out, or just to say they agree with changes being made, or they don't agree, or they have better ideas, or that perceived problems aren't really problems... or whatever! One of the problems we'll be tackling next is trying to remove films that aren't really about the topic of the list (ie. not really a war film, not really a sports film etc.), so if anyone wants to run their eyes over the list and remove films that they know shouldn't be there, that would be great too.--BelovedFreak 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Editor182 and File:Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula.jpg

User:Editor182 has been repeatedly posting the image File:Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula.jpg on the following articles despite the objections of myself and some other editors:

• Count Dracula
• Dracula in popular culture
• Van Helsing (film)

The image is Editor182's personal fan art of Richard Roxburgh as Dracula in the film Van Helsing (that big CGI crapfest with Hugh Jackman fighting all the Universal Monsters). Although I have to assume good faith, I think that Editor182 wants to show off their art--because nowhere in the article does it call for an image of Roxburgh as Dracula. It's not even like it's a real person with no free image available, so a drawing is the only substitute. Nor does it add anything of note to the article--it is purely decorative. Editor182 has even gone far as to replace an image of a wax figure of Bela Lugosi as Dracula with Roxburgh.

But if this was a drawing of Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, that would be another matter entirely. But Richard Roxburgh from Van Helsing? Count Chocula or the Count from Sesame Street are more notable than he is when it comes to portraying Count Dracula. Roxburgh is simply not a notable interpretation of Dracula. To put a drawing of him on articles that discuss Dracula from the novel is nothing short of absurd. If you take a look at Count Dracula, you'll see there are already images of Lugosi, Lee, Max Shreck (Nosferatu) and the real Vlad Tepes. Think for a moment and ask if anything from Van Helsing should be with them.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the unencyclopedic image be nominated for deletion? The short answer is that per WP:FILMNFI it doesn't belong in the article. --Peppage^tlk 18:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I call BS. I have nothing to gain from the image being in the articles, I think it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that I never replaced any image to include this image, it was purely contribution, not a substitution, but you on the other hand did replace the image, but I have no issues with other images in the article. Good try, though. I already noted in the noticeboards that if the decision from there is to remove them, then I'll request the complete removal from commons. I don't gain anything from the image being here. You have some psychotic agenda. Editor182 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, whatever, you win, congratulations, sleep better tonight, okay? Editor182 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychotic agenda? The issue is solely that this personal illustration is out-of-place amongst the actual photographs and professional illustrations on the page. Yes, freely-licensed material is always good, but not at the expense of quality. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, any image of Roxburgh is not appropriate for an article about Dracula as a whole unless you're doing an exhaustive compilation of all his actors. His Dracula was not a notable portrayal and has received minimal attention after the film released. To put him on an article with images of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee grossly exaggerates his impact.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We went through something like this last December when images like this [21] were added to articles. The consensus was that fan art like these were to be avoided. While I will admit that Editor182's artwork is somewhat better that does not alter the fact that it is not representative of Roxburgh's performance, costuming or makeup. IMO it does not add any informational value to the articles that it has been placed in. It should be noted that two other editors have removed this drawing which would seem to be, at least, a start of a consensus against its inclusion. The insulting tone used in the posts on this page combined with the opening this thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem with User Removing Images, which smacks of forum shopping, make it difficult to WP:AGF in this specific situation. I am against the drawings inclusion in any articles but, of course, other opinions are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive1

