Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Featured Article candidates

Everyone, there are two articles about film that are Featured Article candidates. Links are below:

Please share your comments and support if you think either meets the FA criteria. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter's web site has undergone a revamp this past week

... and from the looks of it, I just discovered today, many of its articles got swept away in the process. Who knows when they'll be available again? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For starters, we'll have to go through a lot of work on these pages before long. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to webcite HR articles in the past and it never worked, so I doubt we'll have much luck with archives. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Betty, what kind of problems have you had? I WebCite them find. See here from May 2010. Mike Allen 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That is via their HeatVision blog. The one I've web cited directly from HollyReporter.com is not available. I'm not sure if it was ever available or not after I web cited it. Well that sucks. Mike Allen 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem to work on HR articles, or at least it didn't when I did it. LA Times fine. Variety fine. The Hollywood Reporter on the otherhand just gave error messages like the one above. Which is unfortunate really, given the circumstances. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised this happened; my RSS feed of The Hollywood Reporter's film headlines has not been functioning well. The website has definitely opted out of archiving; this FAQ says, "The page owner may specifically prohibit archiving of their content through no-cache / no-archive tags, or via a robot exclusion policy on their site." Archiving still works with Variety, just don't tell anybody... it's an effective way to get behind the you've-read-your-two-articles-for-the-month blackout screen. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik, you can just delete your internet cookies to get around Variety. Hehe. Mike Allen 01:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An even better way is Firefox+Greasemonkey+This script. It removes the blackout screen. - Kollision (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah! That's great. I have two out of three and will add the script. Thanks for sharing! Erik (talk | contribs) 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First billing

I've brought an article, Superman (film), to GA status. Per Alientraveller's suggestion, I used Christopher Reeve in front of Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman (Brando and Hackman were movie stars and had first billing in front of the unknown actor Christopher Reeve). Much of this was due to the comprehensive casting process outlined under Reeve's description, which you can see in the article. Not to mention, the film is called "Superman: The Movie," and Reeve portrayed Superman and had the most screen time as the lead actor (not Brando or Hackman).

Anyway, I took about a year off from Wikipedia and returned to the article tonight to find that other editors not only changed the structure, but they deleted the citations supplied. Sections of the article, especially the Casting, looked like original research. In addition, a lot of unnecessary info has brought the article to over 83,000 bytes! It would be really weird looking to have Brando and Hackman mentioned first and then have Reeve's paragraph afterwards for the Cast section. Anyway, Betty Logan attempted to delete all of my restored changes, including the citations - which made a lot of the Casting information without the references I supplied that are required for GA status (other editors had for unknown reasons deleted the referencing over the year). I came here to see everyone's opinion, because this is where all of the experienced members of WikiProject Films seem to meet. So what say ye? Wildroot (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually I'd be with Betty on going with credited order but I totally understand your reasoning here so I'd be fine with keeping the order you propose (I'd be fine either way on that one, for whatever it's worth). As to the reference removals, I haven't looked in too much detail at the references themselves (though I saw the edits between the two of you) but I did notice the OR issues you were removing shortly after I first started editing heavily (January 2010). I don't know know if that helps pin down the timeline of the removals but there it is. It's been on my list of things to look into working on as I learn more about editing content but I hadn't gotten around to it. I just figured out today that something I thought I did a month ago I never saved (sorry A Prophet plot summary folks, I'll fix that this week) so it should go without saying that I'm way distracted. Millahnna (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All the articles use the credited cast order, so I don't see the logic of breakings rank here. I've restored the credited order but created a section for the casting of Superman in the "production" section. If we are really going to restore the article to the state it was a year ago there should be some discussion first. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess either way could work. Regardless, you still (accidentally) deleted the other casting information with the other actors/actresses. I'll just add it back in tomorrow. I wasn't trying to restore the article the state it was in a year ago, most of it had to do with adding the citations/references that were mysteriously deleted. I also believe the "Broadcast television version details" is way too long. Wildroot (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If I've dropped something you put in then please feel free to add it back in (I'll have another look later to see if I can rescue it myself). It was difficult trying to compare the changes, it was just a load of red writing and was hard to distinguish between. As for the cast following the credit order, that's my view on how it should be done but I've checked MOSFILM and it doesn't actually specify, so I'm happy to go with the majority if they feel my solution isn't satisfactory. Obviously I don't want to jeopardise its GA status, but obviously articles change over time. I think User:-5- wrote the broadcast section, so it may be worth consulting him if you intend to trim it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The broadcast section was originally added several months back (to multiple articles related to the franchise IIRC) by either an IP a new account (can't recall which). I believe -5- and possibly several others have tried to go through and clean up the wording with varying degrees of success. I just remember the addition and thinking that the info itself was fairly interesting (not a lot of refs used for it unfortunately) but that the writing itself needed a massive clean up. Millahnna (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Those huge textual descriptions in the references aren't ideal either. Maybe they should be put into a separate notes section, or better yet the relevant parts can be incorporated into text and the non essential stuff dropped. Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've got a serious problem...

There has been a problem going on at the articles on List of Disney feature films, Destination Films, and Flash animation, as indicated in the article's respective history sections. As some of you know, I got involved in an edit war with 80.31.37.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who claims to be from Spain after I removed the credit to Yin Yang Yo! The Movie, which happened to be false information. I tried to talk to the IP and remind him of WP:CRYSTAL ([1]), only to be dismissed and ignored. Both of us were blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I managed to apologize and clear up the information on my talk page, which can be found here. When I did research for Yin Yang Yo! The Movie via Google, I could not find any research on it. Has anyone else found any sources for that film? Also, in some articles on production companies and distribution companies, I discovered that the articles have false information in them, which are not backed up by a third-party reliable source. I am posting it here to see if project members can help resolve the issues as pointed out here. Thanks, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched for sources about the film but did not find any, so I agree with you that the film does not appear real. I will keep an eye on the IP's contributions. In the future, you're welcome to bring up similar situations here before they get out of hand. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The film credit for Cool Cat (which was claimed to be released in 2013) has been falsely added into the articles on List of Warner Bros. films, Alcon Entertainment, and Village Roadshow Pictures, and so that has been removed as well. As far as I can tell, those additions came from IPs who claim to be from France. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that if you check my talk page's history section, you can find the relevant block notice and comments since I have now removed it at my own discretion. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Evil Dead II plot

Can some folks take an extra look at Evil Dead II's plot summary? It was waaaaaay too long and appropriately tagged and another editor recently changed it to a one paragraph summary that I feel is more of a DVD blurb than an actual summary. I undid his change, he undid my change, so I'd prefer some other folks take a peek to see if they agree with my assessment or if what he dropped in is fine. Thanks in advance. Millahnna (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not want to escalate it into an edit war, so plot summaries should be between 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. I appreciated what the user did, but I believe the words are way below our summary guidelines (it has about 40-48 words in fact). Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page and hoping the user engages there. I mean, yeah if the film is a 5 minute short, two sentences may work, but this is a 84 minute feature film. Mike Allen 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

> if the film is a 5 minute short, two sentences may work

Good point. It would be nice to have some kind of runtime dependence built into the guideline. —Coder Dan (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good way to go, although perhaps it wouldn't hurt to note it as a possible criteria. It's the complexity of the plot, not the length of the movie, that should determine the length of a plot summary. Millahnna (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet people keep saying "If the film were short, the summary could be short" or "If the film were long, the summary could be long." How much complexity can you fit into a five-minute short? How can you make an entertaining three-hour epic without adding some extra complexity? —Coder Dan (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If the plot is complex, then WP:FILMPLOT does permit going outside the range for a three-hour epic. The reality is that the plot summary ought to be appropriately proportional to the rest of the article (per WP:PLOT). For example, if you had an article with a plot summary of 700 words and nothing else, that would actually be inappropriate. We're not supposed to summarize the plot for the sake of saying what it's about no matter what. But again, realistically, not many are going to blank plot summaries just because of this imbalance. If the article about the three-hour epic has nothing but the summary, then going outside the range is not as warranted as if the article body was truly decked out with production, reception, critical analysis, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why I say note it as a possible criteria but don't rely on it as a method to dictate the length of a summary. I mean look at Memento... not a particularly long movie but it goes over the typically word count guidelines (and is highlighted as an example of such exceptions in the guidelines). Odds are that a 3 hour epic IS going to need more words while a 5 minute short will need fewer. But exceptions on both counts are possible, I would guess.

Erik, thanks for that tidbit. While I have used the allplot template before I didn't realize that the length of a plot summary relative to the rest of the article got that particular. That will actually make it easier to do some trimming on some plots on my to do list. Millahnna (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you guys so negative about factoring runtime into the guideline? If it allows exceptions for long films, why not take them into account explicitly? I never said anything about "dictating", and article length is completely unrelated to runtime, as are the pace and complexity of the plot. Why are you bringing up all those other issues? I never said we should ignore them. —Coder Dan (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dictate was probably a poor choice of words on my part. It's not that I don't think it doesn't warrant a possible inclusion as an indicator of an ideal plot length for any particular film. It's more that, based on my experience, many folks are likely to focus on the number and not the content. I've seen countelss editors ask questions along the lines of "so what's the longest I can make a plot summary" when they want to add unneeded details. They see a number in the length guideline and focus on that instead of strong writing that best summarizes the plot. Put another way, I don't think you're wrong that noting "long films may need longer summaries and short films will likely only need brief summaries" is a good idea. But I feel it should be listed as a contributing factor only because of the way many editors focus on numbers. To me (and now I'm totally being redundant) complexity of story is the critical element for a plot's length. Some longer movies only needed the briefest of summaries because their storylines were relatively simple; the guidelines may say 400-700 but some feature films only really need 300 to summarize the plot. Some shorter films may manage to compact a lot of threads into a brief movie and may warrant a slightly longer summary than you would expect. Seriously, am I making any sense at all? I don't think it's a bad idea I just think we should be wary of putting too much focus on it. Millahnna (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

> many folks are likely to focus on the number and not the content.
But we already have numbers. 400 is a number and 700 is a number. All I'm suggesting is that we use better numbers.
> I've seen countelss editors ask ... "so what's the longest I can make a plot summary"
First of all, one way to deal with that problem is to make the numbers smarter. Pace and complexity are too subjective to quantitatively factor into the guideline, but in a hypothetical fantasy world where we could accurately measure them, an ideal guideline would take them into account and specify some kind of reasonable limits that prevent tweenage film buffs from bloating summaries beyond a reasonable length. And second, I hope you're not trying to suggest that I'm one of those people, because no one on this website fights plot-summary bloat more aggressively than I do. If you want to verify that, just browse the articles listed on my user page.
> [runtime] should be listed as a contributing factor ... many editors focus on numbers.
"Contributing factor" is exactly what I'm proposing, and as I already said, we already have numbers.
> complexity of story is the critical element for a plot's length.
Which I completely and wholeheartedly agree with. I've never made even the faintest suggestion that complexity should be considered any less than it is now.
> am I making any sense at all?
You're making perfect sense, but only in the context of completely misinterpreting what I said. To be more concrete, I think a range of between five and seven words per minute of runtime would be better than the current fixed range of 400 to 700 words total. I would keep all of the caveats about complexity, in fact I would describe them even more clearly and completely.
—Coder Dan (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

700 words is roughly equivalent to a page of A4, and you could summarize the bible in a page of A4 if you choose an appropriate level of abstraction. It's more important to have an upper bound than a lower one because people don't want to read an essay. Setting plot length is really less to do with setting a level of abstraction and more to do with gauging how much people are willing to read if they want a brief summary of the film. Readers are probably willing to read up to a page for an average film, but it's not like they would make an allowance to read five pages on War and Peace. Similarly, they'd probably be willing to read up to a page about a five minute short, and it's not likely they will get to the tenth line and think this is too much for a short feature. Most people will happily give a couple of minutes to read a plot outline to gain some insight into the film, which 700 words will easily accommodate. You could probably scrap the lower limit in fairness, having a short summary is not a problem in the way that having a 10,000 word summary would be, but by having a lower limit it does encourage editors to flesh out the plots a bit otherwise as Milhanna points out you just get the DVD box blurb. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

> plot length is really ... how much people are willing to read

I don't disagree with you about this, but I think people are willing to read more about a long saga, a complex murder mystery, or a bizarre sci-fi story than they are for a shorter and/or simpler film. —Coder Dan (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To me the problem wasn't that the word count was so low but that it wasn't a plot summary, it was a back of DVD blurb. THere are some film articles on the site with plot summaries of only 100 words (also way below guidelines) that are still summaries. I think people get into trouble at both ends of the plotsum guidelines because they obsess over word count instead of succinctly summarizing the film.

