Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Manhunter (film) at peer review

Hey all. I currently have the article Manhunter (film) at peer review here, with a mind to bringing it to FAC in the near future. The concerns raised in its previous FAC nomination, and by the sole contributor to the current PR, have all been addressed - however, I'd like to get a few more opinions on the article, especially from members of this wikiproject, who will be more familiar with the article's field. Any opinions are useful, even if it's only based on a section or a quick skim of the article. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to have a look! GRAPPLE X 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the film is now at FAC. Any comments you can add here are welcome, as anything you find fault with can be fixed. Anything you can add is welcome, as identifying problems will only serve to improve the article. The last nomination featured only one vote, and I believe it's better to fail by ten votes than by one, as there's more to learn from a lot of criticism than from a little. GRAPPLE X 02:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Human Centipede second attempt at FAC

Hi. Yes I know it's a terrible terrible film, but a lot of work has been put into The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and it would be really helpful if any editors could help out with any constructive criticism on the Featured Article review. A month or so ago the FAC was closed because there were hardly any comments, but I still feel the article meets the standard so I've put it up again. Any comments whatsoever would very much be appreciated. Thanks (Oh yeah, here's the link :) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive2) cya Coolug (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

hey there, there have been a few very useful comments on the article which is cool, and I have done my best to act onthem. If anyone else out there has anything else they say about the article I'd really appreciate it. cya Coolug (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive plot

Requesting some additional feedback to changes that have been made and then reverted to the plot section of Mulholland Drive. Discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming films

There are quite a few articles with "2012 film" in the title, such as The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). Today I categorized them using Category:2012 films. I was quickly reverted by several users who suggested that per WP:CRYSTAL they should be categorized using Category:Upcoming films. Since release dates can (and do) change, this makes sense to me. But this of course created the silly situation in which articles titled with "2012 films" couldn't be categorized as 2012 films. So I tested the waters by moving several of the articles to include "upcoming film" in place of "2012 film". I was immediately reverted again. So it seems there is a need for obtaining a consensus about "2012 film" vs "upcoming film" and then that consensus should be applied to both titles and categories. It doesn't make any difference to me personally, so I'll start the discussion and leave it to this project's editors to find the consensus and apply it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

While movie dates CAN change, its rarely by pushing it into another year and if it was, we could then move it. Upcoming Film is an arbitrary title, could mean the film is coming out in 6 months of 5 years. And if a film is in principal photography, the chance of the date changing by more than a few weeks (something which wouldn't affect the title of the article) are slim. Upcoming as a category might be suitable for films due imminently but 2012 films seems perfectly applicable as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Bovineboy2008 removes year-based categories if the film is not released. I disagree with this practice but have not worried too much about it. I think that if a film is in production and its Wikipedia article needs to be disambiguated from another film article, we should use the officially announced release year. I agree that there is an inconsistency in not having the year-based categories when we disambiguate by the year in the article title. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here; it has more to do with content than with categorizing or article titling. The release year is completely verifiable, and Wikipedia is dynamic enough that we can update a category from "2011 films" to "2012 films" if there is a delay. I don't think a film is that likely to change its release date once it is in production, and even if the date changes, it is also within the same year anyway. Doing it the other way, having no year-based categories and using "upcoming" instead of an actual release year, seems messier to me in terms of maintenance. I don't believe that there are that many films-in-production whose release are pushed back into next year, and this practice would mean article moving on films' release dates (usually every Friday, I suppose) which seems to me to be a bad time to do moves. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) I could see the "issue" here, but these type of moves require a solid consensus. We're saying the film is a 2012 film, but it hasn't been released yet, so technically it's not a 2012 film, it's an upcoming film. But I don't have a preference one way or the other -- both are fine, but it needs to be consistent. Right now it is consistent with the years included. —Mike Allen 20:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Following on from Erik's comments, I agree it seems impractical. We could be in a position where a film that is out this Friday would be categorised or disambiguated as an "upcoming film", when it would be extremely unlikely that the release date would change from the week, let alone the year. I think that current practice to disambiguate by year when release date is known and advertised is a sound one, as - as others have said - in the event of the release date changing, it's not that hard to change. As far as WP:CRYSTAL goes, I think that this practice follows point 1. We are documenting future events which are notable and almost certain to take place, and for which preparation is already in progress. When taken in conjunction with WP:NCF the year of release should be used as a disambiguator when necessary. Also, is there any reason why we can't have categories for both "2012 films" and "upcoming films"? Although, "upcoming films" would need to be updated every week like Erik says, whereas "2012 films" would not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Movies with reported release dates scheduled for 2012 should definitely be categorized in Category:2012 films. The rationalization for removing that category seems merely pedantic. Where disambiguation is necessary "(2012 film)" should be used, not "(upcoming film)". Using "(upcoming film)" would be only appropriate if the anticipated release date is unreported/unknown. Sandboxer (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be more on the basis that a future film can't be in the category for upcoming films and 2012 films, which is completly wrong. If it's verifiable that it is due to be released in 2012, then it should go in both. Common sense people. Lugnuts (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am completely willing to budge on this as long as this is what other editors believe. The only issue I have is when films have projected years of release (ie when IMDb has a year but no specific month or date), that does not seem like a reliable source. So would it make sense to have films with future release dates be in Category:Upcoming films and then those with exact release months or dates have both that category and its proper year category? And I have seen several films that were labeled (2010 film) but are still unreleased with no set release date. In that case, wouldn't it make sense to move the article to (upcoming film) and then to its proper year once a date is attached? BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"So would it make sense to have films with future release dates be in Category:Upcoming films and then those with exact release months or dates have both that category and its proper year category?" Yes. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's very rare that a film without a release date (or projected/advertised release date) would pass notability guidelines anyway as films are not usually announced without. If there are films showing "2010 film" as a disambiguator that have not yet been released then they should be either moved, or considered for deletion as there's a good chance production has stalled. If we do decide to append the disambiguator of "upcoming film" or "future film" (which I would prefer as we talk about notability for future films) for the rare occurrence where we have an article for a film without a release date, then guidelines at WP:NFF and WP:NCF should be amended. But I'm digressing! Think we're pretty much in agreement that both categories can be applied... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding video clip to Meet the Parents

A suggestion has been made that the image of questionable usefulness in the "Themes" section of the article be replaced by a video clip which might provide the reader with a better understanding of the scene in question. Additional opinions would be greatly appreciated; please feel free to comment here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack cover images

At The Hangover Part II, I removed File:The Hangover Part II Soundtrack.jpg from the "Soundtrack" section. InfamousPrince (talk · contribs) created a sub-article for the soundtrack at The Hangover Part II: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack with just the track listing and the album infobox. It seems to me to be an attempt to use the non-free image no matter what, and I think this is poor practice. My impression is that we avoid soundtrack cover images in most instances, using them only in stand-alone soundtrack articles provided that there is enough context. After all, WP:NFCI says, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." What do others think? Does the soundtrack cover image have any place whatsoever on Wikipedia? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes sense, but I question whether there should be separate articles if they don't contain any critical commentary. If all we've got is a bunch of track listings isn't that just indiscriminate information? Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In some instances it can be important, but not all. I think it should be based solely on the notability of the soundtrack. For example, the Tron Legacy soundtrack should include an image because it was an extremely notable soundtrack. Garden State is another great example of a film soundtrack that should include an image. In the case of the Hangover Part II, I don't think it should include an image. While the artists listed on the soundtrack are notable on their own, it was not a significant part of the marketing. Furthermore, there isn't very much additional information about the film's soundtrack. It lacks a story and substance. The page is basically just a track listing with no background information. To summarize, the soundtrack image does have a place on Wikipedia, but it should be reserved for more notable soundtracks. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, I was fine with this, and the content fork was an attempt to justify using a non-free image despite no change in content. Unless a soundtrack is notable on its own, I'm fine with having a track listing in the related film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
He did the same for Green Lantern after I removed the image twice. I don't think the album justifies its own article, and it appear that the only reason it was created was exactly what you saw...to use a non-free image no matter what.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
And leaves a near-empty section in the process, obviously because there's no summary to provide of the just-forked content. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)
That sounds more than a little like gaming. FWIW, even within the film article, the soundtrack section has to be more than just a track list, not just to justify an image, but I would think to justify its existence.
As for the content forks... as onerous as it may be, PROD 'em as: "A content fork presented without notability or secondary sources." If they are de-PRODed, AFD and include how they came to be in the reason for deletion. Notify the creator of the articles and if the cycle continues, maybe an RfCU or ANI.
As for the empty section... that always bugs me. If you are slapping in {{main}}, a brief description is all bu mandatory. If a summary can't be provided because it dupes the the sup-article, it's a pointy split. And verges on seriously damaging the article. - J Greb (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
J Greb, I undid the Green Lantern and The Hangover Part II content forking. Just made the soundtrack articles into redirects. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, to respond to your comment about needing more than the track listing, I think just a track listing is okay if you are listing multiple artists and their songs. It provides readers an opportunity to navigate them. If it's a standard soundtrack, though, with tracks like Intro, Outro, Bar Scene, etc., I think that a track listing is indiscriminate. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
True...
As for the PRODing... I'd prefer that route so the guidelines are clearly pointed out to the editor, especially if they are constantly doing this. - J Greb (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I removed File:CaptainAmerica2011Soundtrack.jpg from Captain America: The First Avenger. I also saw that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (soundtrack) existed (content was forked by InfamousPrince as well), which seems meatless. Well, it does have meat, but it's fake meat, if you know what I mean—explaining the credits in prose. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Erik. Also even adding the soundtrack images on the film articles is pretty poor practice. Not only is the poster a cropped image of the film poster (most of the time), adding a non-free image with only a small paragraph of a release date, who scored the soundtrack and one review from AllMusic.. is not critical commentary. I have bumped heads with more than one file uploader over this. I guarantee if we ask the people over at WT:NFCI, they would agree with us. —Mike Allen 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That depends. At WT:NFC we've had trouble defining "critical commentary" in the past. It doesn't necessarily have to be very critical -- probably rather less than is assumed by the Project Film guidelines. If the image is being used to support a reasonably comprehensive and serious treatment of the topic (which may not be that extensive) and it's something different than just a cut-down version of the movie's main release poster, then you may not see an awful lot of fuss made about box art. . It's not as if it is likely going to be a copyright risk. The main reason for the "critical commentary" bit for box art in the WP:NFCI whitelist, IIRC, was really to support the restriction of it from discography list type articles -- at least that's what I think you'll find said about that clause if you look up recent discussions in the archives at WT:NFC using the search box there. Jheald (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
But ze pictures, zey are so pretty. If you don't allow the album art on a particular article I'd advise removing the infobox and turning its contents into prose. The empty Infobox look terrible from an aesthetic perspective. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Blake I found this on a userpage: "With roughly 350,000 375,000 400,000 copyrighted images, Wikipedia is the world's largest repository of copyrighted images. Whoever thinks we've managed to stay focused on our mission, please contact me. I'd like to buy some of what you're smoking." LOL —Mike Allen 00:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Our mission is to provide free content. But not necessarily to provide free content only. Jheald (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It'd help if it wasn't so easy to create articles and files. I had to redirect multiple versions of articles for all the central Fast and Furious cast yesterday. There was Dominic Toretto (Character), Dominic Toretto (character), Dominic Toretto, Leticia "Letty" Ortiz, "Letty Ortiz, Leticia Ortiz (Character), Mia Toretto, Mia Toretto (character), Brian O'Conner, Brian O'Conner (Fast and Furious), Brian O'Conner (character). There is a separate article for Fast Five Soundtrack and Fast Five score. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So the soundtrack to The Hangover Part II is not notable in its own right? Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this worth my time?

Hi Guys. I've recently been trawling Category:Film articles needing an image with a script I wrote to help me find suitable images for the inboxes. The script pulls images from Amazon.com and verifies that the title & director for the Amazon image match the Wiki Article. It then crops the image (to remove unsightly borders, ect) and presents it to me. I verify that the image is of a high enough quality and then the script uploads the image with the filled-out {{Film cover fur}} and inserts it into the article's infobox. My question is if the work is worth my time, or if anyone here objects to this method. Tim1357 talk 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This comes kind of late: I've done quite a few. Tim1357 talk 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's only cropping out borders, then I think things should fall under free use; though I also think (personally) that a film's poster as opposed to Amazon's habit of using DVD/VHS covers is preferable, but not mandatory. However, be sure that it's not actually cropping out anything extra from the image. I'd imagine that's really a step that should be done by hand. GRAPPLE X 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for your work on this. It would seem to be an asset on its face. Sadly, the quagmire that is NFCC (which I won't even venture the tippiest of toes into) may have other things to say. Hopefully other members of this project will be able to give you some guidence about this. I see that Grapple X is already giving good advice. MarnetteD | Talk 18:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds kinda cool. Presumably you could just get it to fill in a standard NFCC validation since the only thing that really needs changing for posters is the name of the article it is used in. But I;m not sure why they need cropping, resizing but not cropping, cropping is going to end up removing something important eventually.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The only image manipulation is removing white borders that Amazon puts around its images. For example: From tothis tothis. It also may change image formats (ex: from .gif to .jpeg), but as I understand it, there is no loss in image quality during conversion. Tim1357 talk 20:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Tim, if you want a good database for poster, try MoviePosterDB.com. There is a handy search function that you can take the IMDb number for the title and use it to search in the poster database as to avoid title differences. BOVINEBOY2008 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll start using that database instead (or before) using Amazon. Tim1357 talk 20:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This sounds excellent and certainly worth your time. Nice work! Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit split

I started a discussion here about splitting off components of the Hobbit 2012 article. I believe the cast list and production section to be excessively long and believe they would warrant their own articles or perhaps the information should be split into the component films or something. Considering the first film isn't out until 2012, it would seem the article is only going to get longer in its current state Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Allrovi a reliable source?