I've nominated Dustbin Baby (film), which falls under the remit of this project, for featured article status. Thoughts/comments would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but does a film's "budget" mean the same as what it cost to make? Or does it refer to the amount that the film's supposed to cost, or the planned cost of the film, which could then theoretically be different from the final cost? To put it simply, I've found a reliable source mention that a film cost $x to make - can I use that as the "budget"?--BelovedFreak 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A film's budget could be different than the final cost. Cliff smith ^talk 22:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The film's "budget" refers to what it cost to make the film (i.e. filming, cast fees, crew fees, etc.). That does not include what it costs to market a film, which can be equal to what it cost to make it. As far as film articles are concerned, when we say "budget" we're talking about cost to make. It's hard to find the cost of marketing a film, at least a lot harder than the cost to make it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I couldn't really figure out how to best break it down. Cliff smith ^talk 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both, that helps. I guess my confusion is really over the infobox (should have explained this better). Basically, I have found a source that says "the film cost $10 million to make". That's fine, I get what that means, I can incorporate it into prose, but can I enter that number into the infobox in the "budget" parameter? --BelovedFreak 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In short, yes that's correct. Just enter the source into prose rather than clutter the infobox with references and you should be good to go. :) Mike Allen 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Budget" normally means "the amount you plan to spend". In the film industry, a film's "budget" or "production budget" is usually a round number (like $10 million, $25 million, or $100 million) and the "actual cost of production" is almost never clearly defined. Therefore, the normal practice for the film industry is to equate a film's "budget" with its "actual cost". Sometimes films notably come in under budget or go over budget, and this is revealed; those occurrences are not all that common.  Chickenmonkey  23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget is actually a misnomer - Titanic's budget was something like $90 million, but it ended up costing $200 million to make. The cost of the film really breaks down into "production costs" (the cost of making the film) and "marketing costs" (the cost of advertising, the prints etc), and it is the production costs that tend to be regarded as the "budget". It tends to be the production costs that get put into the infobox, because that's the amount of money put into the film before its release. Most budget sources only list the production costs because the marketing costs are usually unknown at the time of print. In Avatar's case, Fox stated that it spent $237 million on production costs and $150 million was going to be spent on marketing. When the cost of the film is given and not clarified more often than not that is just the production cost. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, this is interesting. I think I shall just report what my source says, and leave the infobox well alone as far as budget goes, unless I find a clearer source!--BelovedFreak 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If the budget space is empty or has an unsourced figure just stick it in. If someone doesn't like it or finds a better source they can always remove or replace it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I rememer discussing this somewhere else, but wouldn't it make more logic to completely write out the infobox Budget (XX,XXX) rather than say XX million? If we want to "keep the infobox short and to the point" then my argument would be to shorten the gross to keep that short and to the point. In my opnion, we should come to a consensus and update Template:Infobox film to reflect it. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Budgets are almost always in whole numbers ^{[may be the wrong mathematical term]} ($100 million, $30 million, $65 million) whereas the gross is exact ($65,584,758). It doesn't make sense to write out $100,000,000 when $100 million gets the point across accurately. So should the gross be written as "$65.57 million"? Mike Allen 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the budget is $100 million, rather than $100,000,000, then yes, the gross should reflect how the budget is expressed. I personally do not think it makes sense to have two presentations of two similar numbers above and below each other. ChaosMaster_Chat 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to reduce the accuracy of the gross to accommodate the presentation format of a different piece of information. If you take Box Office Mojo for example [22], they don't seem to have a problem with using the two different formats. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But we also have to wonder how accurate tickets sales really are. I don't think it would take into account refunds, no-shows, people buying for a different film, etc. Cutting it down to $30.xx in the infobox should be sufficient in providing details about gross, while reducing the required updates as the film fades from the top of the box office. That way it would match up with the budget formatting and we wouldn't have to worry about the individual dollars. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OR we could just make the format of the budet a whole number (XXX,XXX,XXX) and eliminate the whole discussion. For me this issue is similar to listing 2 in a paragraph, and then three sentences later have two 2 times. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? Mike Allen 02:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What made me bring this up (for the umteenth time) is an edit war I was involved in over at Inception (2010 film)'s page. The budget should be presented in the same way the gross is presented, and the gross is going to be presented as a whole number, and therefore the budget should be presented in the same way. ChaosMaster_Chat 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What it boils down to is a personal preference. And since there is no consensus on it either way, I'll do it the way I've been doing it for months; though I won't edit war over something like that. Mike Allen 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which would mean that there technically is not a correct way to write it; or that its correct either way? ChaosMaster_Chat 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MacGuffin list of examples and terminology articles generally

Could use some input on how to handle the list of examples in MacGuffin, which tends to grow and become populated with non-notable or unsourced examples. Just keep eliminating the unsourced ones, or add citation neededs, prosify, get rid of the section? As I noted on the talk page, a MacGuffin can be just about anything, so examples aren't that instructive IMO, and it's problematic perhaps when there's competing contradictory definitions (Hitchcock's versus Spielberg's).