So what I've done is fished through the article history for a half decent plot before the massive overload of details. The version I found still needed some work so I dropped it into my sandbox for a quick reworking. I just thought having the overly long summary was more useful to the article than the really incomplete one, but it's no biggie either way. I'll drop my efforts in there when I get a chance. Millahnna (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the plot boat occurred from 2008 into 2009. Up to 2008 it seemed fairly static, so I would suggest just restoring the plot from December 31 2007: [2]. It's 500 words and reasonably well written and would save you quite a lot of work. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Shiny! I got lazy and didn't feel like digging back that far. Thanks, Betty! Millahnna (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lost article on failed film

Outsourced (2008 film) had been redirected to Outsourced, but is a completely different film. I discovered it when the film page was move to Outsourced (film) to make way for the DAB page. Hoever, it appears the film asserts notability, and as such should have been AFDed to determine if it is indeed notable. I don't usually deal with film articles, so I am unprepared to research the project to determine if it is indeed notable enough to remain as an article. Any help in determining the correct p[ath to take would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The (2008 film) should be put up for deletion. It really doesn't meet notability for future films as it hasn't been released yet, its not in production and there is no one attached to the project, at least that's what I read. If it does maintain notability, then the (film) should be moved to (2006 film) and (2008 film) to (2012 film) or (upcoming film). Sorry if that isn't explained well. BOVINEBOY2008 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood it. I don't personally have any procedural success at filing AFDs, so I let someone else do the filing correctly. I thonk we can let it stand for a few days/weeks, then take it to AFD if there is no improvemnt. I'd wait until the article is kept (if it is kept) to move the other film to a year-DABbed title, just to save some work on fixing redirects which may have to be reverted. - BilCat (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Project name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per unanimous consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films → Wikipedia:WikiProject Film — Per discussion below; template added belatedly. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This has occured to me before, but I may as well bring it up now while we're discussing a rename of the project banner. The name of this project is "WikiProject Films", but while films make up the bulk of our coverage, our scope is actually the broader topic of film. Would it not be more appropriate for this to be "WikiProject Film"? PC78 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel like someone just pointed out the arrow in the FedEx logo to me. It's a drastic proposition, but it makes sense. I would support this if we can fixed all the redirects quickly. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of a name would be proposed? I am okay with the way it is now, as I see a project about Film (not in WikiWorld) could deal with both movies as well as movie-making, awards, reviews, etc... But, depending on what is proposed, perhaps this could be clearer. What about something like WikiProject Cinema? BOVINEBOY2008 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with either Film or Cinema since we've picked up all of the film-related articles over the last few years. With this re-branding, and the renaming of the talk page banner, maybe we should have someone overhaul the main project page as well. I think the changes will be helpful for illustrating the project's goals for new and potential members. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Film seems more general than Cinema. Would Cinema imply non coverage of DTV films for instance? Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy2008 and Nehrams2020, I would argue that "Film" is sufficient because it is a minor change in terms of so-called brand recognition. If people start seeing WikiProject Cinema, they may not realize so easily that it's the old WikiProject Films. WikiProject Film is a less drastic transformation, and I do agree with Betty that "Film" seems more general than "Cinema". Do either of you have a preference for either? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Film/s" over "Cinema". I more threw out Cinema as a suggestion because I couldn't see anything other than Film/s being the name. I think I initially misunderstood the proposal, anyway. I would support the move to "Film" as well. BOVINEBOY2008 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI the discussion regarding the banner is at Template talk:Film#Renaming to Template:WikiProject Films. –xeno^talk 13:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 recommended holding off on the banner move until we can finalize a new project name. I asked the editor who originally requested the move to hold off on the request. With that said, I am okay with "WikiProject Film". The WikiProject's scope, to me, is articles about film. I think that "cinema" may be too drastic of a change and not quite as encompassing in terms of sub-topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Film absolutely makes more sense than "Films". A nicety, perhaps, but why not? Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Why the requested move? This should be an internal matter for the WikiProject, not something that requires the input of the wider community. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the template with the intent of having an end date for the discussion and to have an uninvolved admin determine a consensus from the discussion. I was just concerned that this discussion would taper off with no real outcome. Do you think it's an issue for outsiders to weigh in? I did not really consider that, but I don't think it would be harmful. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any outsiders were to include their opinion, but if they do maybe we can send an outreach invite their way if they have the interest the goings on of the project. WP:FILM works for me and isn't a drastic change as shifting everything to "Cinema". I'd consider this a process improvement, not having to type "s" after the project name which would save so much time for working on articles! Okay, maybe it won't save that much, but its singular usage does better embody the variety of topics covered by the project now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with move. WikiProject Films suggest the project is just about movies, while WikiProject Film suggest the project is about all of film making---which is correct. Mike Allen 04:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rotten Tomatoes ratings for "Saw" and "Scream"

Can someone take a look at this discussion here: User_talk:Darkness2005#Changing_reception_on_the_Saw_franchise_page. Darkness has changed the ratings for the Saw and Scream films. Mike Allen thinks they're wrong but I'm getting exactly the same numbers as Darkness, so we're a bit puzzled. Mike has cleared his cache so it's unlikely that's the cause. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you beat me. :P More eyes on this are encouraged; I don't want to be falsely accusing editors of something when it's a error on my end. Thanks. Mike Allen 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the web address carefully. Who is reading the UK version of Rotten Tomatoes? The UK version does not match the American website. They include a different set of people in the "Top Critics" field and don't include every American reviewer, thus the numbers are often different between the two sites. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the Uk have the same address? I'm based in Ireland, so it's possible I'm getting the UK version, but this is the address: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1074316-scream/?critic=creamcrop. The url doesn't seem to indicate it's a different site. Wouldn't the url change if I were going to the British site? Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

81/71 (based on 53/14 critics) is what I see. So, maybe (and I have no actualy knowledge of how this might work) RT got rid of the "UK" part of the address and it automatically redirects you to the appropriate webpage without changing any url. I have no idea, but what I see does not match what Darkness is saying it is. I know what I type in manually the UK website it redirects me to the static "www.rottentomatoes.com" website. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense. I'm going to guess and say Darkness is also in the UK (based on a lot of their edits being British TV shows). I remember RT using a .uk address, but I thought both the American and British "versions" were the same. Ok.. so now the question is, what percentages should be used? Mike Allen 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So does Top Critics just select the top critics for that country or something? "All Critics" seems to give us all the same numbers so maybe it's best to just stick with the number we all agree on? I'm not sure I agree with a critical analysis that omits reviews based on location, so maybe it's better to use "All Critics" on its own if it combines all the reviews from all the countries? Betty Logan (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(To Mike) I don't recall them ever being the same. I've seen this issue on multiple pages and it took us awhile to realize that the other individual was just using the UK version of RT. As to which one to use, I'd say if it's a British film then use the UK version. If it's an American film, then use the American version. I'm apt to use the American for both. First, because I cannot access the UK version anymore. Second, the American one tends to have more critics listed (especially for the Top Critics section) and the more critics list the more "generalizable" the opinion of said critics is. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems I can't access the American version, so if this is a problem occurring on lots of articles maybe we should try to address it more rationally. If "All Critics" just puts all the reviews from all the countries together (which I'm assuming it does since our numbers agree) then why not just use the combined total? It seem ridiculous to source something where readers are taken to a different set of statistics. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why adding the Top Critics score should really be necessary at all since the 'Top' critics should be included into the reception prose to begin with. Right? Mike Allen 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mike, don't feel too badly about accusing Darkness of vandalism. Although I think this is an honest misunderstanding, he's been on my radar for a bit for removing sources and changing info when he doesn't agree. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well looking his talk page, good faith kind of went out the window. Just couldn't understand why he would do that on some pages and not others. I've seen stranger things done here though. :P Mike Allen 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All regional RT sites should have the same overall score but they may have different Top Critic scores. This thread dealt with that issue and should provide a bit more understanding. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So, should we not include the Top Critic score at all since it's now impossible for people in the UK to verify scores taken from the US site? Mike Allen 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we were not to use the Top Critics score it wouldn't be because people in the UK cannot verify it. Being "verifiable" doesn't mean that everyone has to be able to do it. I cannot verify the information from many scholarly articles because I don't have access to them. I think if it's not used it's because of the smaller sample number used with Top Critics that makes it less generalizable. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I think it's generally been agreed upon that the sample size of Top Critic section is too small to provide useful context when quoting the sample score but that, when sampling and quoting individual reviews, it's a good idea to use the ones from that section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the US RT website can be accessed by going to http://us.rottentomatoes.com/ if http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ doesn't work. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that just redirects to the British version. It seems everyone in Europe gets redirected to the British version (there are Germans and French people complaining about it if you google) so it's a serious worldwide problem. Even if we decided to go with "American" critics for American films and "British" critics for European films and ignore the obvious POV problems of that for the moment, it means that you will still be redirected to different sets of data based on where you are located. The problem here isn't so much that some portions of data are blocked off to some parts of the world making verifiability difficult, but that the data changes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet monitoring

86.173.170.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was a sockpuppet of the banned user Pricer1980 (talk · contribs). The editor adds false company and nationality information to film articles. The editor also adds random "cinema of" templates to articles. The editor leaves no edit summary and edits the article as a whole (meaning on section headings in edit summary space). Previous discussion of banned user is here (please update once old discussion is archived). If you see any IP addresses editing in this manner, please notify us here or identify at WP:AIV in a report like this. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

98.85.2.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be another sockpuppet. If an IP address changes names in a film article without an edit summary, check against IMDb. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

90.211.190.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was another; reverted sock's edits. Will not bother reporting unless IP is editing live. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik, could 69.224.226.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be one of these? They are really determined to add TriStar films to Footloose. Mike Allen 03:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, my question was answered via their block. :) Mike Allen 03:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally! I was fighting against the false TriStar relationships the sock was adding. I did further clean-up on some of these articles, too, verifying what companies were actually involved. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Public domain films

How does one determine that a film is in the public domain? I've just been looking at the article And Then There Were None (film), which contains both the claim that "copyright was allowed to lapse" and a copyright status section which states "copyright was renewed R543668; 10 January 1973". --石猴 (Shí Hóu) (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While I don't want to get in the way of this current air of self-congratulation of a project that has now, somehow, got a slightly different name, I would like to know: "how does one determine that a film is in the public domain". Thank you. Thanks. Cheers. --石猴 (Shí Hóu) (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject renaming reminder

All, this is a reminder that there is a discussion in the middle of this talk page to move WikiProject Films to WikiProject Film. This would mean that we will rename all the project pages. If you have not weighed in yet about the rename and would like to do so, please go to the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Film needs to be updated too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, but waiting on the subpages to be moved as well - see below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Technical issues

It seems that a lot of the subpages have not been moved to the new location. (The "move subpages" feature moves a maximum of 100.) Perhaps someone could compile a list of the subpages with their old and new locations, and then people can pitch in to help move everything over? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This tool can list all the non-redirect "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/" sub-pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All done (with help from PeterSymonds). All "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/" subpages have been moved to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/". - Kollision (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par - Featured Article Candidate

The Bollywood film Taare Zameen Par has been nominated for FA here. Any comments would be welcomed. Thanks. Ω phois 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing the movers and shakers -- okay, not shakers

WikiProject Films is now WikiProject Film, and with the project rename, there were a great deal of pages that were moved in the process. I'd like to recognize the editors that helped move these pages:

Thank you for your help! On the second thought, I think we want to be renamed WikiProject Cinema instead... ;) Please thank them as well, and let me know if I've missed anyone who lent a hand! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my words of thanks also. The thoroughness that these editors used in completing this task is much appreciated. BTW didn't we want to changes the name to WikiProject Movies (ack) :-) Cheers to all of the above. MarnetteD | Talk 16:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it supposed to be WikiProject Moviefilm? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved one page. Go me. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved one page, too, but was reverted because an admin said it affected a batch move. :( Erik (talk | contribs) 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering about all the WikiProject Films categories. Are they being renamed as well? -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point WOSlinker. The category link at the bottom of this talk page is now red. I wonder if anyone who patrols Wikipedia:Requested moves might be able to help wiht our questions. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFDS might be the better approach, and we could do a batch rename. This lists the categories that have "WikiProject Films" in the name. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Userbox needs a tweak too! The Interior (Talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged all the categories for speedy renaming. Now we just have wait two days. - Kollision (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Black Tulip (2010 film)

This film was the Afghan nomination for Best Foreign Language film at the next Oscar ceremony, but was disqualified. A couple of questions relating this:

What is the correct name of this film? Is it The Black Tulip or simply Black Tulip?
Is it truely an Afghan film, or an American film shot in Afghanistan?