I am considering using it as a reference for information about the production crew of Money No Enough. In 1998, Singapore had little Internet penetration and virtually no film industry to speak of; since Money No Enough was made on a shoestring budget (befitting its title) and nobody expected it to be so successful, there is no official website for the movie. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association

I created Central Ohio Film Critics Association article a day ago, and it was very good, with sources and everything, but User:Jayjg deleted it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Ohio Film Critics Association (2nd nomination). Now, there can been seen that the article was deleted a several times before, because other editors haven't created it well, and it not fair that article I created be deleted only because they haven't done a job well. What can I do to undelete it.  InfamousPrince  08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I saw that was mentioned in the AFD was the lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, it wasn't because the article wasn't "written well". It was deemed by the community that this group simply does not pass the notability standard to be listed here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deletion under CSD G4 is only appropriate if the re-created article is substantially identical to the version deleted after a deletion discussion. Having compared the version you created to the version discussed at AfD, I would have to say the deletion was correct. As was the case with the old version, your version fails to provide any independent sources, and as such, notability of the association is not demonstrated, as per ArcAngel. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Lone Ranger (film project) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Lone Ranger (film project) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lone Ranger (film project) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cloak & Dagger

I noticed an interesting move request at Talk:Cloak & Dagger#Requested move. Cloak & Dagger points to a 1984 film, where cloak and dagger points to the general term. There's a 1946 film at Cloak and Dagger (film). Is the ampersand a sufficient enough symbol to disambiguate the topics at hand or not? After all, WP:PRECISION requests for article titles to be concise. Also depends on how many people actually type "&" in place of "and" in general searches. I don't have a stance at this point but am interested in seeing what others think. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine either are articles people search for. Ever. But I would say that & is not enough to differentiate, especially if someone only 'knows' the title but hasn't seen it so types and or & instead of the alternative. Probably better to differentiate a little more. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to move The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on the similar basis that anyone searching for "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or the "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" may not know that there is a space between "Chain" and "Saw" in the original film. Discussion here. I think I'd go along with the nominator here, even though it's possibly against guidelines. Compare Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings (Mostly Autumn album) and Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album). Whilst technically different titles, the differences are too subtle. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Blake, I cannot imagine anyone searching for these film articles either. I'm interested in how much to disambiguate, especially since someone requested to move Changeling (film) to Changeling (2008 film) because of possible confusion with the 1980 film The Changeling (film). It's a matter of how much a symbol or an article (e.g., "the") can define a topic. Rob, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre naming is interesting... someone pointed out the essay WP:OFFICIALNAMES, which could apply here. Although it's kind of pedantic to move around such topics when they're all reachable anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest Cloak & Dagger be redirected to cloak and dagger, since it is most use of the common term with or without the ampersand.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose the use of ampersand shouldn't be like the use of title case versus lowercase. I added my stance to the discussion. Others are welcome to do so. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Hey, I think one of the articles I worked on should be upgraded on the quality scale, but the directions on how to have it reviewed were a little unclear to me. I can't find the area where you actually submit the article. I implemented a number of significant edits to The Muppets (film) article, and I think it is well beyond a stub article now. Can someone either submit the article for review for me, or give me a hand in the process? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You can review it yourself if you are comfortable with assessing on your own. For GA-class, another reviewer should do it. In this case, I think that the article is C-class. I think articles should only be B-class when the film is released because a reception section is critical to an article, since it matters a lot what outsiders think of the film. If you change the WikiProject Film banner to C-class, you can see a B-class checklist to see what you can do. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want someone else to review it you can add the article to the section here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment. I've updated it to "start" class anyway since it clearly isn't a stub. I only had a glance but I would be surprised if fails a C-class check. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I've transferred your request to the review section. I agree with Erik it is lacking the coverage for B-class. The reception and plot sections need developing, which can't really be done until the film comes out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. If deemed a C class article, will someone else change the grade on the article, or is this something that I should do? Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the reviewer will assign a class. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving BOT for references?

Is there a BOT or how could I go about getting one created to automatically archive references on a page? There are several articles I would like to backup the references to via webcitation.org but its a tedious process when you have upwards of 50 links and sometimes over 100, but as you all know, sites go down all the time. On Fast Five I had to replace 3 references just in a few weeks. Something that could do it all in a few seconds would be incredibly handy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be informative: Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Webcitebot2. (See the talk page as well.) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, so there was a citeBOT. Looks like they're working on a new one but its all beta at the minute? Oh well, hopefully it will be released soon then. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is good news also. Something I requested (not via RFC) a while back and was told to just comment the archivieurl out. Lol —Mike Allen 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Scream nominated for Good Article

I've done all I think I can do here now and have put it forward for GA. From my own perspective at least I think it meets the criteria very well and is about as informative an article as you'll find on the particular topic. I've pretty much written it from the ground up so if you haven't been involved and you're interested in reviewing it, please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scream_(film)/GA1&action=edit&editintro=Template:GAN/editintro&preload=Template:GAN/preload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 14:04, May 5, 2011

Does it take this long for other GAC? What the hell. You'd think someone at the nominees page would have apassing interest in this film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The backlog is pretty notorious. I think most people don't like to review. Featured article candidates don't receive a lot of love, either. I think the best chance of success is quid pro quo, to offer to review another person's article in exchange for them reviewing yours. Of course, in that exchange, both editors should be pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines, which isn't always the case. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I will give you thisssssssssss much money* to go do it Erik. *money may or may not be real.
Someone is working through the backlog because Scream is like 3rd now on the list, just are ignoring Scream. To be fair they are ignoring Inception too though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to review it, but my free time is kind of spotty today. I can make some suggestions but need to read the article closely to do an actual review. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the problem there. I think of doing GAR but then I look at it and realise I have to read the whole thing and instantly lose interest. I've only done one, Saw 3D, but each article just takes a lengthy amount of time to process. Another thing that could use some streamlining. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Avant-garde and experimental film

Would anybody be interested in helping me create the above Wikiproject? There's a lot of articles (especially film articles) that are not identified as relating to this subject but should be. If anyone is interested, leave me a message on my talk page and let's get started. Thanks! Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see another editor interested in this kind of cinema, we're in dire need of more people who work on such articles. Though for that very reason I doubt a specific task force is needed. If something needs to be discussed it can be done here. I also think the term avant-garde should be used very cautiously in an encyclopedia, since it by definition is relative. Category:Avant-garde and experimental films is already abused and full of conventionally made films with just slightly unconventional plots (should IMO be renamed Category:Experimental films and have everything non-experimental removed). Smetanahue (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Are films by the Coen brothers not avant-garde; what about most films by Gus Van Sant. A lot of these films are not characterized as such. Even most of Jim Jarmusch's work isn't characterized in this way. This is getting out of hand. We need a lot of people to help; and the only way is by creating said project. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoa. I wouldn't call any Coen Brothers films in that style. Remember to use reliable sources when putting groups in these genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean now. There is nothing to wait for if you're going to expand the articles, just search for reliable sources, add all relevant info you can find, and it will be greatly appreciated. No permission from a WikiProject or anything like that is needed. Smetanahue (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't understand. There's a lot of work involved in this genre (I'm also including independent film, since there isn't even a category for it (independent as relates to aesthetic)). There's a lot of film articles that are within this scope that are not even identified as such. I don't know how much clearer to make it. Does anyone understand? The point is that when I have free time I'm going to work on doing this; if someone wants to come along, they're free to join the ride. By the way, the only reason you don't identify Coen brothers as being of this style is because they've had such mainstream success. But their aesthetic is definitely of this type. Have you seen A Serious Man? Raising Arizona is a bizarre film from the jump. Even Barton Fink. I'm not gonna say all their films; for example, O, Brother Where Art Thou? is of a more mainstream aesthetic. But even No Country for Old Men has an artsy-ness to it. My real question is why you're so averse to it? There's even a Star Trek wikiproject. It's not a big deal! Lighthead þ 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm not really asking for permission from any Wikiproject; I'm just letting people from Wikiproject Film know that I'm interested in making an avant-garde Wikiproject if anyone wants to join me. I thought that was understood. But anyway. Lighthead þ 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not against a wikiproject, (I'm all for that!) but I wouldn't consider these films you mentioned to fall under those genres you thought of. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would you consider a task force under WikiProject Film? We have mostly task forces relating to national cinema, but a more active task force is the one for comic book films. With a task force, you don't have to worry about creating dozens of pages that are mostly redundant to WikiProject Film. The task force can have a page with instructions and guidelines specific to avant-garde and experimental film, and its talk page can be used for discussion. It would allow you to start contributing sooner. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO this sub-category of films would be much better served by creating a task force of the films project focusing on these types of films rather than creating a full-blown Wikiproject. Wikiprojects involve a lot of administrative overhead and require a broad scope in order to attract an active pool of editors, hence why so many wikiprojects with narrow scopes (just one subgenre/artist/franchise) peter out and die rather quickly. A Wikiproject for 1 film genre is going to be 99% identical to the Films project itself in terms of assessment criteria, MoS, and other basic elements; the only real difference is that the scope is narrower, focusing on avant-garde and experimental films. Therefore the best approach would be to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Avante-garde and experimental films task force. That way you can rally editors interested in this particular genre while continuing to use the administarative overhead of the parent project (FILMS). Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide has more guidance on determining the scopes appropriate for a WikiProject vs. a task force. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Haha guess Erik and I had the same suggestion at the same time. Darn edit conflicts! --IllaZilla (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Like they say, great minds think alike. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There's also a problem in the terminology. Any film and no film could be classified as avant-garde depending on where, when and by who the classification is issued. It's fine to quote a critic who calls something avant-garde, but an encyclopedia really shouldn't categorize articles by subjective and relative terms. Smetanahue (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for artsy-ness and the bizarre, but starting another WikiProject or task force won't make new editors appear. It'll still be the same handful of us, doing what we did before. Also, if you can convince more people to edit film articles that's great, but if you really want to get something done you will for the most part have to get on with it and do it yourself. That's how Wikipedia functions in my experience, it's nearly impossible to get people to work on request, but if you start doing it yourself others might get inspired. Smetanahue (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A task force is fine. But I'd have to disagree with your thoughts that eventually you have to do it yourself. I created a Wikiproject a long time ago (I eventually disassociated myself from it for religious reasons), and yeah at first I was frustrated at how few people were joining, but that Wikiproject now has a lot of participants. And also, you have to take into account that somebody might not want to join Wikiproject Film because they have a specific field of interest, but they would on the other hand join a Wikiproject (or task force, as mentioned) related to, like I said, their interest. But I think the general attitude that I've come across since yesterday as regards my edits and my views here on Wikipedia (you have to understand that I was adding those categories out of frustration; I deeply love experimental film), is a symptom of the lopsidedness in view that completely doesn't take this genre into consideration. I mean, Coen brothers films are not experimental? That's just not what I'm used to. I'm not gonna say they're as surrealist as a David Lynch film, but they definitely have an independent aesthetic. You're gonna tell me that that whole sort of story within a story in A Serious Man about the dentist finding those Hebrew letters in the gentile's mouth; you're gonna tell me that that's not a nod to their avant-garde roots. What parallel universe did you come from?! But anyway, I'd be happy with a task force, at least. Where do I sign? Oh.. and somebody get me some Tylenol.. Lighthead þ 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
How would you define what movies the task force should include? I mean there are so many greyzones, it's not like there is commercial cinema and art cinema. Most movies are somewhere between the two. (If you like the Coens when they go bizarre btw I recommend checking out The Hour-Glass Sanatorium!) Smetanahue (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Kabbalah wikiproject that I created, its main articles were just celebrities that were a part of Kabbalah. I mean, I don't know; if somebody suspects that a film is arthouse just look for references on the web or anywhere else showing it is. The more references you have, then that's a good indication it is. But first let me see how other task forces are, I've obviously never created a task force; I don't know where to start. Lighthead þ 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've started by adding the sections. If someone could help me do some of the rest. From here on the discussion will be moved to the task force (its talk page). Lighthead þ 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link for easier reference: WikiProject Film/Avant-garde and experimental films task force (talk) Lighthead þ 00:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A little help if it is possible