Possibly all the articles in the category Film and video terminology could use some attention. Some seem to be just dicdefs and might be better handled in a glossary here or moved to Wiktionary (e.g. Quote whore, Blackout gag). Some possibly aren't widely used terminology at all, like Spinning newspaper, which is maybe more of a cliched device than terminology anyway. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference: Category:Film and video terminology. I commented at Talk:MacGuffin. I think terminology articles suffer because of lack of interest and lack of familiarity with research. For Quote Whore, I redirected it to film criticism like quote whore was already redirected. The spinning newspaper effect is noteworthy (according to Google Books Search) but may benefit from a transwiki to Wiktionary. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Format for box office charts on List of highest-grossing films

I've made some suggestions to streamline the charts on the List of highest-grossing films at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Superfluous_information. The changes would radically alter the article and we've only had two opinions so far. I would welcome a few more to provide a clearer picture of what we want in the charts and what we don't. I would prefer it if the charts were consistent because at the moment it looks ad hoc, so either we need to add data to some charts or remove it from others. If we could agree a standard box office chart for all the articles that would be great. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR November (film)

I have nominated November (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Screenplay and story

All, the film infobox has two new parameters available to use: screenplay= and story=. This is the result of discussion at Template talk:Infobox film and allows a more aesthetic breakdown of writing credits. The writer= parameter is still available for use, but I encourage everyone to instead use the two new parameters where they apply. For example, Black Swan (film) identifies one person for the story and three people for the screenplay. In addition, there is discussion at the template talk page about additional parameters related to writing and source material. You can see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Variety of production company nationality

Last I heard, we were determining a film's nationality by the nationality of the production companies. What do we do if there are several from different countries, or several with a majority of them from one company? Simply list the nationalities? Reason I ask is this edit. Removal of Fox Atomic looks legit, as they were the distributors (according to some googling), and the addition of Spain also seem fine as there is a Spanish production company listed, with the rest of them being British (couldn't hunt down Koan). Geoff B (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue should be primacy. Whenever possible, the film's nationality should be identified by its main studio, not every one of the production companies involved. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, it is misleading to label the film as a Spanish production. It is primarily a British production that got some help internationally. There are some cases where this is less clear, like for the film Blindness. It's ideal to look at reliable sources that discuss a film in prose; they usually indicate the key nationality. A database like IMDb is indiscriminate about identifying countries related to a film; the degree of a production company's involvement does not matter. This does not mean 28 Weeks Later should forego any mention of Spanish involvement; it would depend on the degree of its involvement and should be discussed in the article body itself. The label should not be propped up as significant in the lead sentence and the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors making arbitrary decisions about a film's nationality can sometimes border on original research, and this looks like a case of that. The film's nationality if mentioned in the main text should be sourced. It is not the place of editors to be allocating nationalities to films - it is a factual claim and should be sourced like all other factual claims on Wikipedia. The Wiki FilmProject cannot override general Wikipedia policy in this respect by conceiving their own nationality policy, so any unsourced claims about nationality can be challenged and removed if not sourced.

As for the infobox, the "country" field doesn't denote the nationality of the film, it denotes the nationality of the "main production companies", which in most cases would be the copyright holder of the film at the time of production (since copyright can be sold on down the years). In the case of films where the copyright-holder is unknown, the nationalities of all the production companies should be recorded to again avoid original research.