More information can be found on the article's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Circus (film)

Please see the article and its talkpage for footage apparently showing a time-traveller(!) Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it a little disappointing that an award-winning Chaplin film has 5 out of 6 references devoted to the time travel excitement? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely not just you. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We all have a natural fear of older films but a natural attraction for elderly time travelers. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Who or how are movies graded?

How are movie articles awarded B grades etc. Because I have seen alot of so called B grade movie film articles and they don't have have even the barest of basic third person sources. Bascially what I am saying is there alot of film articles rich in trivia but low in third person sources. I mainly work on movies between 1980 - early 2000 period I felt movies like these like these Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Last Action Hero, Iron Eagle before I added sources which nevertheless still need to be written better. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

These film articles' talk pages show that the articles are rated Start-class. When you see the "B-class" part with the magnifying glass in the banner, that does not mean it is B-class. It's set up to list the criteria it needs to satisfy to be rated B-class. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to Erik's comment (for articles that are "B"s), anyone can grade an article at B or below. If an article is currently at B and you don't think it meets the criteria, you can down-grade it to C, Start or Stub. As long as you go by the guidelines, and explain either with a note or in your edit summary, there shouldn't be a problem.--Beloved Freak 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Undressing scene in The Mask of Zorro

Apparently, a bunch of editors' obsession with Catherine Zeta-Jones is starting to get to them. Here's the section of the talk page regarding the issue. You can see my comments on the bottom. I've worked my ass off getting this as a Good Article Nominee, and I don't want some perverted fanboys getting in the way. I'm sure there are dozens of other free use images that are more encyclopedic than that photo. Wildroot (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic template

Metacritic recently changed their urls for films. Instead of http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/saw-vii it's now http://www.metacritic.com/movie/saw-vii (film/titles → movie). When going to the old url, the site will not load (for me); I get http://www.metacritic.com/redirectcritic?m=saw-vii [blank page]. The template Template:Metacritic film, that's listed in the EL on just about all film articles, should be updated to reflect this. Mike Allen 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated the template, and then reverted it as some of the old links still work but when changed, they don't work anymore. For example:

WOSlinker (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The old Terminator link redirects to the new link fine. However, the Saw one just stops at the redirect page. So it may just a server issue with Metacritic or either on my end. Does the Saw page work for anyone else? Mike Allen 23:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

Just FYI, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) has had its status set to delete with the summary "no activity in 5 months". I am guessing that it was derived from the German wikipedia article de:Liste bekannter Darsteller des deutschsprachigen Films (translation: list of known actors in German-language films). I have cross-posted this note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. -84user (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Accolades

When did this terminology come into use and how did it get imbedded in the film MOS? Wasn't "awards" a more meaningful term, especially when "reception" and "critical reception" were already in use. FWiW, just curious, but I would define "accolades" as: 1. An award or privilege granted as a special honor or as an acknowledgment of merit or 2. An expression of praise or admiration, both definitions fitting better with the earlier use of "awards" and "reception". Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are able to at least discuss the use of the terminology as I can't seem to find when the change was done, why not consider: "honors" or "recognition" before the use of "accolades" which IMHO, is an arcane word whose derivation goes back to the ceremony by which in medieval times one was dubbed a knight. Antiquaries are not agreed on what this was. It has been made an embrace around the neck, a kiss or a slight blow upon the cheek or shoulder. Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

It stems from a discussion in January 2010; see this. It was followed later in the month by a requested move of film articles' accolades sub-articles; see this. Guidelines were added in July 2010 and are seen here. It says, "Accolades include award wins and nominations, recognition from film critics' circles, and presence on lists of critically acclaimed films (e.g., AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies)." Google News Archive Search shows contemporary usage of the word. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I count a very small number of editors involved in the discussion yet a wide-ranging decision was made. Am I wrong? FWiW, run the same google search over the words: honor, awards and tributes. Bzuk (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The initial discussion took place on the WikiProject's main talk page. The sub-articles' move discussion was generated at WP:RM and mentioned on each sub-article's talk page. The discussion was also brought up at WT:ACTOR. Where else do you recommend notifications for such discussions? For example, there's a requested move for the WikiProject a few discussions above that will mean system-wide renaming. It is not attracting that many people, either. What would you recommend to spread word? Erik (talk | contribs) 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, a discussion that only attracts a few editors should not be considered as indicative of the need or rationale for change. I carefully read over the discourse, and it seemed very lukewarm support for the change to a new title, and as I earlier made some enquiries about the use of "accolades" as a film term, it pales in comparison to "honors," "awards" and "tributes." Accolades means a honor or award, why not use the more appropriate designation. As you have probably already determined, the usage of "accolade" is not widespread in the film industry, or in use by film historians or reviewers. I do see the other terms. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC). BTW, I ran the term, through the New York Times archives, and in over a century of publishing, it was only used less than 2,000 times, none in film review articles that I could find. "Awards" appeared hundreds of thousands of times in all sorts of articles, including film reviews. Bzuk (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Discussions as thrilling as changing section titles isn't really going to attract multiple editors, so I wouldn't really see there being a lot of input on the discussion. We've had plenty of discussions over trivial changes and project-wide overhauls, but continuing to generate feedback from a larger audience is definitely a challenge. As "accolades" is used for the heading, there's no issue with continuing to use "honors" or "awards" in the section's prose when talking about the acclaim (or lack of) a film receives. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, it's imprecise, arcane and "flowery" when "awards" works perfectly well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

"Awards" is imprecise when a section includes awards and nominations, top ten lists, honorary recognitions, etc... BOVINEBOY2008 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Awards" isn't all encompassing and "Honors" creates problems between American and British English. "Recognition" would work, but is possibly too broad, since it can extend to good write-ups that can be covered by "critical reception". "Accolades" probably fits the bill better than the alternatives. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You honestly see "accolades" as better than "honors", "tributes" or "recognition"? FWiW, I will grant that "awards" is strictly a mention of a specific prize or prizes. IMHO, "accolades" is the worst of the alternatives. Bzuk (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been my first choice, but the more I think about it the more I think it's the right choice. The spelling variation between "Honors" and "Honours" would lead to inconsistencies and edit warring, so it's really better to not go down that route. "Tributes" could extend to acknowledgements from peers such as "Julie Christie is the most poetic of all actresses" (Al Pacino) which is probably not what the section is intended to cover. "Recognition" is possibly too broad, and could include informal critical appraisal such as "Shia LeBeouf is the most exciting acting talent to emerge since De Niro" (Jonathan Ross). An "accolade" confers a formal honor which is what we really want the section to cover. If it were changed to "Tributes" or "Recognition" I wouldn't object, but I just think there are potential problems with their scope, so that's why I'm happy to settle for what we have. Betty Logan (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion drew few active participants because many read it but had nothing to add. That was certainly the case with me; I saw that while accolades could be interpreted as overly flowery, it was the best word to encompass the whole of the topics included under it. And since the conversation was heading that way anyway, I didn't actually speak up. Millahnna (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see the problem with "Awards"; none of the alternatives are an improvement, IMHO. "Awards" or "Awards and nominations" should be perfectly fine in most cases, but there's really no need to impose a single standard. Use the heading that best fits. PC78 (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that the MOS-only crowd has already struck with a number of earlier article sections being changed to the term: "Accolades" even when the entire passage in the section only refers to the number of awards won. If there were nominations or other clarifying comments I can see the point of the change but pointedly I have had section titles changed to the new title without any reference to the actual text. FWiW, it's not that I actually mind that the change was made despite my reservations over the choice of word, but the small number of participants here in response to the question posed, indicates that neither the necessity for the changes or the change itself was a topic that project group members saw as important. Yet once the change is made, it has wide spread implications that still brings to mind the adage, "if it ain't broke..." Bzuk (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Which films have won all the awards for which they were nominated? If nominations were not included at the articles you saw, then I think they should be. My earlier proposal was "Awards and honors" but I was fine with the more succinct "Accolades". For discussions such as this one, what do you propose to get more editors' attention to the topic at hand? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary means is to gain a consensus that typically requires a "question". Although voting is not necessarily a prerequisite in determining a consensus, in business and communication parlance, a consensus is a decision that all participants can accept rather than a majority view as is often assumed. When "counting", each participant has a vote and the ability to frame a perspective or background statement. Once that is in place, a moderator would be able to make a determination of the pros and cons and then seek a consensus decision. If none is arrived at within the standard period of one week, the question can again be posed. One of the advantages of this system is that if the question itself does not receive universal support, then it is an indication that there may be a flaw in the reasoning. If the question of "accolades" as a title imbedded in the MOS that requires strict adherence was posed, I would have voted for an alternative wording. I do write for a living and find that accolades if anything but succinct, having a generalized meaning that "awards and honors" more clearly denotes. FWiW, I bring up the original query mainly because I have already been subject to a reversion and was unaware of either the proposal for change of the section title nor the discussion that ensued (albeit with few participants). I continue to propose that for major revisions, a major effort is needed in not only directing attention to the question but also allowing for a fulsome debate/discourse/discussion to ensue. Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you proposing "Awards and honors" as an alternative? I would be fine with its use in regular section headings. The original issue was that "List of awards and nominations received by <film>" was insufficient to encompass what was actually in the list. It was a dissonance between the list articles' titles and the actual content. As for determining consensus, I'm not clear what you mean by "if the question itself does not receive universal support". Do you mean the wording of the question or do you mean "universal support" for the underlying proposal? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually allowing for a sufficient period of time to garner reactions is probably the most important aspect of gaining a consensus. However, one of the factors that may be involved is a question that is not posed clearly or fully, or has faults in the question structure. If there is insufficient involvement from participants, the moderator can restate the question in the attempt to find consensus. When I have been involved in consensus decisions, the process often includes conciliation and revisions to find a "universal" acceptance. You really do not have to have a majority decide the solution but you have to have all the participants able to accept the consensus (which sometimes means a compromise, but one everyone can live with...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:"So are you proposing "Awards and honors" as an alternative?" Yes, but now the process becomes convoluted as it goes back to the earlier request for a review of terminology in which I certainly was NOT involved, but merely due to a lack of appreciation that the section heading was being evaluated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Me, I prefer the all-encomposing and more useful "Recognition" as a section header.... with "Critical response", "Awards and nominations", etc, following as sub-headers that naturally fall under a film's "recognition". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sharing research

Today, I added a "References to use" section at Talk:Starship Troopers (film). In the process of my research for Starship Troopers, I found references for other films and seeded their articles' talk pages with the references. An example is Talk:Small Soldiers. In the past, I have researched a particular film and have often found references for other films. For Small Soldiers and other films, this had shown me the table of contents, which I used to proliferate the references. I am wondering if the references are best placed in the article in a "Further reading" section or on the talk page. I don't want to overwhelm the article with so many items. For example, one film I heavily researched was Psycho, and the references were too numerous even for the talk page. I placed them at Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/references. In contrast, I've sometimes added references to the article, like at Rob Roy (film)#Further reading. I'm wondering what would be an ideal approach for sharing research? It may help to develop a standard of how to drop a reference off at an article (or its talk page) that could use it at some point. While I've focused on print references, this could be done for some websites. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this earlier this week after stumbling on another article talk page where you had added potential sources. Although I had a potential idea back in 2008 for tracking potential sources, something simpler would have to be done. For the article itself, including book sources would probably be helpful for a further reading section, but would get lengthy with the hundreds of journal, newspapers, and magazines articles. For talk pages, it's also not that helpful to have it in one section, as it may be archived and forgotten. I'd prefer to see something like the subpage you did for Psycho but also have some banner at the top of the article's talk page that points to it. That would hopefully direct editors to pursue those sources or add to it. With the vast number of sources that are available for a large portion of our film articles, a consistent way to track and incorporate sources would be helpful in expanding the articles and pushing them to higher classes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this below? I retrieved it from Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace; maybe there are other possibilities there. Also, where I've added sections to film articles' talk pages, I don't leave a signature to avoid auto-archiving, and I make a note not to archive (to avoid manual archiving). Erik (talk | contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a great idea, Erik! Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that banner before, but the simple addition of the link to the subpage will be helpful for adding citations not found in the above links. Even though no signatures are included, it's always possible an eager editor would find out who added the sources and would add a missing signature template causing it to be archived down the line. Also, with some articles' talk pages constantly being edited, a central location would be helpful for preventing it from being buried (although others may consider that's what the subpage is doing). I support the use of the subpage and banner, but am welcome to others' opinions on how to make it stand out more and encourage editors to add sources they come across. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I created the {{Film references for use}} template and created a "FILMREF" redirect for it. You can see the template in use at Talk:Starship Troopers (film). Any suggestions on modifying the template further, either for function or aesthetics? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I would only suggest using bold font for the page to put more emphasis on the link, but other than that, the template will be helpful for including on talk pages. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Erik, the way you're doing is the way I like it. If it's a short list of references, add them to the top of the talk page. If it's a long list, create a subpage and add the {{Film references for use}} template. I'm made some tweaks to the template and also, according to the instructions for MiszaBot, adding {{subst:DNAU}} below the section's header will prevent the section from getting automatically archived. - Kollision (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your help! I will keep in mind to include "DNAU" in the references sections. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Our Gang's FAR