It seems that Betacommand/Delta is back to building up their edit count by removing pictures owing to the fact that the rationales are incomplete. I have no experience in this area at all so I am wondering whether anyone can fix things for the poster removal from the infobox here [1] for Kurosawa's film Dreams. If you can save this poster that would be great. If not thank you for looking into it. This will no doubt be happening to numerous film article infoboxes (and other pics in the articles) so be prepared to see these removals on your watchlists a lot in the coming days and weeks. MarnetteD | Talk 18:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the image, what is incomplete about its rationale? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Delta removed the image because Dreams (1990 film) was not specified. It was Dreams (film), and the article was moved. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So not paying attention and being pedantic basically. Well I think it is sorted in this case, good spotting Erik. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Your description Dwb is pretty much the M/O for this editor. My thanks to you both for the quick response on this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
For those that are watching this page, if you'd take a gander at The ongoing purge, (he's up to 'F', and there's no end in sight) there are multiple film articles on there; I'm trying to catch as many as I can, but extra sets of eyes & fixers would be appreciated!Skier Dude (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
OK is he actually allowed to do this? I picked Family Guy (Blue Harvest) at random and the removed pic has a rationale. It's not great but its there and its all filled out with the correct labels. EDIT: He seems to do it because the article has been moved and the file hasn't been updated to the correct article name even though the page still links to the correct article via redirect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid so Dwb. This editor has a long history here and after many blocks and restrictions (they are longer than a full set of most encyclopdias and I mean the hard copy kind :->) the overall tenor of this thread [2] seems to have freed him up to go back to past habits. It is unfortunate and I can only send as many thanks as possible to those of you who are working on saving the pictures that are being deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Why can't he just replace the title with the correct one? Why remove all of them when it can simply be fixed by removing or adding a word. Looks like an awful a lot of trouble doing this. It's not like it puts the Wikimedia Foundation at a high legal risk because of a wrong title in the rationale. Whatever. And no I won't help remove images from multiple pages a day since I don't care about an inflated edit count. —Mike Allen 03:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The long and the short:

  • Technically Δ is right - the FUR does not immediately point to where the image is in use. Their worng, they get pulled.
  • Technically an editor cannot be forced to "fix" anything. Each of us gets to make a judgment call on what personal project we work on.
  • Best practice is to:
    • Watch your watchlists for articles Δ hits to double check his edits. (ATM he isn't marking things as minor.)
    • Watch your watchlists for user pages that wind up with an automated "Orphaned file up for deletion" type messages and try to backtrack. (Yes, you have to be looking for bot edits.)
    • If you know of a page that was moved, check its images and update the FURs.
    • It you move an article, or see one moved, check the images and update the FURs.
  • Yes, editors are banging their heads on this one again. Welcome to WikiDrama. (For those with a stern constitution there is a thread at WP:ANI.)

- J Greb (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say that User:Δ is not the only one who doing this. There is also User:Beetstra, who doing the exact same thing, look here and you can see that they use the same edit summary, I think that it is sock puppetry.  InfamousPrince  08:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
What makes Delta's contributions tough to track is that he is only removing the images from the mainspace. Nothing is being done on the file description pages, so it is hard to tell which articles among his contributions are film-related. We could track related changes through this, but there ought to be a template similar to {{Di-orphaned fair use}} being added for images where no link in the description matches where it is actually being used. I assume that's the case with these images, at least the film-related ones? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue with that is, as JGREB said, you have to check every edit because it doesn't say what is the result of Delta's editing.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he is repairing the links instead of deleting images now. —Mike Allen 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bamboo Blonde‎

Just caught this film on tv and decided to do an article but I don't have much information. Can anyone help? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

Transformers merging

I've suggested hte merging of the three below articles.

Discussion is here here if you wish to take part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cleo (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cleo (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleo (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that article fails WP:NFF. -- FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CinemaScore

A user has added a cinemascore summary to the critical reception of the new Transformers here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon&diff=437391220&oldid=437383439 . I was just going to remove it because as far as I can see, its summaries are based entirely on basic audiences leaving a screening and as such are not professional reviews, plus there is no explanation of how they achieve these grades. But just wanted to know if I was misinformed about what CinemaScore is before I remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is often misunderstood. What makes user scores on IMDB and RT unreliable sources is that they are user controlled i.e. you could set up multiple accounts and fix the scores. In the case of audience polls, CinemaScore has full control over its information so it is a reliable source. Reliable sources often report information that comes from average Joes, and that doesn't impact on reliability, it is the editorial process that makes a source reliable. You can contest that audience opinion isn't notable, but on the otherhand audience opinion is a different point of view to professional criticism and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy compels us to include all significant points of view, so I think audience polls from reliable sources are ok so long as they are used sparingly. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any information on how they aggregate the scores to get the end result though? According to that particular example, Transformers 3 has an A (may have been an A+) where as other user generated sources have not been particularly favourable towards it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
CinemaScore polls them as they come out of the theater and asks them to give a grade. They just take the average grade. CinemaScore is probably the only thing we have to show viewer opinion outside of the box office gross.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I added it to the Box Office section, but Flyer22 moved it to the Critical reception. I figured since the poll is taken while still at the box office, it may fit under that section. Apparently not. —Mike Allen 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have always put it in the critical reception section just because it's not a numerical figure, or a ranking based on box office gross. It's a "review" so to speak.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I question how broad the market sample is and how you quantify something you've just seen in grade terms (Er...I'd give it a B...no a B-), but if you guys think it's ok I shall defer my wrath. Wrath deferred. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
They apparently have people in "25 major cities" in the U.S. If that is accurate, then the sample size is probably larger than the sample size Rotten Tomatoes gets for professional reviewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think as long as it is clearly separated from the professional reviews and made clear it is audience reaction, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't mean in its own section but either a separate paragraph or just not inter-mixed between two professional reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've typically had it follow the RT aggregrate count, because I don't usually keep the RT percentage with any reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

CinemaScore is mentioned at MOS:FILM#Reception: "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." I like CinemaScore because not only does it provide a grade via bona fide polling, it provides insightful demographic data. For example, I just read this that talks about who went to see Larry Crowne. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is CinemaScore a paid service? I'm wondering this because I've only seen it referenced in articles, like the one Erik mentioned. I've never seen a stand alone website like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it has had an official web presence. CinemaScore started getting attention via Entertainment Weekly (as seen here), and I think that the firm's polling results have caught on with other publications. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor - genre changes

The above anonymous editor has been blocked again. It's the same editor that has been tag-bombing film articles and making genre changes against consensus, without discussion (plus a few helpful edits mixed in). I've reverted the most obvious disruption, but I don't feel qualified to change genres on film articles I don't know anything about. Interested editors might want to check the contributions (particularly 90.200.85.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) in case they want to make changes - the articles in question are mostly martial arts films & actors.--BelovedFreak 10:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I normally catch him but he has stuck to martial arts films this time which I don't monitor. I'll have to add one to my watchlist. It's very likely he'll be back in a few days with a new IP from the 90.200.85.XXX range, and if he does come back we will have to look into a 90.200.85.0/24 range ban. For the record, he evaded a ban so it's legitimate practice to revert any edit he makes whether it's correct or not (obviously if you are sure it is correct you may as well leave it, but if you're not sure best to be on the safe side). Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be obseesed with Hard Target and The Killer (1989 film), so those would be good ones to watchlist.--BelovedFreak 15:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added The Killer to my watchlist; he seems to target that article more than any other. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Language parameter

At Template talk:Infobox film, John (talk · contribs) is requesting to remove code from the infobox that automatically links to a language article for all non-English languages in the "Language" field. For example, if "Spanish" is in the field, it will be shown as [[Spanish language|Spanish]]. Only English is excepted from this. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Could other editors please weigh in at this discussion? It would be nice to have closure for this issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate titles for films

A {{notice}} at Template_talk:Infobox_film recommends leaving a message here about new discussion topics, so I thought I'd point out that there is a need to document best practices with regard to how to document the alternate titles under which a film is released. If you are interested in that topic, your comments are welcomed at Template talk:Infobox film#AKA title.2C Alternate title. Thanks in advance. 72.244.206.189 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot summaries

I contest the "overly long" tag placed on the plot of On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) just because it is over the WP:PLOT word limit. If you were to cut it any more it would affect its comprehension. If you actually read it it is a sound edit summary and not overly detailed at all. Any thoughts anybody?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is over 1,300 words, and the film is of pretty standard length. A plot summary by nature cannot be comprehensive. We're not trying to recreate the experience of watching the film, we're trying to explain what the film is about so the real-world context can make sense. (For example, even a film article with a plot summary of 700 words and nothing else would not be appropriate, though it would be encouraged to add real-world context rather than reduce the summary.) In that article's first paragraph, it seems like it could be as short as saying, "In Portugal, James Bond rescues a woman from committing suicide by drowning. He is attacked by two thugs, and while he fends them off, the woman escapes the beach." It's less detail, but it is still enough to understand what happens in the rest of the film. A passage like, "George Lazenby, as Bond, notes to himself that 'This never happened to the other fellow'. In the story's context he is referring to the man his character is replacing, but it was also a reference to Sean Connery, who had previously played James Bond," is extraneous in the summary, but it could find a place elsewhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability guideline for films

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (films)

I have rewritten part of the notability guideline for films, finding the writeup to be stale from years of slow and uncoordinated changes. The previous revision is here. In particular, I made the lead section more straightforward, I separated some sections (for example, "Reliable sources" from "General principles", and both are rewritten). I also grouped the two numbered lists under "Other evidence of notability" but think that they could all be combined as attributes to look for if the GNG criteria is not readily met. I'd also like to have a separate section for future films since we focus so much more on them than incomplete and undistributed films. I started a discussion here that repeats some things I've mentioned here. Any feedback is appreciated at that discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

30 Rock for Deletion

I know this isn't the right project but it's listed on AfD and I listed it on Wikiproject Television and it still has no input so if anyone here has any interest in this particular topic, your participation in any of them would be welcome.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

iTunes movie charts

Is it possible to find best-selling romance or independent movie charts online. I am only able to find the general top 100.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like this? http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/ Note it doesn't account for inflation.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but for the iTunes Store.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kill Bill revisited

Following discussion that led to splitting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), I would like to do the same for the two-parter Kill Bill, as it seems that there is some consensus to do so. I started a discussion here. We're going to face the same challenge with the two-parters The Hobbit (2012 film) and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, so whatever we do here can help shape precedent. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kill Bill has been split into Kill Bill Volume 1 and Kill Bill Volume 2. See Talk:Kill Bill Volume 1 for recent discussions, and pardon the temporary mess. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Renewed discussion about the split here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez! I have tried to help this user for almost a year now (check his talk page). I had no idea this was going on though. He's only communicated one time four times since he's been here and that was after he was blocked. He usually "cleans" film articles in accordance to the film MOS and just minor things, which is really helpful, but it was only after I steered him to the correct way (and some things he still doesn't comprehend or least ignores me). I had not noticed of any copyright violations when periodically checking his contributions, but I will be watching out for any more. Thanks for letting us know. —Mike Allen 05:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this considered to be a copyright violation of this this. It's an obvious copy and paste, but is it a copyright violation that should be reported so his edit adding the summary can be deleted or just simply remove the plot summary altogether? —Mike Allen 02:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Questioned poster changes

Could someone with a better knowledge than I of 1930s-40s films take a look at the recent infobox changes to House of Frankenstein (1944 film), House of Dracula, and Dracula's Daughter?

The editor providing the updated posters currently does not have a good track record with "This is the original poster" claims and I'm not sure if these need to be flipped back.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research problem at Labyrinth

Hi there. I'm having a problem at the article about Labyrinth. An IP is persistently adding an original research interpretation of the film. It's somewhat plausible, but totally unsourced, and in my view doesn't belong in the article, as it violates the policy against original research. I have tried to explain to the IP that the theory needs a source, but it has persistently added and readded it, without providing a source, most recently here. I'd appreciate it if other editors could keep an eye on the article, and if need be, arrange to have it protected against IP editing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you warning him? Because if he's doing it persistently it might be time for him to take an involuntary breather. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I've issued no warnings as such, because the behavior doesn't seem quite bad enough. I have tried to explain through edit summaries that information in Wikipedia articles needs sources; the IP has ignored this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Well there are low level warnings that just act as introductions. Its only the higher level stuff where it becomes an issue. For what it's worth, from what I am reading it is all unsourced so it isn't acceptable whether it is true or not but it sounds very much like OR. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding one's own analysis (however plausible) without citing any sources is original research...as made blatantly obvious when the title of the section being added is "Interesting facts/theories". I'm issuing a level 1 warning to the IP, and if it continues I suggest issuing the subsequent levels of {{Uw-nor1}}. If the IP continues despite warnings, they can be blocked (or, if the IP changes, the article can be protected). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Princess and the Frog -> Good Article?