In the case of 28 Weeks Later, if the nationality in the main text is disputed it should be removed unless it can be sourced. In the infobox, nationalities of all the production companies should be recorded unless it is determined which production company holds the copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the best way to check for a film's copyright? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's usually recorded on the film's credits with the copyright notice at the end. Some film information sites list it though. The BFI list it for 28 Weeks Later: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/823461?view=credit. In this case the copyright is jointly held by a British company (Newco Films) and a US company (Fox). Since we can demonstrate which countries are the copyright holders (UK and US) then the infobox countries should be limited to this. However if we couldn't have found this information I would have advocated including Spain to avoid the arbitrary decision. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Avatar (2009 film), that was subject to some very protracted nationality discussion. Dr Negative and I ultimately settled on using a source for the nationality claim in the lede, and using the copyright country in the infobox is a compromise I can live with if we aren't going to list all countries. Nationality is one of the hottest disputed points on film articles (especially for European productions which is dominated by small production outfits since there is only really France with a studio system). I think that's a pretty good solution on the Avatar article and maybe could serve as a precedent like in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actor infobox merger

There was an ongoing discussion here Template talk:Infobox actor#Merge with Infobox person that has been moved here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor. I feel that there should be more input before a final decision is made. Please feel free to add your thoughts and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible collaboration idea

I've been throwing around a collab idea in my head between you guys and the baseball project, and I thought I'd note it here to see if it's worth the time. I was thinking of having us combine to work on some of the baseball film articles. Upon looking at baseball's most popular pages, a lot of films show up, so they're definitely ones people read, so it would be beneficial. You guys could handle the format/structure aspects while we could handle the, well, baseball aspects. I figure this would be a November/December thing to do, since the baseball season will be over. It got some mild support when I asked over there, so it's tough to say how well it would work. If you guys are up for it, let me know; if you think this is a stupid idea, that's fine too. I only see a couple baseball films in your top 1k popular pages, so it's not all that pressing for you. Just a thought I'm throwing out there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nifty idea. If I'm available when it rolls around, I'd be down to help where I can. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is website "The Numbers" an appropriate source for film info?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_website_.22The_Numbers.22_an_appropriate_source_for_film_info.3F. Would appreciate some input there. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Added input, especially comparing The Numbers to Box Office Mojo. Others are welcome to weigh in. Could use some input in particular about DVD sales, which The Numbers has but not Box Office Mojo. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Subcategorization of films set in the <decade> to films set in <year>

Just wanted to see what you all thought of the subcategorization of categories such as Category:Films set in the 1980s to Category:Films set in 1985, Category:Films set in 1986, etc. The "by decade" seems sufficient to me so this seems a bit much, but I thought I'd bring it to the attention to the subject matter experts here before a possible CFD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, support an upmerger for a set of un-needed subcats. Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be really good of more people came over to the discussion. Right now it has become largely stagnent, and only about 20 people have provided their opinions. We'd really appreciate a wider sample size. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Scope creep in director templates

Where a director has filmed multiple works, the films typically share a director template. Lately, I've noticed that director templates have gone beyond listing a director's works. There are director templates that also list that person's credits as producer and screenwriter. An example is Template:Matthew Vaughn. These templates are then proliferated to these films' articles. For example, the Matt Vaughn template appears in The Debt and Swept Away (2002 film) right below these films' own director templates. This is scope creep in director templates, where we are supposed to keep use of such templates limited per WP:CLN. This is why we avoid actor templates across all actors' films, but the same argument ought to apply to crew members beyond the director himself. I ask for a review of director templates to ensure that the proper scope is maintained. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

