Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Research into June Allyson's background makes for fascinating reading

As an exercise in research and verification of sources, I have found that a great deal of the published record that deals with June Allyson is an exercise in contradictions and myth-making. During her lifetime, Allyson published an autobiography that has led to much of the confusion as her recollections did not correspond to the actual record, starting with her birthdate and her family background. MGM was partly to blame here as the studio PR machine created a "goody two shoes" image of a young ingenue which required some imaginative tailoring of her age, family circumstances and even her famous "tree limb" story. The name "June Allyson" has been attributed to three different sources and June herself had a different memory of where it came from but the use of a nickname and stage name had already been used in her teen years. On the Larry King interview, her recall was that Broadway producer George Abbott had given her the name while other sources have her first stage choreographer giving her the name in exasperation, as he couldn't be bothered to remember her real name, at least that's the tale in her book. Likely the name made sense to her as she liked "Allison", her brother's name and simply tacked on June to it and was reportedly using it before her Broadway debut. As to dates, she was already 21 when she appeared in the chorus line not in her teens and attending high school. Her relentless pursuit of acting, dancing and other career advancing jobs such as modeling was acknowledged in some sources but June painted a much more benign picture of what must have been a pressure-filled experience of auditioning. Her constant efforts were ultimately successful but she alludes to many instances of being too short, too young, not pretty enough rebuttals that seemingly did not deter her in her relentless drive to the top. A lot of the anecdotal references to Allyson's career show that she was ambitious and courageous; one producer was astonished that the dancers actually pitched the tiny Allyson completely out of sight as they threw her into the air during a particularly memorable dance number. The audience roared as June bounced back into the male dancer's arms as if appearing out of nowhere but each performance culminated in the young starlet getting physically sick in her dressing room, out of sight of the cast and crew. When she got to the bright lights of Hollywood, her ability to make friends and keep good company kept her "in the picture". The famous scene of her getting picked up on the roadside by Judy Garland as she waited, nearly broke, for a bus to take her to the studio in Hollywood, may or may not have happened exactly as she remembered it but the fact that Allyson counted Garland, Lucille Ball, Alan Ladd, James Stewart, Peter Lawford, Van Johnson, Margaret O'Brien, Ronald Reagan, and of course, Dick Powell, her first "true love" as close friends and confidantes, led to a remarkably long and successful career for a performer who confessed to not being able to sing or dance! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Tall Order

Nearly all pages are lacking in a film rating. This is an important part of the comprehensive material Wikipedia strives for. We need to include such information in nearly all articles.

Hcps-hoytca (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They are lacking a film rating because this is not the American Wikipedia, but the English one and including only MPAA is America-centric bias, while including every possible one is trivia and giving it undue weight. Further, almost all film ratings are fairly subjective and knowing it does not add to the encyclopedic quality of film articles, except where the rating is actually noteworthy. If you search the archives here and at our MoS, you will find numerous discussions that have upheld this consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hcps. Collectonian covered the points, but we also explain the issue with the ratings in our guidelines. Erik (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for character names

Are the film's credits the bottom-line source for character names? The credits of The Boondock Saints read "Conner MacManus", but the DVD case and the official website read "Connor McManus". I don't know which is used in the sequel. There is a brief discussion at Talk:The Boondock Saints#Conner vs Connor. A pointer to an existing page would be fine. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, the film credits (and subtitles) would be the general bottom line. However, if the official site and DVD case use a different spelling, I'd be inclined to examine what various reliable sources use, and go with the majority spelling, with a footnote about the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto (Sam Wheat) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the replies. I compared various sources, but it's not much clearer – the subtitles read "Connor", inconsistent with the credits. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Green Lantern (film)

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Do you think that this article would benefit from adding images of pre-released concept art? And is it justifiable to do so? Here is a link to the artwork: [1]. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the available content, I do not think there is a place for the concept art right now. However, when the film gets closer to release, an actual picture of Kilowog in the film would be a great addition, provided that there is critical commentary about the design and visual effects behind his appearance. Erik (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal Against Plot Sections