I originally asked this at the Disney WikiProject talk page but it seems to be inactive so I'll ask here: The Princess and the Frog article doesn't look too bad; it's got reliable, well-sourced information and after some re-structuring, is looking rather presentable. It's certainly in better shape than most other Disney Animated film articles, and I was thinking that maybe it should be nominated for Good Article status? I was wondering what other editors might think and what else may need to be done prior to putting it up as a Good Article candidate--GroovySandwich 07:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion. peer review. Jhenderson 777 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Marketing sections and The Dark Knight Rises

There is a conflict being discussed at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises#Request for Protection regarding how to apply WP:FILMMARKETING to this article and in general.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest editors read the entire chain as there are at least two issues being discussed. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a discussion about what the proper name for the page should be for A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. The poster says "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge", but the actual film says "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge". There is also another suggestion of just making it "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2" Please see the discussion at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge#Move?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORROR

I'd like members over in this project to lend their thoughts on the future of the Horror WikiProject. Discussion can be found at WT:HORROR#Future of this project. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Splitting Category:Actors by gender

Hi I've opened a discussion about categorizing actors and actresses separately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Splitting actors by gender. I need some input. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi! Is this vandalism? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

After taking a look at things IMO it is not vandalism. On the other hand it is an incorrect edit. The film does exist but I can find no source that shows that this person was involved with the writing of the film. The IP only edits sporadically and some edits have been dodgy while others haven't - if they make this edit again you can warn then with a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} tag and see it that helps them to understand why their edit is problematic. MarnetteD | Talk 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments

Your comments are requested here regarding the marketing section of The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Black-and-white films up for deletion

Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/96.232.139.31

The above user seems to be messing a lot with studios and distributors. Flipping them around, changing order, over and over again. And as far as I can tell at least some of their edits are incorrect such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horrible_Bosses&diff=prev&oldid=440461916) which is the third time he has done it and its the third time I've told him he is incorrect with no response. Like here on Zookeeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zookeeper_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=440395020), as far as I'm able to find, MGM had nothing to do with distribution. I fail to believe that these are good faith edits or if they are they're misinformed. Might be worth just keeping an eye out for him/her, their edits are confined to a few films but there are lots of them over the last few days at least Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP geolocates to New Jersey. We have had a number of IPs from that state that perform this same kind of editing. Small changes some innocuous some not. They also seem to go away for a few weeks and then return to this same editing pattern. These may or may not be the same person and I don't know that we've ever tried to keep a list to track them. Even if we had a rangeblock is unlikely as the editing doesn't seem to reach the level of disruption required for such a remedy. The best bet is to revert those that can be shown to be in error - add unsourced warning tags to the talk page and report to AIV should the level of activity warrant it. This kind of stuff can be very frustrating so any other suggestions for dealing with this are more than welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We've got a problem...

Someone using the 201.19.XXX.XX range has been making unconstructive edits to the Rio (film) article ([3], [4]) and the Too Big to Fail article ([5], [6]). The origin of the IPs in question appear to be from Brazil. Can someone please take a look into this situation here? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image border

I've made a suggestion to add an optional parameter to {{Infobox film}} that would produce a 1px grey border around the image, useful for instances where the image and the background will blend together. Comments are welcome at Template talk:Infobox film#Image border. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

actor templates

Are actor templates still not allowed. I recently ran across {{Martin Lawrence}} and {{Chris Rock}}. I am not sure if they need to be reformatted (in the case of Rock) if not deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking at establishing a guideline I'd argue for not allowing actor boxes like this. Producers, directors, and writers (marginally) tend to result in 1 each on a film article. Actors result in numerous 'boxes on the article making it hard to use for navigation. This should be discussed beyond just Film and include WP:ACTOR and WP:TELEVISION at the least. - J Greb (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Lots of prior consensus to delete these. Take them both to TfD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
hrm... I was aware that there was precedent and consensus for stripping cast, crew, and in most cases director on up out of film/show 'boxes. I was unaware of it for actor specific boxes. based on this I see 2 things... First, note this at MOS:FILM#Navigation with link. Second, TfD the 'boxes as they crop up and point to the standing consensus.
- J Greb (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Film franchise" or "film series"

There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#'Highest-grossing film series' → 'Highest-grossing film franchises'? about whether the chart at List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing film series should be called a "film series" (as it is currently) or a film franchise (as in the source it uses). The view is that because some series have narrative breaks "franchise" would be more appropriate, while the opposing view (i.e. mine, which is in the minority of one) is that using "franchise" would be an incorrect use of the terminology.

This could just be a language issue, in that the word is used differently in the United States to what it is in Ireland/Europe. More opinions would be welcome (especially if they support my view, but even if they don't it would at least settle the debate). Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would consider a 'franchise' to be the wider umbrella of items related to the films - for example, the three Godfather films are a film series, but with the novels and video games, it's a franchise. Given that the article deals with the films exclusively, not the revenue of the additional media, then film series is more appropriate. GRAPPLE X 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I personally consider a franchise to include multiple items, i.e. films, games, books, merchandising, etc. Its disingenuous for instance to have Fast and the Furious (film series) when it incorporates games and other media. That's my personal opinion anyway.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A "franchise" in this case is supposed to represent a larger array of financial gain. Many films might have a game based on them. Spider-Man has games based on the films, but it's not a "franchise". Friday the 13th is a franchise, because the films have spawned television show(s), novels, comic books, documentaries, merchandising beyond simple toys (e.g., Iron Man has actions figures based on the films)...it's where the name of the topic is impacting more than just its primary use. SAW has some video games, but I still only see that as a "film series" because it really hasn't impacted any other media. It has a comic book, but it's a prequel to the film series. It's just an extension of the film series itself. Whereas, something like Friday the 13th or Halloween has its own identity in comics and novels, where the stories are not based on any film series or an extension of it, but completely original ideas. That to me is what a "franchise" really is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The saw Comic is more marketing than an individual entity. The Spider-Man film series would technically be part of Spider-Man the franchise rather than the originator so calling it a film series makes sense. But we wouldn't take into account the gross of the comics, games and merch as part of the highest grossing film series so it makes sense to refer to them as film series. If we wanted to judge where Friday the 13th was on that list, we'd look at what the films made, not what the comics added to the overall takings. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Correct. I don't think we can have an actual, accurate "film franchise" gross list. We just don't find revenue figures for novels, comics, video games, action figures, etc.. for things derived from films like we do of independent agencies. I mean, the best I've ever found for Friday the 13th comic books were sales numbers for pre-order and first week of release. That tells me nothing about how much the comics actually made. So, since the list is only going to focus on the film themselves, I think "film series" is more appropriate. It doesn't mean the articles have to be renamed, it just means that as far as that list goes it's about the film series and not the franchise as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I work in the film industry, and we tend to use the term franchise, not series. I feel like this term is used more regularly even in print sources, as indicated here. Box Office Mojo also refers to these items as franchises, not series. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason they use franchise or is it just because a lot of films can have tie-in merchandise and such? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that a franchise includes multiple components, like the merchandising (as you mentioned), tv series, comic books, etc. The key thing to note is that there can multiple film series within a franchise. For example, there are several Batman series, but only one Batman franchise. Another example would be the James Bond franchise. Every time they get a new actor to play Bond, it marks the start of a new series, but it still remains under one umbrella franchise. A third example would be The Avengers franchise, which includes multiple film series like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Does that make sense? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that makes perfect sense. Though in this context at least that makes me think that Film Series is the more appropriate term for this list as we would list Nolan's Batman series as a high-grossing film series, not the entirety of Batman in film including Burton, Schumacher et al.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree because readers will not get the distinction. Franchise could be broader, but series probably not. In usage, however, the two can be used as synonyms where it doesn't confuse the issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've decided (if consensus is permitting) to call the chart "franchises and film series". The chart links to a bunch of film articles, and some of these articles are labelled as "film series" and others as "franchise". If we are linking to film series and franchise articles, I think maybe we should just state that. I guess there are good reasons why some articles are titled a film series and others a franchise (or maybe it is down to personal preference), but I think maybe the best way forward is probably to let editors discuss the terminology and adopt the most appropriate usage on their articles, and then charts and lists that link to them should perhaps just respect the chosen terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your decision here. If we can use more discretion when actually creating the articles, I think we'll be in good shape. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Bruckheimer template format

I don't know what people think about this template format. I could reorganize the movies strickly by decades, which might be more conventional. Take a look at {{Jerry Bruckheimer}} and let me know if it is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  • By decade seems a more natural break for "Film".
  • Try to force the width of the sub-groups to match.
  • Lose the note with "Television" since we shouldn't be adding job notes in the navbox.
  • Lose the non-article listing
  • Lose the company links and listings.
  • Either lose the dates, the listings are going to be in release/1st airing date, or pull them into the link.
- J Greb (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jgreb that it should be broken up by decade not company, just looks messy and difficult to follow.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely should be chronological, and split by decade. It's not practical to split by studio - no-one would be trying to navigate in this way. I could understand this would be a reasonable split if he made a permanent move from one studio to another on a definite date, but seeing as he flits around, it makes the information impossible to find. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Chronologically definitely. If he produces any co-productions in the future then the current organization will present a problem. Filmographies are always organized chronologically anyway, it's how people expect to find stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger, looking at the revamp... (Please do not break up the following list. If needs be the bullets can be converted to numbers)
  • The widths is a minor layout thing. It allows the the template to be scanned a bit easier but is more a matter of taste than anything else.
  • The purpose of a navbox is to allow ease of navigation between articles in a relatively tightly related topic. Placing a link withing the 'box for an article where the 'box would not, or should not, be placed breaks that use as it navigates the reader "out" of the topic. Similarly the 'box should not be placed on an article not included in the 'box since there is no way to use the 'box to "get there". Right now there are 17 links within the template the in no way should have the 'box added to them.
  • Again, the purpose of the 'box is to provide navigation. It is not to provide content. IDing a specific job, employer, or state of a film is unneeded for the purpose of navigation. The same is true of the years, though with a caveat - they make an excellent way to dab articles on films/shows with the same or almost the same name. And in those cases it should be incorporated into the article link so there is no implication that the text could/should be linked to the "YEAR in film" article. And yes, this is something that should be used across the templates.
  • About the only unlinked text I can see being needed is "Films and shoew listed by release or first air dates" just to cover the obvious.
- J Greb (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Should it be one chrono list or TV and films separate?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to see a separation of films and TV. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the splitting by media is like splitting by media - it actually makes navigations easier and is a "natural" seperation for the material. - J Greb (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All done. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
From the stand point of media and years, yes. It still needs the extraneous links and content removed. The "producer" related ones at the least. - J Greb (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
are you talking about the below parameter content?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Skip the executive producer credits. An executive has no artistic control of the work, it would be like including assistant director credits in a director template. Release years are debated here now and then, and it seems like the only reason a handful of editors insist that they should be included is that they view it as some sort of tradition on Wikipedia - which is both a weak argument and not true if you look at how templates tended to look a few years ago, or how the best developed templates look right now. So I think you should skip them, makes the template look a lot better from an aesthetical standpoint too. Otherwise I have no issues. Producer templates are tricky, but in this case it seems to be just the kind of producer that does have the artistic control of his movies, probably often more than the director. Smetanahue (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It actually seems to me more like your argument is not true than that the common arguments that you state are not true as it relates to "how the best developed templates look right now"I have previously pointed to the templates of today's most prominent producers today: {{Steven Spielberg}}, {{George Lucas}}, {{Stanley Kubrick}}, {{Francis Ford Coppola}}. Your statement seems absurd given what I see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In terms of removing Executive producer, it appears to me that this is an extremely important role for television series. I watch CSI: Miami and CSI: NY regularly. I believe I have seen every episode of both as well as Chase. I have at times regularly watched CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Cold Case (TV series). Producer credits are not given onscreen, while executive producer credits are quite prominent. The wikipedia article notes that there are three types of executive producer credits. By the prominence of his name on screen, I don't think he is like an assistant director. I will remove the executive credits after the majority of the four I mentioned above have them removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The templates you link to don't seem to be particularly well developed to me, even though the filmmakers are very famous. The Kubrick template for example only links to movies; other entries in Category:Stanley Kubrick are absent, and the feature filmography is split into decade which adds nothing and makes it unnecessarily bulky. I was thinking of artist templates such as Template:Elvis Presley or Template:Shakespeare. You can also see how years tend to be dropped in very large filmography templates like Template:Michael Curtiz, as it there becomes more apparent that the years clutter a lot more than they enhance navigation.
How prominently someone is featured in the credits does not necessarily correspond to their artistic influence of the work. As far as I know series like the ones you mention tend to mainly be driven by writers, and producers take few creative decisions at all (other than perhaps indirectly by deciding which writers to hire). If he is the original creator of the series though, as in the person who came up with the original concept, then I think it could qualify in certain cases even if he only stayed as an executive. Smetanahue (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
From my perspective Curtis is relatively obscure compared to Spielberg, Lucas, Kubrick and Coppola. In addition why would you make arguments about the presentation of Television executive producer credits with a producer from before the television era. Presley and Shakespeare seem irrelevant. In comparison to some templates the four I mention are not developed, but in comparison to most directors and producers they are far above average in terms of development. I am guessing a quick run through Category:Film producer templates would back up the fact that these are more highly developed than average.
WP editors are not arbiters of what is notable in society. If the public media present people prominently were are obligated to summarize that for the reader. It is not for us to judge who is making creative decisions on shows. We should present to the reader prominent roles in the templates. Anyone who watches the shows I mention above knows how prominent Bruckheimer is in his executive producer roles. Go to CBS.com and see how prominently he is depicted on the full episodes online. I will stick by the current convention to present television executive producer credits for prominent producers. It is not even clear to me if in Curtiz' period of prominence (up through the 1930s) executive producer had the same role or were given the same credit as they are today. In addition, since there wasn't even television back the relevance of the consideration is doubtful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about how famous the filmmakers are. Lots of really obscure topics have excellent Wikipedia coverage, while many prominent topics have been neglected by the editors. I can't see how Elvis and Shakespeare are irrelevant here, everybody might not be a fan of their works, but they have some of the most developed artist navboxes on Wikipedia. It's better to let the fully thought through set the standard, even if the halfway thought through is better than the current average.
I took a look at the production section of CSI and from what I gathered Anthony Zuiker is the creator of the series, and Bruckheimer's only creative role was that he hired Zuiker and asked him to come up with something. It is produced through Jerry Bruckheimer Television though - maybe a separate template for the production company could be a solution? Smetanahue (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
My point is that we 1.) Should not model a TV show producers navbox after a musician's navbox or a playwright's navbox any more than we should make the infoboxes for the three the same or model a TV show article after a song or a play; 2.) Should model a contemporary TV show producer's navbox after those of today's most prominent TV show producers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
None of my issues are specifically related to TV producers, they are about general conventions for Wikipedia navigation templates, it's irrelevant what the specific subject of the template is. In this case however there is no structural difference whatsoever between how musicians' discographies and filmmakers' filmographies are presented. And no, you shouldn't go by how prominent the subject is when you model new Wikipedia content on something already in place. What matters is how well developed the model is. There are no quality classes for templates, but there should be no doubt that Template:Elvis Presley is more elaborately developed than Template:Steven Spielberg, which to be honest looks hideous, as it's all disjointed and cluttered with fluff. Smetanahue (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Martin Lawrence

Template:Martin Lawrence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chris Rock

Template:Chris Rock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and IMDb

I just say this here in The New York Times, and thought it'd be prudent to pass along to my fellow editors. While it confirms once again that IMDb is not a reliable source, actor Don Cheadle also makes about Wikipedia and our need to continue trying to improve:

No, but you can complain about other stuff. Inaccuracies, for instance. From, again, the press.