These navigation templates of lesser roles may need to be vetted to avoid a slow growth of too many templates in a film article's footer: Category:Film producer templates and Category:Film writer templates. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You can supress multiple templates with a hide/show box. I've seen them on actor and sports bio pages, say for the latter "awards and achievements for x person" - clicking show expands and shows dozens of footer templates. Much better solution that removing them. Lugnuts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That happens automatically for me, and that's not the point. The point is that this scope creep has no real cut-off. In addition to templates for producers and screenwriters, I've seen a couple for composers. This means a film article could have navigation templates for the director, the screenwriter, one to four producers, and the composer. Shall we have them for the editor and the cinematographer, too? We're not even factoring in film series/franchise templates nor succession boxes. We cannot accommodate multiple major crew members' career contributions in the footer of a film article. We were comfortable with director templates since directors are "heads" of film, but other crew members will vary more in relevance. We already link to crew members' articles that list their contributions; it is excessive to cluster them in a film article's footer. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: "We cannot accommodate multiple major crew members' career contributions in the footer of a film article." - Why not? For the record, I agree that it should be directorial work only, but what's actually stopping, say twenty template footers on an article? Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's little-to-no need for glomming navigation templates onto articles they're tangentially related to. Navigation templates are supposed to be for articles a reader is likely to be interested in moving on to from the article they are currently viewing.  Chickenmonkey  13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLN#Disadvantages of templates says:

• ...that a large number of templates can be a disadvantage
• ...that information that is only tangentially related takes up too much space
• ...that many links in a full list are not useful in some of the articles
• ...that there are not enough clues which links are the most relevant or important

I am suggesting that we temper the use of navigation templates. We avoid actor templates since actors' roles will vary in significance. The main crew members are key assistants to production, but they are not "linchpins" like the director. If a director has also been a producer or a screenwriter with other films, then the person's contribution will vary in importance. If we have a template titled "Matthew Vaughn" instead of "Films directed by Matthew Vaughn" because of an attempt to encompass all contributions, it is less clear what is the most relevant and important. By and large, we're in agreement to have director templates when the director has a decent number of films. I just think that beyond the director, there's a slippery slope of including other crew members' tangential contributions. I'm totally fine with blue-linking the major cast members whenever possible, as I suggested a "production credits" infobox a few discussions above, but I'm wary about the grayer approach of non-director person templates in the film article's footer. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments needed on the Howard Hughes template. Should all the productions be removed, and if so, should the template exist at all, with only two films being linked? Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Drizzle (film)

The article Drizzle (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Drizzle (film) – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fictional locations...

Today I've seen a couple of articles with sentences: "Fred (actor's name) starts attending the fictional university..." or "Detective Jones is sent to the fiction town of X to investigate..." now I get that the university and the town are fictional and we have to show that. And I get that we have to be clearly not in-universe. I don't quite get why Detective Jone or Fred are denoted as fictional, but that's not my problem. To me these sentences read like the stories are post modern... Someone entering a book and going to a inuniverse fiction university or the detective entering a film and investigating crimes in a fictional town... Is there better phrasing that can clarify what needs to be said (these places don't exist in the real world) without what I see as an ambiguous phrasing? 203.35.82.136 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it actually make the article unclear, though? The English language suffers from imprecision, but I don't think it's likely that a reader is going to be confused into thinking that Fred leaps into a comic book to start his further education. Does putting the word "fictional" in parentheses help? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it can make it unclear. I was actually confused when reading about a character who worked on a fictitious television show. I didn't know if it was fictitious within the fictional universe or not. I don't think that there's any need to state that things within a fictional universe are fictional. Not within a plot section, anyway. It's perhaps more necessary in other sections, depending on the context.--BelovedFreak 09:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's any ambiguity it should be easy enough to word around it on an individual basis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is having "fictional" come first. For instance you could say "Superman comes from the fictional planet Krypton, millions of light years from Earth" (which could imply Krypton is fictional relative to the reality of the film), so it would be better to say "Superman comes from the planet Krypton, a fictional world, millions of light years from Earth". Through the wonder of English grammar, the clarification that Krypton is fictional is removed from the actual description of Superman's origin. Similarly "Detective Jones is sent to X, a fictional town in California, to investigate...". Detective Jones doesn't need to be clarified as fiction because the basic assumption is that characters are. However many stories are set in real places so sometimes it is helpful to clarify that the location is made up. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making an honest effort and trying to help, but unfortunately that's sheer nonsense. There's not the slightest change in meaning when the adjective is moved. "the fictional planet Krypton" and "Krypton, a fictional planet" mean exactly the same thing, and writing both "planet" and "world", as in "the planet Krypton, a fictional world", is just pointless verbosity. The only practical suggestion so far is Chris Cunningham's idea of putting "fictional" in parentheses. Parens suggest that the text inside them is obvious or unremarkable, and it's only outside the story (in the real world) that most plot elements are fictional. It's not nearly as common for plot elements to be fictional inside the story, so if they are, that fact should be clearly emphasized, as in Last Action Hero. Unfortunately, there's just not enough space in plot summaries, and the English language just isn't precise enough, to come up with a perfect solution to this problem. I like the paren idea, but also I don't think the ambiguity is really all that big a problem. —Codrdan (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The original form used an adjective clause to clarify that Krypton is not real, but the sentence structure makes its use ambiguous. The description of the fictional Krypton and description that it is a fictional planet need to be separated, and one way to do this is to use an appositive. The alternative method of using brackets is grammatically identical to using the appositive since it breaks the description into two parts. I have no objetcion to either but an appositive looks cleaner in a body of text. You really shouldn't offer advice if you don't understand formal grammar. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