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spotlight cleanup listing

A new page has been started for the project that includes our older GA and FAs. Since the majority of these are several years old, they may have issues with being passed under older criteria or deteriorating by vandalism, numerous edits, and the use of unreliable sources. This cleanup page focuses on checking several elements for each article, including alt text/images, prose, and sources. Each of the articles should ensure that these are all improved to (or already meet) the designated criteria for GA/FA. Once each article is cleaned up, a stable revision will be selected, which will be helpful for comparing to future revisions as we begin to annually review our Spotlight articles. Although it will take a while to review these articles (many of them need to be expanded, cleaned up, and have sources added), after this initial process, it should make it much easier and faster to clean them up a year from now. Articles continue to get delisted during GAR/FARs, so it's important to take the time to tend to the older articles so that we can continue to have great example articles for new editors to refer to (while also providing excellent articles for readers). Please make an attempt to improve a few articles, there are a couple hundred that need to be looked over. Many have no issues or need a few fixes, while some need complete overhauls. Since there are several elements to work on, you can easily work on whatever you feel comfortable with. Instructions can be found on the cleanup page. It's great that we have so many quality articles, but to set goals for ourselves to have even more, we must also maintain the ones that we already have. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDb external links

On the talk page about The Terminator, a discussion, which probably is relevant to this project, arose, on whether or not IMDb should be included in the article as an external link, as it is on most Wikipedia articles about films. TheFreeloader (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Freeloader. The reason for carrying the discussion over here is that its scope is beyond just the one article, and addresses more generally the widespread practice of placing links to IMDb in "External links" sections of film articles. It seems to be one of those things we've just always done, without really evaluating whether it's useful or not. Aside from its cast & crew listings (and other information also available directly from a given film's credits reel), we generally don't consider IMDb a reliable source because much of its content is user-contributed, of a trivial nature, or both. WP:EL says that we should only link sites that "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", and which have "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" Other than a complete cast & crew listing, which generally isn't included in Wikipedia articles, what "unique resources that are relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic" does IMDb provide? Even for cast & crew listings, IMDb isn't a "unique resource", because of course full credits are available from the films themselves and a number of other resources. And if cast & crew listings and other factual data are nearly all we consider reliable & useful from IMDb, shouldn't we just be citing it as a source somewhere in the article, rather than tacking it on as an external link? In my opinion, placing an IMDb link at the bottom of nearly every film article isn't consistent with the spirit or letter of WP:EL, as it doesn't provide a unique resource of encyclopedic information beyond what our articles themselves should contain. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You make an interesting and compelling argument for not including it. Depending on the film, IMDB can also provide more non-free images, cast shots, and more extensive movie connections than any Wikipedia article. The full cast listings are not unique, it is true, but it does provide a convenient reference to them online versus someone having to acquire the film (which for older titles could be an exercise in futility). Some also have argued in the past that IMDB user functions are a "unique resource" that is "better" than others by nature of its size. Personally, I'd have no problem with saying IMDB should not be auto linked, particularly with older films as it is often useless if not outright inaccurate with such works, same as the rest of the "auto links". However, I suspect that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get consensus to end auto inclusion (and presumably delete the template to stop it). It was a small battle just to get the links removed from the infobox itself, and its still something of an issue of trying to stop the double linking of Box Office Mojo (as ref and in EL) and Rotten Tomatoes (same). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All Movie is more reliable than IMDb. However, sometimes there just isn't any new information added to their site on a film. They can go weeks before updating a simple addition to the cast. IMDb always has a cast, reliable or not, and it's not against guidelines to link to a site that has a possibility of being unreliable—that I'm aware of. In other news, RT/MC and BOM shouldn't be in EL if they are already in the references? :-| —Mike Allen 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:EL#References_and_citation: Having another link in EL is just redundant and unnecessary, since the links go to the same place (with the exception being an official site). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a clear consensus (evident through usage) that IMDb is a useful resource that should be in the external links section for articles on film and television. Almost without exception, IMDb has more detail than we do on cast and production credits. Even for those rare films where we might have a complete credits list, IMDb will still have more complete credits for which other project the people listed have been involved with. For these reasons alone I still find IMDb as useful a resource as Wikipedia for such information.

While the trivia sections in IMDb are especially bad enough to be specifically mentioned as a source we cannot cite in articles, relaibilty with repect to citations, and usefullness for those interested in film and television are two different things.

As for IMDb possibly being in both the end notes and EL, finding the IMDb link amongst all the other (occasionally small print) reference notes is not comparable to finding it in the short list of External Links.