“They’re asking me, ‘So, your mother’s a psychiatrist?’ ” Mr. Cheadle said. “No, she’s not, and I know where you got that, because it’s on Wikipedia, and it’s wrong.”

Imprecision has its upside, Mr. Gleeson offers. His IMDB biography says he spent three years at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. “I’m telling anyone who’ll listen it’s not true, but in the end I figure: ‘O.K. there’s three years I didn’t have to spend. And I sort of get the diploma anyway.’ ”

I'll go try to fix those two issues now.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don Cheadle reads his own Wikipedia article? Vain. :P There IS only so much we can do or monitor sadly. As for IMDB, cast, trivia, etc should definitely not be taken as gospel, but I would think most people on this project would know that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if everyone was aware of this, but studios can actually request to have information updated on IMDb. When studios find inaccuracies on IMDb, they contact IMDb and have the information adjusted. Often information slides through the cracks, but that option is still available to them. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I wish more famous people would be open about inaccuracies on their Wikipedia article. For me I find it a challenge when I fool with a biography (and I have updated about 3 so far), because I'm scared what I'm about to write (which is from a 'reliable source') may actually be wrong. @Travis, I believe the article is talking about IMDb biographies, which is written by anyone with or without a name. Credits from IMDb can be used after a film has been released, but the trivia, biographies, etc should never be used for Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference for 1998 Saturn Awards?

Can anyone help me find a reference for the nominations for this event? I'm pushing an article for Featured List and the only source I have for this particular thing is http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000004/1998 . I know it is right but since IMDb is not considered reliable I need something else but I just cannot find any details of it at all. Saturnawards.org only has winners, not nominees. Anyone know where I may be able to find this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried a Google Archives search? I usually have great luck there. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, nope, can't seem to see anything. Loses any relevant to the search topic about 3 pages in. Looks like it may be lost to time :( Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I spent quite a bit of time looking for the 1973–1975 nominees earlier this year and couldn't find them either. If you do come across them I'd be interested myself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where else to search. Went through page after page of Google with different word combinations. Only thing I can think of doing is getting in contact with the people behind their official site Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I just tried a Nexis search and had no luck. I'm not really sure where else to search either.--TravisBernard (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Is IMDB completely unreliable in this case? I mean its an event nearly 13 years old, and the winners are correct. This is the link (http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000004/1998). If I contact Saturn, presuming they reply, should I just ask them if the IMDb list is right or ask if they could furnish me with a list of people involved with that event if they have one? Either way I need to be able to back it up, can't just say "They emailed me, s'ok bro" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be okay to reference. IMDb is susceptible to error when it comes to minor and/or future topics. It's hard to imagine them getting this list of nominees wrong somehow... I tried to research this as well, but I only found winners. I noticed that saturnawards.org is only archived back to 2002, which seems relatively late to me. Do we know if there was an older domain used that might have been around in 1998 and listed the nominees? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if they were incorrect but you know how contentious IMDB can be as a source. If it were taken to the RS noticeboard I have no doubt some editors would contest its use. When I needed to source the noms I just cut them in the end to save me the hassle. I wonder if there would be any scope in adding an EL directly to the awards section (where there is less demands placed on a source's reliability, so at least that way readers could be made aware of the noms. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Film stubs

For info, this category is slowly growing again. I've moved a fair few into more appropriate stubs (mainly by country or genre). If people can chip in with just 3 or 4 better stubs, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Expert needed: Bánk Bán (film)

List of films based on operas includes a link to a 2001 film Bánk bán (film). The dates make it unlikely that this is in fact Bánk Bán (film). Do we have an expert who can add stubs/disambig pages/hatnotes to clarify please? - TB (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Julia Roberts

Are people here aware that Julia Roberts is so in need of attention that the text does not mention her movie that opened three weeks ago. The article also needs many citations. Julia is very deserving of a little wikilove from the troops. I am of course willing and able to service Roberts myself, but I have a ton of other articles to maintain. I hope someone will make sure she is taken care of. If need be, I will do Julia Roberts myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Tom Hanks also fails to mention this movie.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What movie? All I can say is: too many articles, too few editors. —Mike Allen 05:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe he is referring to Larry Crowne.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. How about a little TLC for Ms. Roberts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Come on people. Who is going to be the first to step up?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have never done a biography, what exactly is it you think needs to be there because it is in her filmography. The only thing I could think of saying is what a flop it was considering it had Hanks and Roberts in it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
At a minimum, the main text needs to have the movie mentioned. Say her role, co-stars, director, source material and briefly summarize box office/critical success/failure as applicable. Next I would cite the issue in the WP:LEAD. This article has WP:GAC potential with a well-cited career section. So adding citations there would also help. I am not sure how involved you want to get.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This is beyond ridiculous. I will handle it myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's kind of ridiculous you come here and make a request and get mad when someone doesn't jump to it right away. I don't know about you, but when I edit biographies it's time consuming to research all the possible reliable sources and such. I've been busy film articles, which I'm sure everyone else here has been too. Perhaps you should have posted this on WT:ACTOR. —Mike Allen 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it borders on disrespectful of our community to leave her page so unattended that a three-week old movie is not included. I guess her period as America's Sweetheart may have preceded WP's prominence, but she still deserves the attention of a high/top importance actress bio. For this project, she should be a top priority. Same goes for Hanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes: How many stars are enough?

Are there guidelines about the "Starring" category in film-related infoboxes? And what about billing? What happens when a big star with a small role gets an "and" credit at the end of a line of "with" players? An example would be Chinatown: Nicholson, Dunaway, so far so good, then there's John Hillerman, Perry Lopez and Burt Young before we get to "and John Huston." All sources credit Huston as a star, yet on the poster and opening credits he doesn't come along until after the other three. Surely all six shouldn't be in the infobox as "starring" — is this codified someplace that I missed? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A guideline is sadly not in place at the moment. A good rule of thumb is to go by the starring credits the poster has listed. If that fails, try and find a news article that states "so and so stars in this film". Some editors just 'guess' who is considered to have a staring role, especially if it's a big name. I disagree with that practice as it's original research. Wikipedia goes strictly by what sources state, not by guesswork. —Mike Allen 05:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Chinatown, the Halliwell Guide, Ebert Guide, Maltin Guide and imdb all list Nicholson, Dunaway and Huston as the stars, so it's not OR, but another editor pointed out that Hillerman, Lopez and Young all came before Huston on the opening credits and the poster. It just seems to me we ought to clarify/codify if we haven't already done so, somewhere. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
They come before because the "and" slots (and similarly highlighted spots like "with" and "as") are extra special notations (same with TV if you care). Generally, it's reserved for appearances that amount to something similar to a cameo. Actors in the "and" spots are usually (but not always) in less of the film than many of the actors above them in the list but often (but not always) more well known, or play a critical role in the plot. Often (but not always) they are paid considerably more money than many of the actors listed above them. It's a little more varied with film than it is with TV but that's the gist. All of that said, we don't actually include the "with/and/as" notation anywhere (cast list, casting section, or starring list in infobox). And I've generally always seen the credits listed to match up with the order of the poster (for starring field) and film's credits (for cast section), in spite of the "and" notations. Its probably easier to avoid confusion that way. Millahnna (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be so thick here. So what I'm hearing is that the minor players Hillerman, Lopez and Young get elevated to "starring" status in the infobox in order to accommodate Huston? That seems, well, misleading. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the intention. It's more like the poster order is preserved to avoid edit warring and OR about who is actually the bigger star in each film. And it certainly isn't always done that way. I know on the Child's Play films, Brad Dourif (who has the with/and/as type spot in those film's credits because he is the voice of Chucky) is usually listed up at the top with whomever stars as a protagonist. In the case of those films, I think most editors probably feel that his role as a star in the film, though not onscreen, is rather obvious. I haven't seen Chinatown in about a kajillion years because I'm old and crap. SO I couldn't give an impression on how it could/should/would be listed there. But From what you describe in your OP, it sounds like he's more of a star in the film than the others. And as always, just because it IS done one way a lot of the time doesn't mean that it should be or that exceptions can't be made when warranted. Millahnna (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast list - minor characters

This question is related to the question above but concerns the cast list in the body of the article. Where do we draw the line about listing cast members? I've read WP:CAST, but, in my view, it doesn't shed much light on this issue. My "feeling" is that the top stars are listed in the infobox, and the main cast members are listed in the cast list in the body. Obviously, many films have a ton of credited cast members, and we shouldn't be listing them all.

To give this discussion a concrete context, look at Love and Other Drugs, my reversions of the addition of a "minor" cast member, and the editor's complaint on the Talk page. I don't care much about this one article and this one cast member, but I have no idea where to draw the line. In this case, I looked at IMDb, saw that the actor wasn't included in the main cast (already 15 actors long), and figured that was good enough. The editor says the character has a speaking role and appears in multiple scenes. Does every speaking role get listed? Does every actor who has more than one scene get listed? Should a consensus be reached on the Talk page for each article and each case?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal view on this (and bear in mind this is just a personal rule of thumb that I use) is that if their character is mentioned in the plot summary, then include them in the cast list. If they are not mentioned in the plot summary then they can't be that essential to the film so I don't think the actor has a notable part in the film, and therefore there is no need to include them in the cast summary. If the character is mentioned in the summary then it is reasonable to assume readers would want to know who play them and so on. Obviously there will always be exceptions to this, but I feel it's a good cut-off point before getting into contentious cases that need to be discussed on their own merits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Pretty good rule, Betty. I like it. I dropped some thoughts over on the film's talk page myself (which basically amount to my own personal rule, I guess). I think my personal rule ends up resulting in something similar, although I can think of one or two exceptions (The Crazies from last year comes to mind but that may just be the specific nature of that film). But then I can always think of exceptions. It seems to be how I'm wired. Millahnna (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought of Betty's idea as I was writing my opening comments. The only problem I have with it is that some plot sections are detailed, and some are not. For those that are bare bones, Betty's line might exclude fairly notable cast members. Still, for the most part, we don't have too many plot sections that are short (quite the opposite, unfortunately), so it's not a bad rule of thumb.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it depends on the notability of the actor/actress and sources. I agree that Betty's rule makes sense but you may have a notable actor/actress who cameos and certainly if a big deal is made of it in sources, I would use it. Donald Pleasance only cameos briefly in Horrible Bosses, not sure anything he does can be described as important, for instance.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that a notable actor playing a minor role has more relevance in the actor's article than in the film article unless there's something significant about it beyond just the actor's name. If the outside sources comment on the cameo's significance (not just the fact of it), that would make sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Darkwarriorblake, I think you mean Donald Sutherland. The wonderful Mr Pleasance has been gone for 16 years now - and I still miss him. As mentioned by Bbb23 the differing plot lengths is a reason to use Betty's idea with care. I would agree with everyone else that we don't need to have a comprehensive cast list in our articles. Things like this [7] older version of the A Clockwork Orange film article should be avoided. For readers who want that kind of detail there are other places on the web to find it - and indeed we usually have an external link to those in that section of our articles. MarnetteD | Talk 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes Donald Sutherland >< My mistake. Also lists like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crank:_High_Voltage&diff=436755381&oldid=436661919. If they haven't even got a name, they probably shouldn't be on the list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously there can be a lot of coverage given to cameos by famous actors, which is why it is impossible to draw up any hard rules for this sort of thing (and for the record I would be against such a stringent enforcement of my "rule"). Such a soft rule should only guide your own judgment; any contentious issues need to be discussed in accordance with WP:Verifiability and WP:DUEWEIGHT which are the relevant policies that dictate these things. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know the credibility of John W. Pope Civitas Institute?