I have nominated Our Gang 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

PROGRAM ALERT-Hello to all members of the project. I wanted to make you aware of a new program that began last night on Turner Classic Movies. It is entitled "Moguls & Movie Stars" and follows the history of film form the late 1800's to the late 1960's. The first episode was very impressive - lots of detail, pics and clips. Most notable were strikingly cleaned up and sharp prints of some of the famous Edison and Méliès shorts. Here is a link for more info [3]. It is a seven part series with new episodes airing on Monday nights and then repeats occur several times through the rest of the week. For those of you who don't have cable or are not in the US I am sure that it will be released on DVD or will be available on the net eventually. Well worth viewing to all who are interested in the history of film. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like my kind of fun :) Wildroot (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A Prophet

For info, there seems to be some edit waring happening on this article, esp. around the plot. Edits are being posted and reverted. Please see the edit history and talkpage for more. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please someone go help over there. I actually rewrote the plot back in Sept. and lost it due to browser idiocy on my part and have no time to rewrite it again. There's basically a ton of sniping about which version of the plot to use when both have a litany of grammar issues. Millahnna (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting box office information

I mainly deal with movies between 1985 to present but I some even blockbuster movies are lacking from 80's and 90's lacking in sources. I have looked for sources for box office information for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Iron Eagle, Blue Streak (film). But websites such as USA Today I have to subscribe to their service before I can access information. Is there any other way of doing it beyond Box Office Mojo. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Book, Category, Portal, and Commons in navigation templates?

What is the consensus on adding Book, Portal, Commons to films' navigation templates (see here)? Thanks. Mike Allen 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The addition looks helpful for the reader so I don't see a reason to oppose it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with having these links, though the "Book" one does make me wince. I don't like the general idea of making a "book" out of a set of articles when some of them are not in good shape. That's just me, though. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above, by Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and Erik (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't saying I disagreed with it. :) I was just wondering if there were a consensus made that I missed somewhere, since I've noticed it being added to many nav templates. I didn't even know that WP:BOOK exists. Mike Allen 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No strong opinion, though links to WikiProjects should be avoided per WP:SELFREF (I've seen this done in other navtenplates). PC78 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either, although I don't really see the point in having the category there (since removed). The category will be at the bottom anyway, and I presume that most readers (regular ones anyway) will be used to looking for the category in its usual place. I also think the project link is too self-referential.--Beloved Freak 14:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible User:Bambifan101 IP

There have been some suspicious IP edits by Special:Contributions/98.85.10.44 altering running times and dates which fits the MO of User:Bambifan101. Furthermore it's from a suspected Bambifan101 IP range as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#03_October_2010_2, so please keep a look out for edits from the 98.85.xxx.xxx range. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan is currently operating as Special:Contributions/98.85.78.64. I've dropped a note at WP:ANI but it will need cleaning up until they get on to it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Film articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Film articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Film category re-listed at CfD

Discussion about renaming the category Lists of awards by film can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

decision to eliminate flags from infoboxes

They have already started using bots to remove flags from the infoboxes of some types of articles. Apparently those discussing this decided on something that affects all infoboxes, including that of films. Just thought those in this Wikiproject should be involved in that discussion, since someone suggested asking here. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Are_we_totally_eliminating_the_flags_entirely_now.3F Dream Focus 11:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

About time! Thanks for letting us know. Mike Allen 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Terminator_3:_Rise_of_the_Machines#Budget

Please can we have some input at this discussion please in regards to this edit: [4]. I have supplied reliable sources for the budget but they keep getting pulled in favor of the Box Office Mojo source on the grounds it is "more reliable". I have supplied a reference for a scholastic text, a corroborating reference from the LA Times and a reference for the bond company that insured the film, but still my source and figure is still being pulled. Some independent views would be appreciated. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

See Talk:List_of_accolades_received_by_Almost_Famous#Requested_move_2. These "film accolades" articles were moved in January 2010 and there is now a new suggestion to move them to something slightly different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment there as well as earlier, belated bleating about the adoption of the terminology of "accolades". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Couple of stub types for renaming

There are a couple of stubs nominated for renaming that some people might be interested in:

Documentary films about music stubs and
Science fiction stubs - this one includes the sf-film-stub

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And a semi-related topic about spliting the documentary film stubs cat can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Can we get some more eyeballs on the talk page of Pulp Fiction for a conversation relating to the phrase "cultural watershed"? Need a consensus there about a possible change to the lead of the article. Millahnna (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

An editor has proposed moving the page for Lindsay Anderson's film if.... here Talk:If....#Proposed move. If any of you wish to add your thoughts please feel free to do so. Thanks ahead of time for anyone taking the time to comment there. MarnetteD | Talk 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Razzie Awards deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 13. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article has enough categories

A History of Horror - what do others think? Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Seems a bit sparse on the category front. Perhaps we could create some new categories to fill the page out. Maybe a few succession or navigation boxes for good measure :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Determining country of origin of film

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#What exactly determines a film's country of origin? (permanent link here). (I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Project policy on feature length?

Hi, Does this project have a policy/guideline on what is a feature-length film? I'm wondering whether to include two David Blyth films from the 1990s which are 49 and 54 minutes long in List_of_New_Zealand_films. (I know that the longer one was premiered on television, no info on the shorter one - the list does include a couple of significant telemovies, but they are 90 minutes +).dramatic (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a policy or guideline defining what length a film needs to be in order to be considered feature length but both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the American Film Institute agree on a minimum length of 40 minutes. You may want to check to see if NZFC defines it differently for films made in New Zealand. If not, I would suggest using the above two definitions. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There may be a couple of different answers to your questions. As Big Bird points out if the film is less than 40 minutes you can still include it just make sure that you designate it as a "short film". More importantly films that are made for television need to be designated as such. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Non-episodic television. MarnetteD | Talk 14:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby Be Good

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Another issue is the strange infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw attractions

I am wondering what should be done at List of Saw media (under attractions). It's not sourced (and most is not notable). The IP that added it, refuses to add any sources to verify notability and after I removed it they tried to start an edit war. I told him/her that if no sources are added soon that it would be removed. They have edited the page since, but just did cosmetic changes. Why is it so hard to understand that when you add something to Wikipedia, you add a source. How can that be so diffucult comprehend? Thanks. Mike Allen 03:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I see the IP finally added sources but many of them would fail WP:RS. I too am a little curious how to proceed here. The IP calls any removal vandalism, even though all such removals have been perfectly valid. Millahnna (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Release dates

What is the norm for adding movie release dates to infoboxes? How many countries' release dates do we usually add? I usually see US and the UK in film articles but what about others? The list could become pretty cumbersome after awhile.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I've read WP:FILMRELEASE, but other than the country(s) of origin what determines notability of a country's release?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a good question considering all the debate over the "country" of a film. I usually do the first public release (film festival, premiere, theatrical, whatever) and then the release date of the production country if its different. If there is several production countries, like more than three, then I put either the one that the film is more attached to, or just the first release and leave the rest to prose. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that seems like reasonable approach in general. However specifically I am talking about Thor whose country of origin (U.S.) has a release date of 06 May 2011. According to this the earliest releases are in Belgium, Egypt, France and Switzerland on 27 April 2011. Someone already added France to the infobox should we now also add Belgium, Egypt and Switzerland?--

It might be enough to not specify in the infobox and explain in prose. So the box would look like:

April 27, 2011 (2011-04-27)
May 6, 2011 (2011-05-06) (United States)

I think it would be ridiculous to list all of them. Although Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) has a similar issue and it has settled on using "International" for the that first release. BOVINEBOY2008 19:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only one date should be listed in the infobox. Prose should be used in the body of the article (ideally the "Release" section or similar) to expand on release dates in other countries, festival screenings etc. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Strictly sticking to one date would cause confusion for "festival movies", where the festival release can be more important than the national release. I can't see any negative consequences of listing multiple dates as long as it doesn't get excessive. Smetanahue (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox film#Release dates:
> Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
—Coder Dan (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The date of the first public showing (premiere or a festival) and the date of the first general release (in whichever country that may be) are probably the only dates that are really relevant. Most encyclopedias only generally include the year of release, so release dates aren't massively important. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio at The 3 Rooms of Melancholia

I suspect that material recently added to the above article is a cut-and-paste copy from another source but Google searches of selected sentences have not returned positive matches. User Oktavia29 (talk · contribs) created their account yesterday and, within about 30 minutes, made four edits to the article (no other edits before or after). Three edits were minor formatting changes but this edit added a large amount of text. What makes me suspicious of copyright violation/cut-and-paste transfer is:

(1) - the large edit was made within one minute of the previous edit, making it unlikely that this was typed up in that amount of time and

(2) - the text contains, what appear to be, numbered footnotes at the end of some sentences. Examples: "The film grew from a project series initially based on the Ten Commandments which got cut short.13" and "The conflict remained unresolved and Honkasalo never saw the American producer again.16"

I posted a question on the user talk page of the editor who added the material asking what source they might have used. I haven't received a response and the editor has not made any edits since. I'm hesitant to remove the material when I have no solid proof that it's a copyvio (especially when this article could benefit from additional production information) but I have a hard time believing that that much text was typed that quickly by a new editor who, somehow, added numbers to sentences that look like numbered footnotes. Additional eyes and second and third opinions would be much appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Jungle Book of Regulations

The article A Jungle Book of Regulations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found only a single published (gBooks) very minor mention of the subject, fails WP:N and WP:V, the polish language version is also unreferenced

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted category deletion discussion

Please see This relisted deletion discussion relating to possible deletion of categories for the Razzie Awards. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs!

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dogtooth in the UK

Good news for fellow Brits! Film4 will be screening Dogtooth this Wednesday (1st Dec) at 10:45. I can't say enough good things about this film, and although it's not for everyone's tastes (scenes of real sex and an incest theme), this is one of the best films of recent years (IMO...). Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In-universe details on List of characters page?

On List of characters pages, what is the correct tense to use for a deceased character? For example, on List of Saw characters, instead of "John Kramer was a successful engineer…", should it be "John Kramer is a successful engineer…" to prevent possibility getting into "in-universe" details since it is a fictional character and they aren't really dead? Thanks. (see reference) — Mike Allen 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just replied to the thread on your talk page about this but so that other editors can see what my thoughts were, here I am being all redundant.

You might think of it in terms of how the WP:TV people think of it. Listing the characters in past tense is sort of like "presentism" by focusing on the most recent installment of a series (be it film or television). So as characters are killed off of various shows they are supposed to be referred to in the present tense. "Mr. Such and Such stalks Ms. So and So until the second season when he is killed in a freak tetherball accident". Millahnna (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD notice for Smart Talk with Raisin

I have listed Smart Talk with Raisin for Articles for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Talk with Raisin. Do not remove the {{afd}} tag until the consensus may be reached. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Help a newbie place an image?