>the sentence structure makes its use ambiguous

Betty, the text is ambiguous no matter how you rearrange it. Actually, both forms are apposition, so your argument doesn't even make sense. "the fictional planet Krypton" is "restrictive" apposition, and "Krypton, a fictional planet [or "world"]" is "nonrestrictive" apposition. Either way, the apposition says nothing about context.

>The [descriptions] need to be separated

The descriptions need to be communicated, and separating "fictional world" from "Krypton" doesn't make them any clearer. You can't change context implicitly in the middle of a sentence; you have to explicitly indicate that one description is in the real world and the other is in the story. Again, I appreciate that you're making an honest effort to help, Betty, but there is no concise, unambiguous solution. The idea that a simple syntactic tool can somehow communicate detailed information about a specific subject is just a fantasy. If you're admitting that apposition is no clearer than parentheses, that's at least a start, but parentheses are commonly used to indicate that their content is obvious, which in our example is only true in a real-world context, while apposition has no such connotation. Apposition serves to "define or modify" the first noun, that's all. It can't possibly indicate anything as specific as the context of statements about works of fiction. —Codrdan (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie Review Intelligence

I edit and publish the website Movie Review Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_Review_Intelligence). Throughout Wikipedia, in articles that cover individual movies, there is a section called "Reception," which has information about movie reviews. Usually there are citations from several movie review aggregators. Movie Review Intelligence is a professional movie review aggregator that is regularly quoted in the press and relied on by movie industry professionals because it is based on objective, statistical methodologies that minimize biases (http://iurl.us/bcj) Is it possible for Movie Review Intelligence to be considered as a source of movie review information on the movie pages on Wikipedia? If you require additional information or explanation, I can provide it. Thank you. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