http://www.nccivitas.org/2010/taxpayer-dollars-finance-good-old-fashioned-orgy/

The above site? I wanted to use some details from it for A Good Old Fashioned OrgyDarkwarriorblake (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Tom Hanks

Due to the very recent deletion decision, I am posting a notification of recreation of {{Tom Hanks}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Untitled films

What can be the article title for a film that has started production but is not yet given an official title?—Arfaz (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What type of production? WP:NFF states that filming should begin before an article is created. If filming is taking place then the film should have a title. What article is this about? —Mike Allen 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am talking about an Indian film by veteran director Sathyan Anthikad starring Indian superstar Mohanlal. [8] [9] The film has started production but does not have an official title.-Arfaz (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Then I would name it "Untitled Sathyan Anthikad Project". 08:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Just be bold and call it Upcoming Sathyan Anthikad film, or something along those lines. By the time the ususal suspects on here have argued back-and-forth over the naming convention, the film will have an official title anyway, which it can then be moved to. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have named it Untitled Sathyan Anthikad film. Thanks for the suggestions. Arfaz (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike Cahill

I've started creating a page for Mike Cahill (director) here. Any help'll be greatly appreciated.—Biosketch (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Character names

In plot summaries and the like, after giving a character's full name they are generally referred to by their first name throughout the rest of the summary (with some exceptions, obviously), as opposed to real people who, after the giving their full name on the first occurrence, are generally referred to only by surname throughout the rest of the article. I recall having read this in a MOS-type place somewhere in the past, but I can't seem to find it now. Could anyone point me toward the right place? I would like to direct another editor there for reference. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always kept to the last name after the first reference, as would happen with real people. I'd be surprised if the MOS said to do otherwise, to be honest. GRAPPLE X 01:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It kind of makes sense though, since fictional characters don't really have a surname, they are just a titled creation. For instance, the book David Copperfield would be filed under "D" rather than "C". Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Grapple X, I swear that I'd read the opposite somewhere, as the point is for characters to be distinguished from real people. I've always done it that way, and it seems to me to be the general standard (with some exceptions, as I said before, for characters who are known or referred to only or primarily by their surnames, such as Ellen Ripley). I just can't for the life of me remember where I saw it written. What brought this to my attention was this edit where the editor swapped characters' first names for surnames throughout the plot summary, even though (A) referring to them by first name is the standard AFAIK, and (B) they are referred to by first name throughout the film, not by surname. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
In Ellen Ripley's case, she is primarily known as Ripley. I think even Newt calls her Ripley. I don't think she gives anyone her name until the end of Aliens (though I think we know it). That's more hte exception than the rule. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
IllaZilla, that just seems strange to be, to be honest. If the work uses forenames constantly, then go with them for clarity, but I wouldn't think it should be the rule of them to always go that way. It would just seem odd to see characters like Sam Spade being referred to by their first names only just for the sake of being different in treatment of fictional characters. GRAPPLE X 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, there are occasional exceptions, but in general fictional characters are shorted to first name, not surname. When writing a plot summary for Return of the Jedi you'd refer to Luke, Leia, and Han, not Skywalker, Organa, and Solo. Likewise for Titanic you'd say "Jack and Rose" not "Dawson and Bukater". Whereas for Aliens you'd probably refer to Ripley, Apone, Hicks, etc. as they're known primarily by their surnames throughout the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


I just cannot see an argument for referring to fictional characters by their surname unless that is how they are primarily identified in the film. In Aliens, they're all referred to by single name or surname. Ripley, Hicks, News, Ramirez. But I'd find it strange to have Peter Parker and Mary Jane referred to as "Then Parker kisses Watson".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm positive I saw this in print somewhere, but I've had no luck finding it in the usual places (WAF, FICT, etc.). I was hoping someone'd be able to point me back to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you'd be better off asking at the main MOS page. This must have come up at some stage, in drawing up lists etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably just differing tastes, but I would definitely refer to Han Solo as "Solo" after the first mention. Luke and Leia fall under different problems - Leia is almost always (perhaps just plain always) called Leia, not even Leia Organa, so it would be unnecessarily confusing to use her surname; whilst Luke isn't the only Skywalker you could be referring to (depending on the film, he's still got his uncle and cousin and the like running around, after all). Titanic uses the same rule as Leia would - almost exclusively using the first names in the film itself, to the point that their surnames would be confusingly obscure if you weren't paying attention. For example, if it's The Terminator being written about, Sarah Connor's and Kyle Reece's names are well-established enough in the film that "Connor" and "Reece" make perfect sense; whilst The Shining would mandate first names for Jack, Danny and Wendy Torrance due to their shared surname giving cause for confusion otherwise. I'd still say use surnames unless clarity would be compromised doing so, in which case forenames would be the exception rather than the rule. But that's just my opinion of things, since I've not seen any MOS to say either way. GRAPPLE X 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What about for reality TV shows, like Roseanne's Nuts#Episodes. —Mike Allen 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In a "reality" show people aren't playing characters, they're "acting" as themselves, so use surnames. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the Terminator example, I'm a pretty decent Terminator fan and I'd still find it weird tor efer to them as Connor and Reece. You could 'maybe' get away with referring to Kyle as Reece but it still seems a little weird. And for the sake of moving between articles, Sarah is better since it allows you to transfer from the plot of 1 to 2 with it making sense, since you couldn't call her Connor in T2's plot.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't most scholarly writing about film use characters' first names? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
In my (post-graduate level) experience, yes, most scholarly writing about films, novels, and television refers to characters by first name (again, with some exceptions such as for Ripley). For example when discussing Catcher in the Rye most scholars refer to Holden, not Caulfield, whereas they refer to the author as Salinger, not J.D. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been unable to find a specific MOS guideline but I did find this List of exemplary articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In absence of specific guideline or policy wording, I think it's pretty appropriate (and common practice, probably) to do something the way it's done in FA-class articles. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Money No Enough

Fellow members of WikiProject Films, I humbly present to you an article about Money No Enough, a Singaporean film about three men facing financial problems, that sparked the development of the Singaporean film industry and significantly impacted Singaporean cultural expression! I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. If so, could you please comment at the ongoing peer review of the article, to support its quest to become my fourth Singaporean film GA, after I Not Stupid, I Not Stupid Too and Homerun (film)? Thank you! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Worth mentioning first TV showing rights?

Not something I'm particularly interested in but I've noticed FX buying up first showing rights to a lot of films recently and I'm just curious if it something worth mentioning, assumedly under Home Media. In this case they've bought the rights to Captain America, Friends with Benefits and Horrible Bosses. (http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. —Mike Allen 02:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mike. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks guys Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Steven Spielberg

Two things really:

  • This thing is huge, its ridiculous, it has every thing he has ever produced or exec-produced and I don't think it is reasonable or acceptable.
  • As a result, people keep adding this template to films he has produced or exec produced such as Cowboys & Aliens (film) and the Transformers films, which I again don't think is acceptable.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. State=collapsed. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't really what I meant. On the pages I've seen it, it has been collapsed already. I'm more concerned with it counting things he has exec-produced as part of a filmography that needs to be conveyed on that template and that this template is then seen as valid to include on films he has executive produced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The template is just unclear about what he has directed and what he has produced. I would suggest using the subgroup option for the decades of director work (like Template:Jerry Bruckheimer). Maybe use decades for his production work. Then with the TV stuff make it clear what he directed and what he produced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Adjust it as best you can to WP:NAVBOX and there should be no problem. If it's still too clunky you can split it into two, eg one separate for production credits, but I don't think that will be needed here if it just gets tightened up properly. For more specific guidelines I recommend WP:MILMOS#NAV at WP:MILHIST; all of it isn't applicable to filmography navboxes, but the internal structure and potential problems are basically the same. Smetanahue (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright I will give it a go, for a start it says don't repeat the same link twice. Do others agree that it shouldn't list his exec produced work though unless of course it was substantial? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

We need a consensus on what to do with this page once and for all. I am not sure I am agreeing it should be on part one at all. Jhenderson 777 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What are we discussing here? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On where we should redirect to or make it a disambiguation page or what? There seems to be differing opinions on what to do with it. It was originally redirected to the Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) but one user felt that it would be better on the part one film article (which I am not sure I agree with). I am thinking it should either redirect to the disambiguation page or be it's own disambiguation page more so. Why should it be on part one more than part two. Jhenderson 777 14:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well part 1 is the earliest film so it makes some sense, though I'm not sure why Deathly Hallows is the disambiguation page and not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The disambiguation page is probably the way to go because you have 3 primary topics, the book and each film and the only fair way to decide one over the other would be seniority, in which case it would go to the book. So yeah, I'd support disambiguation page.
  • Support for a disambiguation page, as all three articles are important. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 2¢ - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) or "(film set)" is ambiguous, a reader could key it in unaware of us having an article for each part. Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) is currently set up to handle the 7 articles - 1 book, 2 films, 2 scores, and 2 games. Redirecting to the dab rather that either creating a secondary dab for the films or placing a hatnote on Part 1 is the most common sense approach here. - J Greb (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • We don't need to disambiguate Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) because the two articles it will be dismabiguating don't need to be disambiguated. The page should be deleted now that the articles are at unambiguous addresses. Even if this were not the case, you don't set up a disambiguation page for two pages, so it should redirect to one of the articles (giving it a 50% strike rate), and the destination page would have a hatnote for the other article. Redirecting to the main disambiguation page would give the redirect a 0% strike rate, so that shouldn't be done either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Should the disambig page not be called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) and this Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) page be redirected there? Deathly Hallows seems pretty random. Far as I can tell, it's only called Deathly Hallows because one of the entries is Deathly Hallows.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but it's not really under our jurisdiction, since the book is the primary topic then that's for the book project to decide. Anyway, I see there are many links to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) so we can't delete it until they are fixed. In the meantime, I think redirecting it to the part 1 article as it is now and adding a hatnote for the part 2 article as a temporary solution is the best course of action, and most in keeping with guidelines. Setting up a disambigutaion page for just two articles would breach the guidelines, and since it can only refer to the two film articles by virtue of the (film) disambiguation term then I don't see much point in redirecting readers to yet another disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I am still not digging the idea of redirecting it to just at the part one article at all because that's just part of the film. We need to redirect it to something that covers both. I have a new idea to redirect it to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Film. If somebody would actually type in this title who knows which part they meant, that's why this section seems to be the best place to point to. This section points and covers both of the two parters. Jhenderson 777 00:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You'd be taking readers to an article they don't want to be at though. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is basically 90% of the old Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) article, so must of the links will be linking into that material, so it makes sense to redirect to the first article. Even if the links were a 50/50 split, 50% of readers will still arrive at the correct page, and the others can just follow the disambiguation hatnote. What you are suggesting is sending 100% of the readers to a page they don't want to go to. The current setup is far more economical. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing this discussion was going on here (it was not referenced on the talk page of the page under discussion here, nor in any of the edit summaries of its unstable history), I attempted to turn the page into (a stub for) a proper article (as I announced here, so not without an attempt at discussion), but this was quickly reverted. I still think the best thing to do is to make this a proper article.  --Lambiam 10:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An article about the production of both films currently exists at Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I think this article is adequate to cover the production of the two films, and it is appropriately titled. I don't think we should have a full article at what is essentially a disambiguation page. The two options which are consistent with the guidelines are redirecting to one of the articles, or redirecting to the main Deathly hallows disambiguation page, it's just a question of which one offers the most convenience to readers. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
But if it is a full article, then it is not "essentially a disambiguation page"; it is a full article, and then an argument predicated on the assumption that we are dealing with a disambiguation page becomes void. One wouldn't counter a proposal to produce a boiled egg with the observation that the current egg is essentially raw. Let's assume that we want at least one proper article in Wikipedia whose topic is the two-part film. The current Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a good start, and in fact it also discusses the pre-production decision to split the film into two parts, but not the critical reception of that decision, which also has been covered in reliable sources and is (in my opinion) notable. In any case, assuming, as I do, that we want such a proper article, then the (again in my opinion) obvious title for it is "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)". Also, I had already proposed to merge Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), something entirely ignored in the preceding comment.  --Lambiam 12:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but why do you want to call another article by a disambiguation name? If you are going to have an article providing an entire overview of the two films, then it it would be called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film series) in accordance with MOS titling guidelines. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) wouldn't be the correct title for such an article so you're still stuck with the same problem. A film series article would give us another option of where to redirect the disambiguation title, but it's not a solution to the issue at hand. You still have to redirect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) to something. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)" is a disambiguation name in precisely the same sense that "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)" is a disambiguation name: to distinguish it from the novel that has the same title. What is wrong with that? What we have here is not a film series, but a film in two parts that is part of the Harry Potter film series.  --Lambiam 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) disambiguates the article at that page from the book article. The Deathly Hallows film articles don't need to be disambiguated because their titles are different. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some recommendations, coming from my experience with the disambiguation project (not with the Harry Potter project):

(BTW, a disambiguation page with two entries doesn't breach the guidelines unless one of the entries is the primary topic.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it's worth summarising the different viewpoints in relation to the guidelines:
  1. Setting up a disambiguation page – As far as I can see this is not consistent with the guidelines. WP:DISAMBIG states Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. Clearly Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 does not need to be disambiguated from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 so there is no need to have a page Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) just disambiguating these two titles. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) disambiguates the films from the book, so this disambiguation can and should be handled at the disambiguation page for the book.
  2. Setting up an overview article of the two parts – If any such article is to be created, then it will be created at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film series) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Film series. Setting it up at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) wouldn't be consistent with WP:MOSFILM. If this were to happen, the logical solution would be to redirect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film series).
  3. Deleting the page – Since the two titles don't need to be disambiguated from each other there is no need for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), so it can be simply deleted. However, the links to this article must be fixed first.
  4. Redirecting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) to either Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. This seems to be the simplest solution. Most of the links to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) were originally added when the article was effectively the part 1 article, so it seems logical to redirect to this article and add a hatnote for the second article. Some editors don't like the arbitrary selection of one part, and would prefer the alternative of redirecting to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). This has the advantage that it favors neither part, but the disadvantage that readers will be taken to a disambiguation page rather than an article where at least 50% will want to go.