I don't actually know how to do it myself but could someone take a look at the talk page for the main character from the Universal Soldier series here? He's got an image all ready to go but I don't know if he's done the rationale and all of that. New guy has put in a lot of effort on that page and others related to the franchise. Millahnna (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Done File:Mm08 jcvd20universal20soldier1.jpg —Mike Allen 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet epic Liberation

Hi. I had a note on my talkpage to cast an eye over the article for the Soviet epic Liberation. Any further help would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Halloween (1978) FAR

I have nominated Halloween (1978 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion - Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Deletion review discussion regarding Golden Raspberry Award winners, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct name of Burnt by the Sun 2

Please see the talk page for the film Burnt by the Sun 2 regarding the correct title. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hale

Please could someone cast an eye over newly created article Richard Hale - I'm not sure if it is a hoax or not. The statements about the awards "In his life, Hale won over fifty Emmy Awards, over ten Academy Awards, over thirty Oscar Awards, over ten Golden Globe Awards and over twenty BAFTA Awards, and the total amount of Awards Hale won adds up to 134" is clearly dubious but I just can't find enough reliable information to make a call on the rest most of which seems plausible. Thanks in advance, Nancy ^talk 07:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nancy. I've removed the hoax info, and replied to the AfD. The same user also created the page for Max Ryan, so if someone has time to double-check that one too, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Dear editors,

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

Proceed here to cast your vote. Once you have decided how to vote, casting your vote is quick and convenient, using the Foundation's software.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The General

An editor has corrected the year of The General (1927 film) in the intro to 1926, as IMDb shows a Dec. 31, 1926 Tokyo premiere, but not the category or article title. I'm not sure what decides the year of the film, the premiere or the general release date. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable that is on it's own. Anyone could have added that to IMDb at any time. Seems unlikely an American silent film would premire outside of the States, two months before the general release and in Japan. Surely a Japanese premier at the time would have generated some coverage? I'm going to be bold and revert it. Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although the German article states 1926 (it is even disambig'd in the title) and it's a featured article. That article has the text: "Die Quellenangaben zur Erstaufführung sind teilweise uneinheitlich. Offenbar wurde The General am 31. Dezember 1926 in Tokio uraufgeführt, ehe der Film am 5. Februar 1927 seine New Yorker Premiere und am 11. März 1927 seine erste Aufführung in Los Angeles erfuhr.[14]" indicating a Japanese premier. Can't access the ref or do any proper translation here at work at the moment. Anyone else help? Lugnuts (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and is used as an EL but not a footnoted reference.

However, film historians have long cited 1926 as the year of The General. One example: The acclaimed biography Keaton by Rudi Blesh (Macmillan hardcover, Collier trade paperback, 1966), p. 375. There's also a fascinating entire chapter on the making of the film that probably anyone contributing here would find a great read. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The British Film Institute website notes its copyright date as 1926 [5] and its release date as December 31 1926 [6]. I think the year of the first public showing (whether it be a festival, premiere or general release) should be the preferred date. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I've added the refs and moved the article accordingly. Lugnuts (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Revised plot summary

A fairly new editor ran into some problems trying to revise the fairly confusing plot summary for Inception. I've been working with him on the talk page for the film and he has a draft there that I think would be a dramatic improvement over the version we currently have. But because it was so hard to settle on a plot summary to begin with for that article, I advised him to wait until a few more people spoke up and we could establish consensus. Extra eyeballs over there would be great. As of my typing this, the relevant talk page section is the last one and the draft is in a collapsible thingy at the very bottom of the page. I seriously think it would be a dramatic improvement to the article (though I do have a tweak or two I personally would make). The summary we have in there now is overly specific on minor plot points and completely glosses over some major ones. Millahnna (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Exchange rate" for the Soviet ruble c. 1965 ??

Resolved

I'm looking for a reliable source for the rate at which the US dollar was traded for the Soviet ruble back in the 1960s. It's for War and Peace (1965 film). "War and Peace" carries a reputation it doesn't actually deserve—it's rumoured to have cost $100 million back in 1965, eclipsing Cleopatra's $44 million and generally being regarded as the most expensive film ever made adjusting for inflation. However, the film was made within the confines of the Soviet Union where labor costs were kept very low, and there is a theory that this $100 million figure (which is never explained in any of the sources that cite it and I think it just gets thrown around without ever being checked) is an estimate of its cost by "Hollywood standards", and therefore it didn't actually cost $100 million—it's kind of like working out the cost of employing an Indian call center at US wage levels!

Anyway, a Russian guy has found a 1966 Russian source where the cost of the first two parts (there were four in total) were put at 8 million rubles, so we now have an actual figure for the real cost of half of the film. The problem is that back in the Soviet days the ruble wasn't traded on exchange markets so it's proving difficult to track down how much 8 million rubles was in dollars. The modern day exchange rate is no good because it's altered a lot since then. Anyway, I seem to recall that in the absence of an exchange rate, the dollar and ruble were traded at a set value of $1.25 to 1 ruble. If this is true that would value 8 million rubles at $10 million—significantly less than the so called $100 million figure (although it is only for two parts)! We need a source though for the relative value of the dollar and ruble otherwise the revised US figure can't be included. If anyone with economics knowledge knows of any sources, or has access to this kind of data I'd be grateful. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The book Soviet Natural Resources in the World Economy states here (under Table 2): "Rate of exchange before 1972 was $1.11 = 1 ruble". Simple math, then, would be that 8 million rubles = $8.88 million. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic—thankyou! Finally, some hard data on this film. I'll add that in this evening. Hopefully I can find the cost of parts 3 & 4 too, but I don't see them costing 90 mil so it looks a long way off the supposed 100 mil price tag. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sortable tables not sorting correctly

Does anyone know why the sortable tables over at List of Lionsgate films is not sorting the grosses correctly? Is there some special templates that need to be added to correctly sort big numbers (with dollar signs)? —Mike Allen 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Bovineboy2008 fixed it by using a hidden key. Thanks a lot BB! Although I could have done it, that is a lot of tedious work. :P —Mike Allen 06:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam discussion on DVD release sections

There's a spam discussion starting here on DVD release sections in articles. I'd assume that editors here would best know about previous discussions and general consensus on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Short films: italics or quotes?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Short films: italics or quotes?. Mepolypse (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Infobox film

Comments are welcome regarding the choice of infobox at Talk:Five Across the Eyes (film). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Depp navigation template is up for deletion

Template:Johnny Depp has been nominated for deletion. If you will, please cast your thoughts here. —Mike Allen 03:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair

Just giving a heads up to watch this page. This supposed to be redirection page is being turned into a article a lot even when it's not ready. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

List of programs and machines in the Matrix series

The article List of programs and machines in the Matrix series which is tagged as part of this WikiProject is nominated for deletion. If you feel like it kept or delete, please contribute here. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal assistant becomes film producer

Michael Doven

At talk:Michael Doven, some users have complained that the article discusses this individual's film-related career inside the Career sect, prior to his becoming a film producer. But it would seem directly relevant, he started out as a personal assistant within the film industry itself as his initial career, later progressing to more influential roles and becoming a film producer on multiple movies. Thoughts??? -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

- Update: Please see action by Maunus (talk · contribs) in edit to article, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material" -- thank you very much for this. This comment and action is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Black Tulip (again)!

This is turning out to be quite a troublesome article! Please see the page itself, talkpage and this posted on the helpdesk. Any help would be appreciated. Lugnuts (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: Jigsaw Killer --> Jigsaw (Saw)

There is a requested move in progress over at Jigsaw Killer. If you will, please chime in with your thoughts here. —Mike Allen 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of Africa

Can anybody here possibly tell me if Kim Jorgensen is the same person who was the executive producer of Out of Africa (1985)? This was crossposted on Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture#Out_of_Africa. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Scarface DVD anyone?

Anyone who owns the platinum edition CD of Scarface (1983 movie) could resolve a curious edit request at Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible FA article

Please see The Fountain It seems like this is a very fine article and is presently rated GA on two projects and A on another. I've made a few edits to it recently and I would like to know if anyone here thinks it's close to FA status or worth nominating. I'll request a peer review as well, but I figured it's worth posting here to see if anyone else wants to be involved.

Also, I haven't watched this page during all of its development, but it appears that User:Erik is primarily responsible for its content, so I posted to his talk and I would make him a co-nominator for FA status even though he has stated that he's not free to work on this article now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, I started a discussion on the article's talk page about the removal of the article's "See also" section. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fight Club at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Pricer sock?

Roberto Frana (talk · contribs) is adding in random countries to the infobox on many articles. I've asked him to explain this on his talkpage, but it also struck me as a possible sock of Pricer again. Thoughts? Lugnuts (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted a batch of his edits and asked for him to elaborate on which books he mentions on his talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home FAC

If anyone has time to register comments at Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home's FAC nomination here, I'd be most appreciative. :) Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbie: A Fashion Fairy Tale

This article is completely unreferenced. Is it notable, or should it be AfD'd? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a family of Barbie film articles i.e. Barbie of Swan Lake; The Barbie Diaries; Barbie in a Christmas Carol; Barbie Does Dallas; Deep Throat Barbie etc. Most of them seen poorly referenced, but deleting just the one article seems fairly arbitrary. I'd slap all of them with "unreferenced/poorly referenced" templates, and if no attempt is made to tackle the problem after a couple of months, then maybe it's worth considering nuking the whole lot. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait.. Deep Throat Barbie? —Mike Allen 09:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AFI 100 years at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Film ratings

The template {{Film ratings}} was recently created. I do not believe there is consensus for this kind of template based on the response to the occasional request to add these kinds of parameters to the main film infobox. It seems to be reductionist in nature by not providing context such as score calculation or an individual critic's opinion. I think it's a general preference to "write it out" in prose because it provides the room to explain the consensus or specific opinions. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I think this sort of thing gives too much weight to individual reviews. Wikipedia should give a balanced and broad overview of the critical consensus, perhaps highlighting some notable or representative reviews. This template promotes an isolationist approach to the critical reception section where some reviews count more than others, whereas the focus should be on giving a balanced overview. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No argument here. It would be nice to hear from the template creator. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to follow the same setup as album reviews (example). Why would it be such a bad idea to have reviews for films when it is standard across another project? I've posted a note on the creators' talkpage to this discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ratings template There is also a similar template for video games amongst others. I thought it could be useful to summarize the critical reception of films. Just as with the other WikiProjects, these templates don't replace prose, but enhance them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To the casual (and perhaps not-so-casual) reader it does seem to emphasize certain review sites over others. The inevitable question is "Why site X and not site Y?" Doniago (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply have a list of acceptable review sites detailed in the template documentation. Lugnuts (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By casual reader I'm referring to someone who isn't going to review the documentation. Why present the appearance that we're prioritizing certain sites if we don't need to? Doniago (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for albums and video games, I can't see why it wouldn't work here. Lugnuts (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, when writing any reception section, we sample a select number of reviews. I think that the difference here is that the individual review scores matter less when we can provide aggregate scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. My concern with using a template for aggregate scores is that it is reductionist; it makes the scores the ends, not the means. In my experience, starting out with aggregate scores helps strike the reception balance for editors and readers. Reviews are sampled to illustrate the highlights (or the disappointments) of the film, and the scores help reinforce a neutral point of view. If a film is critically acclaimed, it would not make sense to make half of the sampled reviews negative. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and not only are the ratings uninteresting most of the time, the selection is an issue as well. Many of the most prominent publications never use ratings at all. I've always been annoyed by the rating templates for video games and albums, which tend to give emphasis to semi-professional reviews on American pop-culture websites. Smetanahue (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fort Apache

the usage of Fort Apache is under discussion at Talk:Fort Apache (film) . 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article titles for films with excessively long names

Two cult zombie films, Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D and Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3 have extremely long and unwieldy titles. Using Dr. Strangelove as a precedent, I moved both to easier to handle article titles, Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son ... Part 2: In Shocking 2-D and Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son ... Part 3 -- without, of course, changing the bolded title in the article lede from the full and complete title. An editor reverted one of the moves, with the edit summary "We do not move stuff just because you find the title inconvenient. Use redirects if you will, but the article should have the correct title." I think this is not correct, and dropped the editor a note on his talk page pointing out the Strangelove analogy.

I don't particularly care about these films, and I'm certainly not going to get into a move-war, but since my Bold move was reverted, perhaps other folks might like to weigh in on this subject over on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why your move was reverted. No one calls the films by those long titles. I think using the common name is appropriate. —Mike Allen 04:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see the sensibility in having a shorter article title, but at the same time, these two films' titles resist shortening. Dr. Strangelove works because the shorthand title is commonly used. These two films' titles do not have an obvious point of where to stop. Are you basing the cut-off on any reference? (Even Allmovie gives up after a certain point, haha.) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The title should perhaps be the most commonly used form. I don't think anyone will search on the shortened version anymore than they will on the complete version. If it's a choice between an unwieldy long but full title, and an abbreviated title that is not used in any reliable source then I say stick with the full title. If there is a "standard" abbreviated form out there, then we should consider using that, but not some arbitrary abbreviated form plucked out of thin air. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

X-Men films

In trying to get the X-Men films back to Good topic status, I have X-Men: The Last Stand as a GA nominee, and X-Men: First Class at peer review. The sooner we can get through these two articles, the faster WP:FILM will have another Good Topic. Also, once I get the Indiana Jones (franchise) article to GA status, we'll have another Good Topic, for Indiana Jones films. I also recall last year there was a drive to get Films directed by Bryan Singer to GA status, considering all but one or two are already there, and the bio article would be too easy with his films already containing GA material. Anyone know that status on that? Wildroot (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The "model of a sexy man"? Ewww.