David, thank you for your request. When you mention several movie review aggregators, you are probably referring to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in general, right? I think there is a large drop-off after these are cited because the pairing of different scoring systems works well. We've used Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in articles because they tend to be very well-established in mainstream media. For example, where Movie Review Intelligence on Google News Search has 13 hits, Metacritic (as a site) has 3,150 hits, and Rotten Tomatoes has 1,420 hits. There is also an essay (not a policy nor guideline) about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic here that detail the websites' use. My experience is that the pairing of the two well-known websites is sufficient to reflect statistical summaries of critical reviews. What can Movie Review Intelligence contribute to that pairing or how could it replace one of them, despite its lesser fame? There are a few other movie review aggregator websites out there, like MRQE, but I think that editors have gone with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic due to their greater notoriety. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I came across this discussion where an editor reported, "Apparently www.moviereviewintelligence.com is blacklisted due to excessive spamlinking." David, you said in that discussion, "Two websites have a monopoly on Wikipedia when it comes to posting authoritative movie review information... When we posted review information, it was reported as spam and I was blocked. I would like to know what it takes to have a page on this site and what qualifies a site to be the recognized authority when it comes to movie reviews." You later say, "Movie Review Intelligence believes its information is more accurate and deserves to be included in the discussion." The reason Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been used is because they were well-known outside Wikipedia, though they have their limitations and should not be used everywhere. There have been numerous movie websites, not just movie review aggregator websites, that seek a reputation-building foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. It's hard to acknowledge Movie Review Intelligence as a potential reference if it has attempted that foothold and got blacklisted. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist-related links here and here. It seems that a removal from the blacklist should be proposed here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric, thank you for your note. Mistakes posting information by Movie Review Intelligence were made which resulted in the site being blacklisted. It will not happen again. If I knew how to request being white-listed, I would do so. Movie Review Intelligence is not looking to gain a foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry. I would ask that the editors take a minute to understand each site's methodology and results. If the goal of Wikipedia is to include the two most popular movie review sites, that goal appears to have been met. However, if the goal is to present a film's reception as measured objectively according to what the body of U.S. film critics are saying, not what the aggregator is saying, then I hope the editors will consider including Movie Review Intelligence. The list of critics and publications covered by each website, the grading scales, the weighting, the analysis -- each site is very different in its approach, yielding significantly different results. Movie Review Intelligence is dedicated to an objective analysis of film criticism. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia. David A. Gross Dagrossla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

When writing about a recent film's critical reception, one of the challenges is to reflect the consensus. This helps indicate the balance of opinions when we sample individual critics' opinions of the film. For older films, detailing the consensus is easier because publications report on it retrospectively. Movie review aggregators help reflect the consensus for contemporary films, but this does not necessarily mean they are permanent. For example, I would warrant that for a 2006 film we could find recent publications reporting retrospectively on critics' consensus of the film. The point is that the reception section is not intended to be a mashup of movie review aggregators' scores. A selection of scores serves as the lead-in for newer films. As time goes on, they are less necessary because it is more likely that retrospective reporting has taken place. We could discuss treating Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as transitional references (replacing them with more retrospective reports), but that is another discussion for another time.

You said, "We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry." People from Movie Review Query Engine and TopTenReviews probably would make the same claim. We have diminishing returns when reporting on multiple scores; how important is the third, fourth, or fifth movie review aggregator score? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, prominent websites, were endorsed as a pairing of differently calculated scores for mainstream films to lead into sampling critics' reviews. I have no issue with the article Movie Review Intelligence existing nor having the main link provided in the article. Obviously, with the website on the blacklist, we don't know if the website would have been referenced in film articles by people other than the Movie Review Intelligence staff. If we compare the scales of the websites, though, I cannot expect Movie Review Intelligence to occupy the same ranks as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles. You will need to appeal for the removal of your website from the blacklist, and I do not know what criteria that entails. Regardless, you should avoid any kind of campaign for this website to be used in film articles; your main focus ought to be the appeal and to leave it at that. It is a conflict of interest to campaign for its use in addition to the freedom for it to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric, thank you for your explanation. It is helpful and much appreciated. Wikipedia's effort to "reflect the consensus" of critical opinion that you speak of -- my hope is that the Wikipedia editors will take the time to consider the methodologies used by the sources it quotes so that they can know to what degree they are unbiased or biased, objective or subjective, statistically accurate or distorted. It is a complicated and important issue that deserves consideration. Again, thank you. David A. Gross Dagrossla (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck, then. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A request was made for Movie Review Intelligence to be removed from the blacklist. The request was denied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2011#MovieReviewIntelligence.com_.28removal_request.29 David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that they take a conflict of interest pretty seriously. In my opinion, the best thing you can do is to continue working on your website and promoting it outside Wikipedia. If it can build notoriety, perhaps in due time an independent party can request the website's removal from the blacklist. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)