It seems to me that only the third and fourth options are consistent with the guidelines, with the fourth one requiring the least amount of work. I suggest we go with a redirect and just have a vote on where to send it to and be done with it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Setting it up at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) (see option 2 above) would only be inconsistent with WP:MOSFILM if we were dealing with a film series, entitled Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. However, that is not the case here. This is a two-part film that is part 7 of a larger series.  --Lambiam 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an old hat argument, and the consensus was overwhlemingly to treat them as separate films on Wikipedia. Lots of films are produced together and Wikipedia has always approached them consistently. Creating an article at a disambiguation page really isn't the best way to deal with what is essentially an obsolete disambiguation term. Like I said, if an overview article existed (which it doesn't at the moment) the obvious solution would be to create it at the proper place and redirect the disambig to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Betty Logan. It just isn't a honest redirection topic when it's just placed itself on part one. And readers are most likely to want to read part two currently more than part one so that's not entirely true. When it comes to a place that uses the topic of both film the film section of the article. I pretty much agree with the making of it as a disambiguation page is not a good idea and I have seen the point of it being a redirection of a disambiguation so I guess that's out. Redirect it to film section of book article or redirect it to just part one or make the redirection a article with mostly production information seems to be the only recommendations while we are differing on which opinion. I am actually ok with Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) being called what's it's called because it's got all the same things that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (disambiguation) would have along with a fictional object on it as well. Just renaming would only remove one link and that is all. Jhenderson 777 19:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not proposing that the two articles on parts 1 and 2 be merged back into one article. Instead, I'm proposing that we also have an article on the two-part film. In fact, we already do have one. But (in contravention of established Wikipedia policy), that article has a strange name that no one would commonly use. If it is so overwhelmingly against consensus to have an unsplit treatment of the two-part film in an article, then we must do away with that article as well.  --Lambiam 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that the best long-term solution is #3 above. There are only about 100 namespace links to fix, which would take less time to fix than this conversation is taking. Since there technically is no film by that name, there really is no reason to have that page at all. SlackerMom (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever solution is decided upon has to work in a way that we won't end up with unfixable links to a disambiguation page. Check out this list to get an idea of the nature of the incoming links. --JaGatalk 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion

Clash of the Titans (1981 film) → Clash of the Titans

Discussion at Talk:Clash_of_the_Titans_(1981_film)#Move_discussion_in_progress. Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented at this discussion. Others are invited to respond. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Scott Rudin

I have created {{Scott Rudin}}. I have never seen a movie producer who also does plays or at least, I don't recall seeing templates indicating such. However, his theatre work has been so successful, I wanted to make sure it is not a problem to have included it. So that discussion from members of all four projects that I am notifying is all in one place on this topic, comment at Template talk:Scott Rudin if you have any commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments below have been copied Template_talk:Scott_Rudin#Discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12
27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar to {{Tyler Perry}}? —Mike Allen 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this only should be done if there is an article for the specific production he worked on. If we include navbox links just to the article for the play itself, classic plays which have been performed thousands of times will risk to be bloated with templates, which are very vaguely related to the origin of the play. There is no intuitive connection between, like in this example, Hamlet and Zoolander, so I don't think they should be in the same template. Smetanahue (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Un Certain Regard films

Are films screened in this category at Cannes notable or not? Please see Lessons in the Language of Love and related AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely say this is notable. At least in Japan, films that are shown in Un Certain Regard (ある視点 in Japanese) not only earn mention in major newspapers, but the fact of the selection is used in advertising because it draws in an audience. Basically, anything showing at Cannes is a big thing.Michitaro (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Template talk: Steven Spielberg

Hello, I would like any possible assistance in helping me with something that I have been trying to convey for the last year. The consenus on Template talk:Steven Spielberg is that since Duel (which is a television film which was released theatrically and had extra material shot for this purpose) is his first feature film and should be included in his main filmorgraohy, and not in "see also". On the talk page, under "Duel, again", I have provided countless links and sources that support that The Sugarland Express is his first feature film, and therefore should be placed first in the main filmography where Duel currently is placed. I've tried linking to an interview with Sugarland producer Richard D. Zanuck, linking to other articles, including one on Sugarland's article. I've been told that since I am the only one who thinks this, despite the countless links I've provided, it means nothing. Very recently, I have found countless other articles and sources that support that Sugarland is his feature film debut, including a video from You Tube where Spielberg himself states flat out that Sugarland is his feature film debut. If anyone could look over the links I provided, and agrees with me that Sugarland is his debut feature, please help argue my case. I need more support. Thank you. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can already tell I don't want to touch this anymore

Will someone please take a look at the recent history of Hannibal (film). From the response I got to my revert I'm assuming that this is not going to go well on my part if I continue to play there. Millahnna (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Bloat doesn't even begin to come close. If the editor persists in adding the information, point them to the guidelines on article drafts being kept on userspace pages, which may at least help in the short term as you won't have reams of hidden text clogging the works, which also buys time for the editor to realise that this is definitely way too much to be adding about a film which has a chronic lack of Brian Cox. GRAPPLE X 03:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I got as far as "that's your philosophy" and said "oh this is going to be one of those I see". "Betty Logan is an attack page" was also a nice touch, I thought. I tend to get real cranky real quick with that kind of reaction and I'm not feeling the dramallama love today so I figured it best to point it out to others to handle. Thanks to the editors who are over there helping to keep an eye on it. Millahnna (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure that one out myself, and I just got a barnstar today! Anyway there are numerous policies we can hit this guy with so I'll dig a few up, live up to my "attack page" reputation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Jesus! Why is he listing DVD chapters? Where is the main discussion at about this? This user is severely misguided. —Mike Allen 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. Somebody either block this guy or lock the article. I've reverted, issued a warning, and responded on the article talk page, but I doubt any of that'll make a difference. The user seems pretty committed to an incredibly-detailed chapter-by-chapter summary, to say nothing of his hidden-text "in progress" approach. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Since it was asked for... the article is locked for 2 days to give the talk page a chance to actually be used. And that includes explaining to the editor the high points of the MoS and PLOT.
I've got a bad feeling about Tuesday...
- J Greb (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bluerules

As many of you know, Bluerules is convinced that his way of handling casts in the infobox and lead is the correct one. No amount of sending him to talk pages or guidelines about "just becuase it exists doesn't mean it's right (why can I never remember what page that is) seems to have made a dent. The editing pattern is basically to bash us about the head with his ideas until we relent out of frustration. In the process he loves readding the egg links in the lead which is getting on my last nerve. Any suggestions? Millahnna (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? My last nerve. This has me convinced he's not even looking at the edits (though to be fair my vandalism roll back was a misclick) and is just assuming that those of us who HAVE reverted him are doing so when we edit right after him. I never changed his precious cast order on that film, just removed the inappropriate links. Millahnna (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Instead of discussing it at this point are you warning him? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we just burn his house down? GRAPPLE X 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
He gets three warnings first.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
DWB, I truly don't know what kind of warning to give (beyond maybe MOS for the diff I linked above). He's been blocked in the past for edit warring. He's been involved in lengthy discussions on article talk pages where the consensus has gone against him. It's been brought up at ANI. At this point I have very little involvement in the content of the cast issues he's concerned about. I've gotten to where I just don't care either way: which is 1) not entirely true as I have a preference for previous consensus but whatever and 2) seems to be his goal... to wear people down. But I DO care about constantly re-adding the egg links and removing the Film US template and linking dates (all of which flies in the face of various MOS guidelines). So I guess I can stick to the MOS angle and let the editors with more concern about the content issues continue to try to sort it out? Somehow seems a little wrong to me but it's probably for the best. Millahnna (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Just give him a vandalism warning, if he is going against a consensus, reverting and being unwilling to even bother discussing it after being banned once already, he obviously has no respect for what others are doing. You can at least say you gave him fair warning when he does it again and you take it further up the food chain they can see how unwilling he is to actually participate in the community.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
2¢, the Easter Egging of dates with "YEAR in film" is disruptive since, IIUC, it would take some form of consensus here and inclusion in MOSFILM to allow it. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Highest grossing film franchises/series

A discussion is currently happening on this page about the table for the highest grossing film franchises/series. Input would be greatly appreciated, as the table does not appear to be consistent. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to contribute? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this not the discussion we already had here? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that discussion had occurred. But yes, it is part of that discussion, however, it has moved on on the talk page for that article. It is good to have solved that issue in naming the table, but now the issue is that there are two completely different things being compared to each other in the same table. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed...

I am truly amazed that the plot section of The Smurfs (film) has not been expanded to the regular 1000 words. This is a first... —Mike Allen 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine the people who are conscious during the film to pick up the plot are too young to know how to spell. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. The kids are too young to know what Wikipedia is and the parents want nothing else to do with the film. I can't believe it may beat Cowboys and the CinemaScore was an A MINUS and an A from 18 years and younger. LOL —Mike Allen 23:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well while I didn't think of this when I was questioning the use of cinemascore a few weeks ago that's actually a point, in the same vein as the Wikipedia article ratings system. They're assumedly polling kids (heyo) and the kids are going to say they love it because its bright and colourful and whatever. I saw a clip of it on The Daily Show and it looked terrible. And this is a clip they've selected from the entire film to show to a national audience for advertising purposes.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer templates

In a flurry this month, I have created three templates for people who are almost exclusively producers {{Jerry Bruckheimer}}, {{Scott Rudin}} and {{Brian Grazer}}. If people want to jump on me they might as will do it now while they are fresh. Note that after discussion on the Rudin template talk, I have removed it from all his theatrical productions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer templates are tricky. Per WP:NAVBOX, there should only be navbox links between articles if there is an intuitive connection between them: "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" This is a matter of personal judgement even for directors, as directors sometimes have very limited artistic control of their movies. For producers that judgement is even more difficult to make, since their roles vary from being the persons who pull all the strings to mere financiers.
I don't mind any of the ones you've created templates for, but even there we need to be aware of the potential problems. I don't think executive producer credits even should be included, for example, since that by definition is a non-creative position - and sometimes not even that, but just a celebrity who lends her name to the marketing. In such cases the scope can sometimes be covered by a template for a film series, or perhaps a template for the production company, which however can be just as tricky. The key, as I see it, is that there needs to be an intuitive creative connection between all the entries, it's not enough if it's merely economical or organisational. It's intuitive and thereby justifiable to have links between the Disney theatrical animated features, but it wouldn't be to have a navigation template for every film ever produced by Disney. Smetanahue (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell TV executive producer and movie producer titles are somewhat similar. However, I would concede to rearranging so that movie executive producer credits are separate from movie producer credits and removing the template for movie executive producers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reorganized {{Scott Rudin}} and {{Brian Grazer}} (as well as {{Tom Hanks}}) so that film Exec Producer credits are separate and removed the templates from those articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about templates but is there not some kind of base-line for if one is needed? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_%26_Aliens_(film)#External_links), there are now 5 templates at the bottom of this page, Steve Speilberg which I said above is not acceptable for this case, Damon Lindeof and Brian Grazer. Brian Grazer is a producer, why is his work more notable than the other producers? So do we need 4 more templates on this page? Damon Lindelof barely has any work, why does he have a template, who does he need one and do we not need even more templates to cover the other writers as a result because what makes him so special? If you want to see what Damon Lidelof has done, click his name in the infobox.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, navigation templates are basically a more systematic form of "See also" links. So in cases where a person only has a few credits which relate strongly to each other, it is perhaps better to use ordinary see also sections in those articles, even if he has enough credits in his filmography by the sheer number to motivate a navbox. But the whole area is quite infected, since there is prestige in making navboxes for your favourite topics. And it's difficult to know where to draw the line if you're not well-versed in the topic - and if you are, you're likely to be a fan and thereby biased. Smetanahue (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as {{Damon Lindelof}} goes, the past consensus that I have seen at TFD has been whether a person has more than 3 creative credits. This guy is quite young and already has a half dozen major projects that he has been associated with on the creative side. I am pretty sure his box would survive at TFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
When did introducing producer templates become OK? Was there a discussion? Does it then continue to the film editor, cinematographer and art director too? Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen a discussion. I don't think producer templates are a good idea because many films will have multiple producers. There is a consensus for director templates because a director is a singular role and usually a figurehead one as well. (Obviously, there are some directors who are just directing for studios, but being a singular role, such templates won't overwhelm.) We have to be conscious of overloading film articles' footers with navigation templates. Blake points out Cowboys & Aliens as an example of overload, and I agree. The templates essentially become indiscriminate. We need to remember that all the crew members that are notable have articles which can be accessed in a click. I don't think we should feel compelled to put a crew member's full set of credits in such a specific film article, other than the director's, of course. We could talk about something like a "Production credits" section at W.E (film) with anchor links to their filmographies for even more direct access, but I don't want to see the footer have so many templates. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This wikywacky wonderland is a ongoing and evolving experiment, isn't it. There certainly can be a case made for some producers to be featured in an individual template but to create one for each and every producer would be onerous and not serve much of a purpose if the producer was not a significant "player." The same goes for any of the production staff, but mostly the important role of the director (figurehead?, don't know if you are using the term in its conventional sense) should be given that recognitions as they "helm" the ship/shop. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC).
For the record, I think the director's templates are essential, everything else is just clutter. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Even {{Academy Award Best Picture}} and such?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry I meant just for the crew involved in the film. The award templates are as worthy as the director ones too! Lugnuts (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Trying to be clear. Does {{Grisham}} count as "crew" to be removed from articles in your opinion. I see Grisham adaptations are included in his template, while {{Tom Clancy}} adaptations are not. I also note that {{Stephen King}} is in the middle with his screenplays and teleplays included but other adapted work such as Carrie (1976 film), The Shining (film) and Cujo (film) alluded to in the Media based on Stephen King works link on his template. Is there debate on this issue? What about Category:Film writer templates templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to try and get deep into the specifics of what is and isn't notable. My concern is flooding articles with templates. Again using Cowboys & Aliens, there are two random producers templates at the bottom. There are 6 producers, a handful of writers and thats before getting into people who keep adding Spielbergs template to everything he exec produced. If Brian Grazer and Damon Lindelof are deemed notable (And I completely disagree on Lindelof), then why shouldn't people be adding a Ron Howard template also? How can we argue that its just taking up a huge amount of space when there are other random producers present? Do we then need templates for composers, cinematographers? In the case of Lindelof, his body of work is so small, even if it may be notable, that I don't see why the wiki-link cannot suffice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at the Speilberg template, and the total mess of the production credits. Do we really need to include them at all, let alone uncredited roles on The Haunting and Three O'Clock High (to pick just a few)? My opinion is to have them only for the director and the films he/she directed, everything else is not needed. Pinky and the Brain?! Troz. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Scream (film) FAC