Please comment on the appropriateness of the caption in Monty Woolley. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Into Temptation (film) FAC

I've nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but so far it seems there hasn't been a lot of comments at the FAC page. If anyone could weigh in and offer comments or opinions, whether positive or negative, I'd appreciate it! — Hun ter Ka hn 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New navbox

This navbox Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe was just created and I was wondering if it is actually needed since we already have Template:Marvel comics films. And if so do we really need both templates in the same article. Also keep in mind most of these articles already have character navboxes as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox - Should Preceded/Succeeded By fields include years?

I've started a discussion here. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable or not

A reference to a 1,000 Greatest Films list has been added to The Night of the Hunter (film) article: [7]. I was going to pull it because it didn't seem like a notable list, but the editor who added it is going full throttle adding the reference to seemingly all 1000 films on the list: [8]. Even if this list is notable we still have aproblem with the additions because it shouldn't just be jammed into the lede of every article—The Night of the Hunter has a critical response section where all this stuff goes, and I imagine that is true of most film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The site looks fairly new as parts of it are still under construction. If the editor is somehow involved with it that would be a COI. But perhaps s/he isn't. In any event the addition seems a bit spammy to me. If consensus comes down to remove it could a bot be programmed to do this - or perhaps a dispensation from admins to use rollback to save time? MarnetteD | Talk 06:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's derived from a whole bunch of other polls and/or lists mashed together in some unexplained manner. I vote thumbs down. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've googled for it and I'm not getting any hits in RS publications. They all seem to be list sites, forums, facebook, things like that. RS citations are usually the acid test for notability so I vote to pull it too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Everything needs to be reversed back to its last known reliable configuration. —Mike Allen 07:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't tie into any reputable sites. My vote is to can it as well; besides the edits are poorly written and formatted necessitating lots of clean-up. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Five editors are in unanimous agreement so I'm going to unleash rollback on all the edits where his edit is still on top. I'll go back over the last 12 hours. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back as far as his recent film edits. I decided to get on with it because once the articles get edited you can't use rollback on them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of remaining links to 1,000 Greatest Films. --Mepolypse (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys know that this list is used to generate our list of Core film articles, right?... But I agree with you guys that it shouldn't be included because it fails Notability. - Kollision (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even know about that list! I've fixed the one redlink on it (The Headless Woman (2008 film)). Lugnuts (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kollision, why not use IMDb's Top 250? —Mike Allen 11:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The decision to use the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? list was made by... someone, I don't know who exactly, probably Girolamo Savonarola. Basically, the IMDb Top 250 is a list created by the users of one website and I'm sure if we were to use it a bunch of editors would be up in arms about it. Using the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? list was the best and fairest way they could come up with. It is a list made from a stack of other lists (like an aggregator). From the website: The list has "been compiled by using 2,041 individual critics' and filmmakers' personal lists/ballots of their favourite/best films." If you want more info, you can read the department's talk page. - Kollision (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all. I am the editor who is adding these notations. As stated by a different editor in the body of the article for the film Vertigo, They Shoot Pictures is a review aggregator of critical opinion, best-of lists, top tens, and critical polls, comprising over 2,000 respondents and dozens of lists. There is such a thing as consensus critical opinion, where the evaluation of art does take on objective rather than subjective characteristics. You may not like Beethoven, but it is a non-debatable and inarguably objective fact that his Ninth Symphony is one of the greatest symphonic works of all time. I've been a film buff for decades, I have read books, articles, I've seen most of the films listed on TSPDT's Top 1000, and I have never encountered a more intelligent or accurate assessment of the history of film given the scope of the undertaking - although the lack of any work by Tex Avery shows that nothing is 100% perfect. Even given that lists like this are kind of daffy, putting their numeral rankings into the intro section of each film on the 1000 list, what I intend to do, gives those films an imprimatur of import, saying to the reader that this is a film that has merit beyond the usual prescriptions of fan favorites (the IMDB 250 list) or commercial marketing. It has already been stated by one editor above that it's used to generate Wikipedia's core film articles, and the fact that it doesn't pass some kind of test for RS citations is irrelevant - anyone who knows the history of film would immediately see the notability of They Shoot Pictures. Again, if anyone who knows film also knows of a better-assembled and detailed listing than what is found on They Shoot Pictures, please direct me to it.PJtP (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who knows their history of film would immediately see the notability of the films on the list. That doesn't make the list itself notable. I can understanding the logic behind its use on the Film project—it compiles a list of films that feature in "best of lists", so it actually provides a good notability test for these films. Even if the list is ultimately determined to be notable then this sort of thing shouldn't be going in the lede, it can go in the critical reception sections along with Rotten Tomatoes. It seems like a reasonable candidate for an external link on on List of films considered the best. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The films are notable, obviously, but the site is as well. If the list itself provides a good notability test for the films on it, then q.e.d. the list itself must also be notable. It's a consensus assembling (not consensus creation) machine, compiling the input of myriad expert opinions. It's done with integrity, and as well as anything I've ever seen of its nature. So, who in the world of Wikipedia "ultimately determines it to be notable?" I declare the list and the TSPDT web-site notable right now.PJtP (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The lists it compiles the chart from may well be notable lists, but that doesn't make this chart itself notable, or indeed a verifiable source. Information could be misrepresented, and no-one of any prominence seems to agree with the compilation and selection criteria for the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things, please. One: if an entity is compiled from and made up of the materials of notable entities, how does the quality of notability disappear all of a sudden? To wit, in this case, if after claiming the honest compilaton of the opinions of noted film experts, the Shoot Pictures list placed the Rambo movies and Jennifer Lopez' oeuvre at the top, then yes, I'd say there's a problem with it. The list is solid, however, and is more comprehensive than AFI as it is international, and through its composite of previous best-ofs and its tally of 1000 ends up broader in scope than most other lists of its kind. If there is misrepresentation on this list, where is it specifically, please? Two: since the list compiles the previously submitted opinions of various experts, evident in the fact that the list is loaded with the usual suspects of films by Kurosawa, Fellini, Kubrick, Welles, Hitchcock, and Coppola et al. that film critics and fellow film-makers from all walks of life have been hailing as masterpieces for decades now, to whom do you refer when you say "no-one of any prominence seems to agree?"PJtP (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles require reliable sources, but having them doesn't make the articles themselves reliable sources i.e. we can not use Wikipedia articles as sources for other Wikipedia articles; the same principle applies. Second, presumably Theyshoothorses decide which lists to include or not include, and how those lists are weighted which invariably determine which films make the cut and decide the ordering. The chart order isn't an aspect of the original lists, it is imposed by Theyshoothorses. What qualifies them to put Citizen Kane in the number 1 position, for example? If other editors come along and support your argument then we can rethink this, but at the moment there seems to be unanimous consensus for not included references to this list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

They Shoot Horses is not a Wikipedia article, if that is to what you refer. I'm not using a Wikipedia article as a source for a different Wikipedia article, except to show that certain outside sources have already been accepted by other Wikipedia editors, such as the AFI rankings and Shoot Pictures. As stated above, the Shoot Pictures ranked list in question is verbatim the Wiki Project Core list — obviously whoever the editors are that guide WikiProject Film have already accepted the validity of this list. You say that the folks at Shoot Pictures decide what to include or not include — if true how does that make them different from the AFI lists, or the Rolling Stone Best 500 albums list, which is all over all sorts of articles about music albums? You wish to prevent me from adding information to articles on individual films that I see as relevant and pertinent, as you have reservations about the notability and criteria for the assmebling of not just the list but apparently the entire website. Caution is good, but I am unconvinced. You have used only generalities regarding your concerns. You feel that they might be misrepresentative of the information, or arbitrary in their decisions. OK, where? I want details, specific examples pointed out about their website and the nature of the list that shows definitive signs of their untrustworthiness. You ask what qualifies for TSPDT to put Citizen Kane at #1? Well, film critics have been naming Citizen Kane the best movie of all-time for decades — it's more unusual when they don't. The current Wiki article on Citizen Kane lists ten critical outside sources naming it the best film of all-time, including AFI, Cahiers du Cinema, and Sight and Sound; Shoot Pictures makes it eleven. You say no-one of any prominence seems to agree with the compilation and selection criteria for the chart. OK, who? Names, please, specific individuals of prominence who have stated unequivocally that this list is a crock, or at least known experts who have consistently expounded on the greatness of films that are in bulk completely absent from the Shoot Horses list, indicating its deviance from accepted critical opinion. You doubt that Shoot Pictures is a reliable list. OK, how? How is it less reliable than other similar sources that provide such lists — less reliable than Pitchfork on-line, Spin and Rolling Stone magazines, AFI, Sight and Sound, AllMusic, AllMovie, Time magazine? Wikipedia editors have been citing such sources for years. TSPDT has been around since 2002, and their pain-staking approach to their obscure object of desire is obvious. It's two people, maybe a few more, not all that different in number from the people who make the final content decisions for the editorial staffs of the abovementioned for-profit sources.PJtP (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

AFTER the "clear consensus" of the so-called "impartial editors" at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Notable or not" the editor PJtP patiently and clearly explains why the website is a reliable source and only one other editor responds to the arguments and does so not in an "impartial" way but with an obstinately obtuse determination to preserve her own biased pov and a clear avoidance of coherent responses to his arguments. In "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" it is clearly stated: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information". The cited website fits this description to a T: it even goes to the unusual length of citing the "2,041 individual ballots, and the 1,135 miscellaneous lists used"; it's difficult to imagine what a more reliable and neutral source could possibly be. If editors were really concerned with the interests of people reading the article they would want as much such info as the website contains made available to them rather than suppressing it: it is clearly referenced, so let reader's make up their own minds rather than censoring their access to info Wran (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." According to the about page, the people in charge of the website are "just a couple of film lovers" with no authority in this field. In addition, the website is self-published, so there is not an indication of a reliable publication process, as there would be through a newspaper or a major book publisher. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually think it's an interesting website, and useful resource in much the same way IMDB is; I just don't believe it meets the criteria demanded of a reliable resources. I would have no problem with it being added as a external link since it provides a portal to many interesting lists. All I can say is if you think we are misinterpreting the guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source, then you could ask for further input at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What could possibly be more reliable: as Wran points out its sources and methodology are 100% transparent; it doesn't matter who the people are who compiled it: it's a simple statistical sample from an extremely large number of sources, the vast majority of which (perhaps even all of them) are reliable sources in themselves. I suppose the article could list the thousands of individual votes and their sources, but the statistical summary is is much more useful, user-friendly, and practical. Alis9 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot ignore Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources just because unqualified individuals make it clear the methodology they use. The authority of the authors and/or publishers is what is needed to make the website reputable enough to cite on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free video issue at FAC

I nominated U2 3D to be a featured article, and the main issue at the FAC page is the non-free clip in the video. One user is stating that the clip in the video is too long because its 40 seconds and that videos shouldn't be longer than 30 seconds. I noticed that the videos at WP:WikiProject Film/Multimedia are all much longer than 30 seconds. I was hoping to get some extra input on whether this video is of acceptable length. This seems to be the only issue at the moment that is keeping it from passing its FAC. Any input anyone from this project can give would be greatly accepted. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment at the FAC page and hope others will, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture query

Hi. The Russian wiki article for the film Liberation has several posters - can these be used on the English article? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I should imagine so, but you will need to update the licences to include a fair use rationale for use on our article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think all of them need to be included; film series articles tend to use series-encompassing posters or box set design. Is the one in the infobox at the Russian Wikipedia the key poster for all the films? If not, is there one that can represent the whole set? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to go with the main one in their infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man

There is a request to move Untitled Spider-Man reboot to Spider-Man (2012 film). See the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Plots

I have a question about sourcing plots in particular French art-house movies. How can a plot be sourced? Are the other filmsites a reliable source? And is it always necessary to source a plot? A plot is a brief synthesis of the story, there is no real academical value, it is not a compilation of exact facts and everyone will have another story to tell about the movie. And we could take the plots of the imdb.com site as a source but is this correct? Karel leermans (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Karel. We have some guidelines about writing plot summaries: WP:FILMPLOT. The film can be used as the source for the plot summary as long as the description is kept basic. For the majority of films, this approach is sufficient. Where some films are highly interpretative, it is better to cite a secondary source to avoid putting forward any original research. For example, a well-studied arthouse film will usually have summaries in publications about it. I would not reference plot summaries at IMDb since they are static. Summaries sometimes need refining over time, and the film itself is usually the best "source" to reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eric! Karel leermans (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tips for writing filmologies

Does the project have a tips for writing filmologies (or whatever they are called) similar to Tips for writing biographies? If not, then would someone be so kind as to go through the Category:FA-Class film articles and summarize them into a tips section and perhaps a template similar to Template:Biography. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but it would be a good idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Uzma, are you requesting a tips section for how to write film articles? Or filmographies in particular? I'm not sure if I see the need in one. It would essentially be a consolidation of policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be a writing that brought forth the common features of articles listed in Category:FA-Class film articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be MOS:FILM in modified form? We try to provide guidance there for writing film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

star trek posters being deleted

File:Startrekgenpost.jpg and File:Star trek nemesis ver2.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 184.144.160.77 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The nominations were withdrawn. Looks like it had to do with incomplete information in the image files' descriptions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

More opinions needed at Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader#Budget_and_costs_details

There is a dispute over the budget at The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. There are two figures or the budget sourced through the LA Times, Box Office Mojo and the Wall Street jorunal (all of these sources can be found at the discussion). The LA Times and BOM state the budget was $155 million, while the Wall Street Journal includes a quote from an interview with the producer that the budget was $140m.