I've nominated Scream for FAC process. I believe it is the best it can be and I just think its a good article and an example of what our film articles can become if enough information is available. If you would like to voice your opinion of Support (:D) or Oppose (>(), either way I'd appreciate the input as I don't want this to sit on the list for 2-3 months as it had to for GA. If you are interested, the discussion can be found nyah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 16:22, July 31, 2011

Hindi-language film directors

More comments welcome at this CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion on highest grossing franchises/series is still going on here. Everyone is invited to weigh in their thoughts, as a larger consensus is required to keep this discussion moving. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template: Film ratings

What is the consensus on {{Film ratings}}? See it in action here. —Mike Allen 03:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should use it. I think it was created for The Fountain. At this peer review, I said, "I think the {{Film ratings}} template you created is a bad idea. 1) It further clutters up the article 2) It is redundant to the stating of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings in the prose and we already link to those two websites which link to a lot more critics' reviews than the template supports 3) The {{Album ratings}} template was created by WikiProject Albums as a sort of intermediate template for moving from a list of reviews in the infobox to full-on prose. (this may have changed, they seem to accept {{Album ratings}} with prose) Basically, they were trying to kill just listing reviews instead of prose. 4) WikiProject Film has a good thing going. Right now, reviews are either in prose or not included at all. The creation of {{Film ratings}} will probably see simply listing reviews instead of prose creep in." Is album ratings not being phased out now too? Specific critics' ratings are meaningless, especially when we can have scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. With these scores, we don't need specific numbers of stars; we need sampling of mostly reviews that are part of the consensus, as well as some reviews that detract from the consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You're actually quoting me there Erik, but no biggie. I stand by my comments. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic handles listing all the reviews, Wikipedia points to those Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic through prose. That's how I think it should be. There are too many issues associated with the use of {{Film ratings}}. - Kollision (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not that big of a fan of it either. It's only being used on 2 articles though. For now. —Mike Allen 06:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Crap, you're right, Kollision. No wonder it didn't sound quite like me. I just assumed that was mine and didn't pay attention to the signatures since they can be all over the place in a peer review. Here's my actual quote (I hope): "I consider the film ratings template to be reductionist in nature, and I've seen requests for Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic parameters shot down for this reason. With these two main aggregate scores, I think that prose is acceptable; the approach is to give an idea of how the film was received, not to give a rundown of all existing aggregate websites' scores for a given film." An ideal section about a film's critical reception should be able to define broad strokes of what critics thought of the film. For example, saying that a lot of them praise so-and-so's performance. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessing articles and banners

Hey y'all. I've noticed that our number of unassessed articles has risen to ~326.[10] If anyone is interested in assessing and evaluating articles, help would greatly be appreciated. Instructions for assessment may be found here. This is a great opportunity, as well, to make sure that articles are caught up with some major consensus points, i.e. no flags in the infobox and naming conventions. Don't feel obliged to participate, but help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! :) BOVINEBOY2008 12:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Onsite link. Lugnuts (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I tried doing a few but it's pretty tedious. Could do with a twinkle tool or something, just view the page then slap the rating on it and be taken to the next unassessed articleDarkwarriorblake (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Lugnuts! Darkwarriorblake, I'm not too familiar with Twinkle, at least in that capacity. Is there some process for setting that up? BOVINEBOY2008 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not that aware either. I know it can impose edits on pages using templates, which is what this is. I'm not aware what it is programmed in but I know that under PHP it wouldn't be too hard for it to collect the list as above and cycle through them after you've ranked the page. Might be something worth suggesting.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeez when did this happen?  :-\ —Mike Allen 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

CrossBones (film)

I created the short article CrossBones (film), but I am not sure what the movie title actually is. I see it on websites as both CrossBones and Cross Bones. I own the DVD, but I still am not sure because Cross and Bones are close together on the case. The Internet Movie Database page says CrossBones, but the website is user edited. Joe Chill (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

SPA edits at Another Earth

Could someone take a look at the series of edits by Informus123 (talk · contribs) from 8 August at the Another Earth article? They strike me as promotional in nature, but I'm by far the number-one editor there so I'd prefer a second opinion.—Biosketch (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the intent but at the moment it just looks like the kind of quotes you'd find on the Oscar nomination poster so it's not really suitable as it is. Doesn't give any analysis of what they are saying, just positive quotes and considering it has 63% on Rotten Tomatoes, there are too many positives there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging infoboxes

I have proposed some questions here concerning the merging of various derivative infoboxes (like {{Infobox Japanese film}}) into the main {{Infobox film}}. Responses would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes has recently appeared in the cinemas, and the article is seeing much editing, a large proportion of which is very low quality (adding original research, trivial plot details, speculation, and the like). Someone added a poorly written and unsourced section called "Tie-Ins", which contains a list of ways that the film references previous Planet of the Apes movies. I'd remove it myself for being unencyclopedic and OR, but 3RR is a worry. It would be helpful to have more people watching the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Um so how do we report sockpuppets and single purpose accounts? See Maloaj and Ceojac. —Mike Allen 06:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:SPI?--GroovySandwich 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I may jumped the gun on this one. Nvm. —Mike Allen 07:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - If they are in large amounts and not constructive this is immediately the place to go. Any and every film, the second it opens becomes inundated with people who do not know what they are doing and can undo a lot of hard work in the process. Easiest bet is just to protect the page because it won't get any better for the next 2-4 weeks depending on how it performs.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Polisher, this could be used. It does not have to include all these nods; it could also be an external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
We've had discussions in the past but were shot down that articles such as this, which are obvious targets for eager newbies and vandals, should be protected during the initial weeks of release. Hell, look at how much traffic and vandalism Freddy Krueger has seen just because he was released as DLC in Mortal Kombat. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures in the cast section

Stumbled upon this (!) Thoughts? Lugnuts (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

NFC Nightmare. It's a nice idea but I think it looks fairly ugly as is and it'd look worse when you're missing free images for some actors/actresses. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrm... the images seem to be on commons as public domain because they were "published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice"? wtf? I'm fairly confident that Warner Bros. wouldn't have published their film without a copyright notice. I'll head over to Commons & flag them for review. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
These kinds of screenshots come from trailers that lacked copyright notices when they were released in that span of years. Casablanca (film) has them too. They're fine as far as licensing goes; implementation is another matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked into that a little at Commons, and that rationale just doesn't sit well with me. The film itself is copyrighed, but the trailer isn't? Doesn't make sense. Since the trailer is made up of footage from the film, isn't it a derivative work? Not all copyrighted works have notices posted right on them. I'm not a lawyer, and my knowledge of copyright is pretty much limited to what I've learned through working on Wikipedia over the last 5 years, but this just doesn't feel right. The Audrey Hepburn article is chock full of screenshots from films, but because they were screencap'd from the trailers rather than the films themselves, they're public domain? I'm sorry, but what's the difference between this screenshot from the trailer and the exact same film frame from the film itself? How does the image being in the film fall under copyright, but the exact same frame being in a different context magically make it public domain? Forgive me if this has been discussed at length somewhere I'm not aware of, but it's setting my spider-sense a-tingling. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going to ask Moonriddengirl, and I saw that she discussed it here a few months ago. I notified her of this discussion. Maybe it's time to get a concrete answer. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. No concrete answers from me, I'm sorry to say! My recommendation when this was brought up before was to ask at WP:MCQ, but I see some of those familiar faces already here. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In almost every case, the trailer was published before the film. Even though the trailer seems like it would be a derivative work of the film, the specific scenes in the trailer were first published when the trailer was copied and released to theaters by the copyright holder, and then publicly shown in theaters, before the movie itself was ever published. Therefore a still from a trailer is in the public domain so long as it was published before 1964, and so long as a renewal was not filed for the trailer at the US Copyright Office. (The copyrights for trailers were very seldom renewed, if ever.) This is true even if the exact same scene was later published in a movie that is still under copyright. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See, that just strikes me as weaseling around copyright. The film footage is the property of the studio regardless. It's copyrighted as soon as it's created, right? It doesn't magically become copyrighted only after editing, etc. take place and it gets shown in theaters. Like, if I made a film (at that time) but it was never shown in theaters, I'd still hold the copyright on it regardless. The footage is already filmed, and the copyright on the footage is held by the studio. Otherwise one could argue that any footage left on the cutting room for (eg. deleted scenes, alternate endings) is public domain, which of course is silly. The studio own the footage itself, not just the finished product, in the same way that a writer holds the copyright on the paragraphs he writes, not merely on the final printed volume. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's probably true under modern copyright law, but it used to be very different; you had to actually copyright your work and if you didn't then anyone could use/sell it. That's how It's a Wonderful Life became public domain I believe. Night of the Living Dead became PD because they botched the copyright application. Copyright is much simpler now, if you create something I believe that's it for 70 years, but for older material there are all sorts of loopholes. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to add: I know the copyright laws were different back then, but it stands to reason that the studio holds copyright on the film footage itself, including that used to create the trailer, not merely on the final movie that was shown in theaters. It just seems weird that if I take this film frame from the trailer, then it's public domain, but if I take the exact same frame from the film itself then it's copyvio.
You may be right; like I said, I'm no expert on copyright law, so I'll leave it to those who are. In any case, how about the display? Seems to me like the cast list shouldn't be a sort of gallery. If the images are indeed PD, then perhaps there's a better way for them to be displayed...maybe put together into a single image Brady Bunch style and have it to the side of the cast list, or simply leave them out & use a Commons link at the bottom of the page? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan is right: since the Copyright Act of 1976 was passed in 1978, you no longer have to register for copyright in the U.S. for a work to be copyrighted, and you no longer have to renew copyright either. Since the Copyright Term Extension Act was passed in 1989, you no longer even have to affix a © sign. But before these laws took effect, you did have to jump through these hoops for a work to be copyrighted, and those laws were not retroactive to pre-existing works. Works were not copyrighted until they were published, and then only if the copyright was officially registered. And these specific screenshots were first published when the trailer was shown in theaters, not when the film itself was shown.

I understand that copyright law can be complex, but it isn't polite to accuse other editors of weaseling around copyright. We use all kinds of public-domain works on Wikipedia when the copyright was not properly renewed, which is why we have the {{PD-US-not renewed}} copyright tag. (I have no opinion as to whether the gallery is appropriate in the article, however.) – Quadell (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference but I think the editor deserves credit for trying something different. It should however be noted that WP:TV does this sort of thing all the time with animated series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm not overly struck on it since the images dominate the section, but there may be some encyclopedic benefit in visual identification of 'forgotten' actors in older era films. I imagine it would look much better within the context of a fully fleshed out casting section, so maybe the article isn't in the best state to judge something like this. They're not doing any harm so maybe it's best to go with it for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2-ish¢... To me the free/non-free images isn't really an issue. It's that 1) it comes off as decoration for the sake of decoration, 2) it really puts undue weight - visually and emphatically - on the cast section, and 3) it could cause problems where not all of the cast that should be in the case section got featured in the trailer(s). - J Greb (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_36&oldid=1140750748"