The first problem is that the editors are arguing that BOM/LA Times are "preferred" to the Wall Street Journal based on the Infobox guidelines. They have clearly misinterpreted the guidelines (BOM is just given as an example, so I would be grateful if some film folks could come over and correct that misinterpretation so the discussion can move on).

Secondly, we usually use budget ranges when we have two estimates for the budget. While I think this would be acceptable, I think we have a much stronger source in the WSJ where the producer actually gives a figure (the LA Times and BOM don't state where their number comes from). My preference for dealing with this would be to follow the precedent of the Avatar (2009 film) article which has the official figure in the infobox and the other estimates in the prose. I feel there should be a distinction between the figure the producer gives in the WSJ and the other figure which the other sources give but don't say where it came from.

Would appreciate any suggestions/recommendations, preferably at Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader#Budget_and_costs_details. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Heist on your own petard

FYI, much of The Great Riviera Bank Robbery appears to have been lifted from IMDB verbatim... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I removed the summary from the article and provided a synopsis based on the film's listing at Allmovie. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with Plot cleanup

Hey all, I'm trying to clean up and condense Star Trek (film)'s Plot section, and would appreciate any help (especially from people without a large amount of Star Trek knowledge, as I'm trying to strip it down to the bare essentials without harming accessibility.) Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

List of directors who appear in their own films

Anyone know where I can find some sources for List of directors who appear in their own films? I couldn't find a single one. The thing's been unsourced for four years and now all of a sudden everyone's arguing to keep it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a request for comment at Talk:Friday the 13th Part 2#Request for Comment regarding the plot section. An editor would like opinions about whether or not the plot section should be deleted outright because of its many issues. Opinions are requested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:HORROR

Please lend any suggestions towards improving and revitalising the Horror WikiProject here. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Find-a-Grave and IMDB from external links

A discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Circus back in town

Last October, The Circus (film) experienced some activity related to Internet phenomena about non-film DVD contents. There is a new resurgence of activity related to whether or not the phenomena should be mentioned at all, due to lack of enduring notability. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

I tried to add myself to the Soviet cinema task force participants' list, and somehow messed it up completly. Now, only my user name appears there. I have no idea how to revert this. Could someone help? My sincere apologies. Bahavd Gita (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I managed to solve it, The list returned to normal. Again, my apologies. Bahavd Gita (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on Film franchise pages

Would be grateful for editors' opinions on the following:

(same issue on both really!) Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's focus all comments at the Halloween talk page. I've commented there. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Filmology of a banned screenwriter

Hello. I'm working on Marguerite Roberts, and she doesn't appear to have been involved on The Girl Who Had Everything and The Man Attraction. Since the information used to write that article comes from a psychology teacher, I'm wondering if there is a more authoritative source about whether she used a front during McCarthyism. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For The Girl Who Had Everything, this may help. Could not find anything about The Man Attraction in relation to her, though. Maybe you can contact the teacher and ask where he got the information from? It's probably something not accessible online. His email address is jmearns@fullerton.edu. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. http://psych.fullerton.edu/jmearns/filmog.htm lists a few sources, some of them out of print; http://psych.fullerton.edu/jmearns/sanford.htm add that he is actually the literary executor of her husband. Boston University archives may be more relevant. I'll try to send them email. Comte0 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST task force restructuring

Greetings from the Military History WikiProject! In recent months, we have been working on transfering our project task forces into a standardized style, in order to make them more readable and user friendly, especially for new editors. We have also been redirecting the talk pages of those task forces to our main project talk page. The latter is partially because many of the posts on the task force pages are duplicates of those on the main talk page. It is also partially because the main talk page has many more watchers than the individual task force pages, and so discussions will have more input and queries will be less likely to become "lost" or otherwise go unanswered. You can see a sample of the new style and the talk page redirection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force or many of our other task forces. We would like to do the same to war films task force. However, as this is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/War films task force, which is part of this project's space, we would like to make sure there is no objection to us changing the style or redirecting the talk page. We would also be willing to move the task force into our project's space, with a redirect from your project's space, if that is preferable. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC), on behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject.

I have no objection with the style change or the redirect. If the style is going to change, it is probably best for the task force sub-page to be at MILHIST. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthology film help

Does anyone know the best way to create an anthology film article that has 4 different segments with a different director for each segment. Especially how would the infobox be done? I don't know if creating an article for each segment would be necessary(?). The film is called Chillerama (see here). I will be working on it here. Thanks. PS. Filming has been done for a while now.. I'm tired of seeing this article redlinked everywhere. :) —Mike Allen 06:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question! I know I've created a couple in the past - here's one I could find that Jean-Luc Godard contributed to. Any help? Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I have so far. —Mike Allen 09:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples at Four Rooms and Aria (film). Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All of the ones I've seen are stubs and don't really have a consistent style. There is no mention of a particular style in the MOS, so I guess I just created one. Maybe it works well that way? —Mike Allen 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lake Malibou, California - a notable filming location.

A recently-created article on Lake Malibou, California may be of interest to this project, as it has been a frequent location for filming: perhaps most notably the famous lakeside scene in the 1931 Frankenstein movie, though the list is extensive, and appears to include quite a few more. The article mentions these:

The horror classic, "Frankenstein" (1931), "Santa Fe Trail" (1930), "Gunsmoke" (1931), "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (1938), "The Adventures of Marco Polo", (1938), "The Virginian" (1946), "M*A*S*H", "Dr. Quinn Medecine Woman", The silent movie, "Annie Laurie" (1927), "Tarzan Escapes" (1936), "Five Weeks in a Balloon" (1962), The best-picture Oscar winner "How Green was my Valley" (1941), "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969), "Our Man Flint" (1966), "Lost Horizon" (1937), "Charlie's Angel", "The Beastmaster" (1982), "PLanet of the Apes" (1968), "Dr. Dolittle" (1967), "The New Swiss Family Robinson" (1998), "Viva Zapata" (1952), Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1940), "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (1946), "Funny About Love" (1965), "Mission Impossible-Tv Episode" (1969), "Phantom Patrol" (1936), "Tillie and Gus with WC Fields" (1933), "Quality Street" (1936), "Make a Wish" (1937), Watch on the Rhine" (1942), "The Bad Seed" (1956), "I Married a Monster" (1958), "Return to Peyton Place" (1961), "How to Stuff a Wild Bikini" (1965), etc... Malibou Lake holds more than a 100 film credits.

The article could do with better sourcing though, so I thought I'd see if anyone here could help out. I have started a dialogue on the talk page about sourcing, so feel free to pitch in..

(Note: there may possibly be a COI issue with the article creator, but I think they understand the need for neutrality, so I've not raised this formally) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks an interesting article. I've made a start at making those bare URLs into inline refs. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Given the number of times it has been used as a location, I'm sure it must have been mentioned elsewhere, so if anyone else sees anything, let us know. We are trying to get a still of Frankenstein by the lake uploaded - we think it is probably public domain. Failing that, there must be other pictures about of it being used available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com

Movie-censorship.com is a website that compares edits of a film (such as theatrical cut vs. director's cut). In the past, it was added to multiple film articles in the "External links" section. I had identified it as linkspam and removed it from all articles around April 2009. This past week, Ckatz (talk · contribs) notified me that the website was being used in a widespread manner. For the most part, its use was as a reference instead of as an external links. Here are some examples, since removed: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I considered this to be linkspam, though apparently citespam would have been more accurate for me to think at the time. In addition, I did not find it a reliable source due to lack of evidence of a reliable publication process or authoritative figures in charge of the site. I removed the majority of instances in which they were used, considering the one/two-sentence sections to be a way to solicit information from a single website. Afterward, I was contacted by Jabrona (talk · contribs) and 87.185.64.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about these removals. (See their two sections here.) The IP address argues that the website is the English version of a German one that is considered reliable on the German Wikipedia and has been mentioned in German publications. Basically, both editors support its use in film articles. I wanted to have a larger discussion about the website, so a couple of questions to answer:

Is Movie-censorship.com considered reliable per WP:RS? Should we look to the German website and related coverage to determine this?
If the website is reliable in some form, what is an acceptable way to use it -- as an external link, as a reference in its own section, or as a reference as part of multiple-reference coverage about a film's different edits?

My take is that I am wary about permitting the use of movie-censorship.com based on how it has been used so far. It has been used singularly, both as an external link and mostly as a reference in its own section. (There were some uses where it was part of larger coverage.) I informed the IP address of avoiding a conflict of interest since he said that I "deleted every bit of my effort regarding different versions of movies with the reason that is 'link spam'". While I would obviously like to clarify whether or not it is appropriate to use it in general, I'm still concerned that there is still a singular motivation to use it in a widespread manner. Like I told him, "The ideal editor should be combining sources of different kinds that he or she has no affiliation to." The English version is not evidently a reliable source to me, and I don't know if the case for German use applies here. This is the English site's staff with people like "Tony Montana" and "DaxRider123" -- people like you and me. In essence, I think it is a worthwhile site to visit, especially with a nice comparison of screenshots, but I don't consider this kind of analysis reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. It's unfortunate because there is probably not a lot of coverage about comparison of edits in general. Since I don't think it's usable and that there is a vested interest in using it in a widespread manner, I would even be okay with its blacklisting, if it comes to that. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an SPS which solicits user submitted contributions and financial donations: http://www.movie-censorship.com/page_en.php?Show=Contact. It doesn't look like it fulfils RS criteria to me. Even if it is cited in reputable publications the user submission aspect probably still disaqualifies it as an RS (just as it does with IMDB). It arguably provides a "unique resource" in the cases where a reliable source can't be found to document the various differences, so I wouldn't contest it as an EL in such instances. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never really investigated the site or thought about it to be honest. I just know it's been used (in the Saw articles especially) for a long time and I thought it was acceptable (well not the way the Saw articles listed every difference..) as a source. It was used in the Salt (2010 film) article to show the different endings because editors kept changing the main plot (which goes by the theatrical version) to that of the Director's Cut and Extended Cut. There are hidden comments in place now, but I thought it would have been a good idea to show what was different because editors seems to think the version they had was the correct and Wikipedia's was incorrect. Then again I think they were watching pirated copies because this was well before the home media release. LOL. As Betty pointed out it seems to also be user submitted and fails RS (proven here) but I wouldn't object it being inserted as a EL on case by case basics. We could ask EL/NB. Further, I don't think the argument "The German Wikipedia uses it" is valid since their guidelines are way more different than ours. —Mike Allen 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the website can be reliable in some form I think it's necessary for it to use about the difference between a film's cuts. Some information on a film's cut may not be seen anywhere else but this website alone. An example of this is Halloween 6 and it's Director's Cut. While the Producer's Cut of this movie is well known and the difference are listed everywhere and you can even see the movie for yourself, the Director's Cut isn't well known and the difference aren't really discusses anywhere else but Movie-Censorship. There are pictures that show the exact differences and alternations of the scenes from the theatrical cut and some of the D-Cut footage are even posted on Youtube. This version of the movie can be available on a 5-disc Bootleg DVD that comes with the Producer's Cut as well as the Rough Cut, and the Television Cut. I've been told that the information can be reliable if it's cited from a reliable web source. But we all know that reliable information had to originate somewhere for it to have became a reliable for other websites. Whose to say that the information at Movie-Censorship.com can't be a reliable source for other websites with useful information themselves as it provides the difference between film cuts in clear pictures that show the differences? Jabrona (talk) 022:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to determine whether or not the website is reliable. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Do you think the website has a reliable publication process or authoritative authors? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that even if the webpage is considered "reliable" in the long run, it has no business being used in such a spam capacity to simply list the differences between versions of a film. Our MOS guideline already talks about how to address "differences" and simply listing them out (even when you have a reliable source that does the listing for your) isn't acceptable. If, in the end, it's considered reliable then I would say it would be strictly EL section material. From what I've seen of the site, it doesn't come across as a reliable soruce. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I'm not sure about it having a publication writing process or authoritative writers, but going by it's information regarding the pictures to show the differences between film cuts and film cuts that you can't find anywhere else with pictures to show the differences to back this up I find it to be very useful. The information regarding the Halloween 6: Director's Cut is an example of movie cuts that information on it isn't found anywhere else regarding the differences let alone it being the "Uncut version of the final film" released in theaters. As the D-Cut version of Halloween 6 exists, I can't find any other sources shedding any information on it regarding the differences. But if the website still can't be used as a useful link can the section itself still be posted on the Halloween 6 page? Jabrona (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A fundamental misunderstand of RS is that a source isn't necessarily reliable just because what it says is correct, it's about having faith in the process that produces the information rather than faith in the information itself, and user submission based sources are a big "no" on Wikipedia. An important feature of RS is that it helps to establish notability—if you can't get this information anywhere else then the chances are it just isn't a notable aspect of the film, even if it is of interest to you. Where there are different versions of the film in circulation (such as is the case with Halloween 6) and the notability of the different version can be established, then I wouldn't object to a link to that site in the external link section, but the content shouldn't be reproduced in the article itself without a source or by referencing this website. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So in other words, the Director's Cut section of Halloween 6 can't be posted in the article page without a source to back it up or have a source like Movie-Censorship to back it up? Well that's a unfortunate disappointment. The Producer's Cut section doesn't have a link but it's well known enough for it not too. I feel the Director's Cut should have the same treatment as there's footage that Halloween fans should at least know about if they were to know more about this movie. They should know that there's more regarding Halloween 6 besides the Producer's Cut. A good number of them only know about the Producer's Cut. They should know about the Director's Cut as well. My most concern was the section still being there but the Movie-Censorship website was very useful in providing the details on it I can't find anywhere else. Again, there's a couple scenes of video footage of this cut can be seen online that could be used a source, but it's not all of the footage that's on there can be seen anywhere else but discussed on message boards of those who had seen the D-Cut. Jabrona (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can start a blog and post screencaps of all the difference, doesn't mean it's acceptable to add on Wikipedia. Just because www.movie-censorship.com is on its own servers makes no difference...it's the same thing. If we start letting one SPS in, why can't they all be included? —Mike Allen 05:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I figured it wasn't a SPS website, but others are saying that it is and I don't know what else to say on behalf of it's useful information. But I just want to know if it's still okay to leave the Director's Cut section of Halloween 6 on the page. The "Filming" section of the movie talks about the extra violence of Jamie's death and the doctor's head getting smashes to pieces at the end through a gate from the Director's Cut that also gave the link to movie-cencorship.com for sometime now before this all took place. Jabrona (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jabrona, per WP:MOSFILMS#Adaptation from source material (which is still applicable to different versions of a film), if there is no commentary on Why the changes took place--that is reliably sourced--then a mere list of changes is not appropriate. So, if the section doesn't say why they cut the scenes (it's a horror film, and the MPAA is pretty standard about cutting violence) then it isn't appropriate to have any of those sections as mere "what's the difference". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So I guess the section can't stay up. It was an alternate version along with the Producer's Cut that describes some of the differences I felt was necessary to put up in the "Alternate Versions" column as well. While the scenes dealing with Jamie and the doctor's were cut back on their violence, the scene regarding the baby in the incubator opening I can guess because Chappelle wanted to make it so that the "cult" wasn't a cult after all and were just using Michael as well as keeping some of the mystical aspects in the story. The other scenes such as the extended conversation of Wynn and Loomis and the one-liner of Kara at the end, I have no idea why they were cut. I guess to move the story quicker like Chappelle did with a lot of other scenes. I guess it's time for me to wave the white flag. Jabrona (talk) 019:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man (film series)

Soliciting opinions regarding scope/name of Spider-Man (film series) at Talk:Spider-Man (film series)#Split?. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Project scope and home-made films

Is it intended that this project's stated scope, "Films and film series", includes home-made YouTube productions? Despite having removed it once when placed by user Peppage (talk · contribs) [9], user Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is insiting on re-adding a film infobox, and also adding film categories, to 7/7 Ripple Effect, citing WP:FILM and WP:FILMCAT [10][11]. Before I make this a general issue of consensus (I think it's wholly ridiculous for Wikipedia to legitimise this conspiracy theorists work as a 'film' in this way), I thought I would check here first for the project editor's view, covering as it could, less contentious but equally home-made, 'films', in the project's scope. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The most famous example I can think of is the Zapruder Film which seems to have been brought under the scope of the project. On that basis there doesn't seem to be a case for excluding an amateur shot film. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mick. The opening line of the article states "7/7 Ripple Effect is a 57-minute homemade film...". WP:FILM states "WikiProject Film is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films" and "The project generally considers all articles directly related to film to be within its scope." I think the WP:DUCK principal applies here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The judgement on whether to include a film really comes down to verifiability and ability to meet WP:NF or WP:GNG, regardless of the film's content or medium of release. If a terrible film that is utterly incorrect in its intended statement can be proven notable through reliable sources, it passes the threshold of inclusion on Wikipedia and will, most likely, be included in the scope of this WikiProject. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Big Bird said. I'm a deletionist so I'm for removing youtube movies, I think it opens the door for adding every youtube film to wikipedia. You should also consider that I didn't add the infobox to make it more of a film, I added the infobox because the talk page has the film banner and it was tagged with "needing an infobox". If you think an article is not in the scope of the film project the banner needs to be removed from the talk page. --Peppage ^tlk 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it opens the doors for adding every Youtube film. Either it's notable, or it isn't, weather it is a film you could see in the cinema, or one made online. Lugnuts (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD debate for Xerxes (film)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerxes (film) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of producers

A few days ago I nominated Saeko Matsuda for deletion. The subject of the article is a television producer who produced a handful of shows in Japan. The only references are credits for the shows. I expected the deletion to be non-controversial, but was surprised by the responses asserting that producers of notable shows or films are automatically notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. My image of a producer is someone with a largely organizational role in the production, rather than a role which is primarily creative. I recognize that producers often have creative roles as well, but it is my impression that they're usually credited separately for these roles (e.g. producer/writer, producer/director). Is there any consensus on the notability of producers? I'd like to understand this better and thought that the members of this project would have experience here. Pburka (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The deletion nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saeko_Matsuda for those who wish to contribute to the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pburka, I recommend that you ask at WP:ACTOR too, since their scope encompasses filmmakers. My own take is that a film producer can count as a creative professional, though most people do not go out of their way to create articles for executive producers or associate producers. Matsuda, from my preliminary research, does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, but I can see an argument with WP:CREATIVE as long as the article avoids any unreferenced biographical detail. Such articles, like Charles Roven, are more of a "see also" article of the creative professional's body of work. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking no stance on Matsuda's own notability, I think CREATIVE applies to producers equally as much as, say, cinematographers although I can see how the word "creative" can play tricks when thinking about a producer's role in the making of a film. In this sense "creative" should be taken to mean any role that helps a work (eg. film) be made or created. It need not be artistic or hands-on by that particular person. At least that's how I interpret it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it not need to be artistic? Surely the gaffer, caterer or assistant to Mr. Clooney, while essential to the film's production, aren't notable simply for having worked on a notable production. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A film would still be made if a different caterer was used. Caterers do not play a "major role" in creating works such as films or TV shows; their input is tangentially related and has little consequence on the final output whereas a producer, in my opinion, is more relevant to the film's destiny. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with a list

I've been trying to improve the page List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards, as it seems to be a list with inconsistent criteria and far too much unnecessary information, but have been having trouble cleaning it up (both due to my inexperience and resistance from another user.) I'm really not sure if this is the best place to post this, but someone recommended I try so I thought it was worth a shot. Any help in cleaning the article would be much appreciated. Thanks so much. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards

Please see Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Help needed

The Last Airbender has been on review for over a month. It could do with passing/failing right away because it's been waiting long enough, It's Talk:The Last Airbender/GA1. As this is a project for films, is there anyone willing to carry out some GA reviews as the section for Theatre, Film has a massive backlog.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 03:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

find dutch films to which can be added the category "dutch drama films"

... so the category stops being empty. Userpd (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Use this, and just change the decade parameter. Lugnuts (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought if someone has a bot then his bot could do it itself. But turned out there are not so many dutch drama films on wiki, so it can be done manually without effort. Userpd (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cast member names in plot

Is there a consistent policy, either in MOS or in this Wikiproject, regarding the repetition of cast member names in the plot section of film articles? I ask because I have seen film articles without the actors names listed, other articles with only the actors last name in parentheses (Eastwood), and, in other cases, the full name, with wikilink (Clint Eastwood). Why the inconsistency? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's editor preference. That's all. WP:MOSFILMS#Cast briefly touches on this, but it typically comes down to the preference of the editors who edit that page. It doesn't hurt or help the page one way or the other. Some people like to use it, and some don't. It's not something that needs to be uniform across articles because every article is different. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What Bignole said. —Mike Allen 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you see a plot summary with actors' names fully written and linked, it is usually because a cast list was merged into it. I prefer a separate cast list while taking the "(Eastwood)" approach because the list is easier to navigate than a summary that readers may not want to read, due to spoilers. In addition, not everyone can be identified in the summary, so the list can name everyone considered to have a major role. For me, the "(Eastwood)" approach is secondary in briefly indicating who plays who. Would it be worth considering limiting such identifications to the stars? It would be consistent with first occurrences of actors' names. For example, Eastwood as an actor would likely be mentioned in the lead section and the infobox, so "(Eastwood)" would not be surprising. However, if we have John Doe who is worth identifying in the article body, and if we usually have the cast list after the plot summary, it would be inconsistent to have "(Doe)" in the summary when he's fully linked in the list in the next section. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the approach you suggest here, Erik. Part of the reason I brought this issue here is because I had edited some film articles, replacing the full, linked, names with the (actor's last name), only to be summarily reverted without explanation. As you say, in cases in which the actor's names are mentioned in the lede, and then further information is given in the cast section, it is unnecessary to repeat the name in the plot. That's how I see it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST is probably the last section of MOS:FILM that has not been revised significantly since it was first added. It may be worth proposing a rewrite, based on this kind of linking and other ways to structure the section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Any actors mentioned in the lede should be listed by last name only, with no link, to comply with WP:OVERLINK and WP:EGG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coder Dan (talk • contribs) 12:22, January 20, 2011

Film project

I have come here to purpose the creation of a new essay on film project articles. Above is what it looks like. You may change or fix it to your specifications. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

There is a request to move The Dark Knight (film) to The Dark Knight. The discussion can be found here. I'm personally neutral; I have opposed such a move before but am considering a possible support. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing films as albums

Should films that contain a section for its soundtrack album by categorized as albums? For example, Rocky III is categorized under Category:1982 albums, Category:EMI Records albums, Category:Bill Conti albums; and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me has been categorized as Category:Angelo Badalamenti albums and Category:1992 albums? I don't think they should be but I'd like to put it out for comment from those in the Films project group. At the very least, there are the more appropriate categories such as Category:1982 soundtracks and Category:EMI Records soundtracks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, at the very least, they should be listed under those subcategories. I personally don't believe that those templates belong in the article at all. The articles are primarily about the film and the soundtrack as being part of the film. However, I do know that other editors and projects treat this differently. For example, a lot of articles on manga will often have brief references to a film adaptation of it, and all film categories will be added to the article. This seems like it is improper categorization of an article to me. BOVINEBOY2008 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)