Another indication of how useful IMDb is considered to be is its traffic ranking #40 out of all websites in existence according to Alexa (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/imdb.com), which is higher than any other competing database.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat the points I made at Talk:The Terminator. First, IMDb is not a reliable source to use in the article body. This does not mean it is blatantly unreliable; the so-called vetting is not "good enough". IMDb is still a useful resource because a film's page there has many aspects that do not belong in an encyclopedia. The strongest reason for inclusion as an EL is that the IMDb page provides comprehensive cast and crew information, and the information is more often correct than not. The other aspects can be debated, surely, but they are numerous and found on a popular non-promotional website. It's possible that some pages would not be particularly useful for the smallest and most obscure of films, but in the case of The Terminator, it is definitely useful outside encyclopedic coverage at Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to touch on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Their uses as inline citations and as external links are separate. A film's page at either website will both show the score reported in the article body and the initial batch of reviews. If we could cite one web page for the score and another page for the full list of reviews, we would not have to worry. There is some overlap that exists purely by centralized design. To me, RT and MC are valid ELs because we highlight them as supplements to the Wikipedia article in hosting more reviews than the article body can sample. If this is a major enough issue, we could edit the RT and MC templates to explicitly clarify that they are intended as lists of reviews. Erik (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are any BLP articles under WikiProject Films? Asking because we may not need to participate in this. Erik (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean un-referenced BLP articles? Because BLP is just Biography of Living Persons, so any living person in film falls under this project and is a BLP. I think that un-referenced BLPs will not have a project banner on the talk page, so it may be a case of checking which BLPs are being tagged for deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that a living person related to film would be associated to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I'm not aware of living persons falling under WikiProject Films, which means we would not address BLPs, much less unreferenced ones. Just thinking that we should list WP:FILM to save them the trouble. Erik (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, just me being slow. I know what mean now, and you're right, though it may be worth pointing members of this project here, but yes strictly the film project is all about inanimate objects. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no biographies should fall under this project. I would say that if they were to delete all unreferenced film articles, we would probably lose out on the majority of our stub and start-class articles, probably cutting our scope in half (the same could probably be said for most projects). I highly doubt that that would happen though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

After viewing this edit on the Drag Me to Hell article, I was curious if this should be implemented as a standard for film articles. Some reviews on the regular T-Meter part of Rotten Tomatoes seem to come from blogs (example) which I'm not sure would be notable critics who write for third party sources. This could be considered against WP:SPS. Should we concentrate on the top critics section or continue to use the regular T-Meter? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is well-known in media for the main percentages, so I think that citing only the percentage of a subset is analyzing the source too much. Maybe a compromise at Drag Me to Hell would be to mention both percentages; there is some precedent for doing this, especially if the percentages are different. (I personally avoid mentioning both if they're pretty much the same.) RT does have a process for vetting critics, and I think ultimately the statistical score is the most relevant piece of information to cite. When it comes to sampling reviews in the article body, though, I think the Top Critics at RT or the critics at Metacritic are the best to cite. Erik (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed multimedia department

I propose a multimedia department whose page can provide instructions for adding images, audio samples, and video samples, especially when it comes to film. Video samples are still a new concept and technically difficult to create, so the department can particularly help with this. In addition, this page would allow us to remove instructions for uploading images from MOS:FILM so it can focus more on guidelines for usage. I have collaborated with Steve and Nehrams2020 to put together a draft of the departmental page at User:Erik/Multimedia department. I invite others to review and comment on the page, and I would like input on if we should now create the department. Erik (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Multimedia by the end of the day. Erik (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections here; haven't commented because ... well, having contributed a bit, at least this support is implicit. :-) Steve ^T • C 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Vega and Pulp Fiction

I've been having an edit war with another user about the article Vincent Vega. To me, its another "fictography" of a one-shot movie character that rehashes the same plot summary found on Pulp Fiction, except focused on only one of the main characters. Apparently there was a previous consensus to redirect the article to the cast section of the movie's article and I happen to agree with that notion. On that note, isn't the List of Pulp Fiction characters article a bit redundant, considering the cast section of the movie's article already summarizes the roles of the main characters? Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, I don't see any need for the standalone article (the little bit of sourced content can go in the main article) nor for having a character list for a single film. I think merging of both would be fully appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also agree that a standalone article is inappropriate; cover only reliably sourced material in the article on the (great) film. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I was expecting a little redundancy between the film article and the list of characters article, but the way both stand, the list of characters article could be easily merged into the film article. As for the Vincent Vega article, I don't believe it particularly works because it is more in-universe information than not. My reading of WP:PLOT is that the in-universe information should be a small portion compared to the real-world context. You should redirect Vincent Vega per the AFD consensus, and start discussion about the list of characters to see if we can't centralize the information further. Erik (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I redirected it, again. We'll see if our Colonel respects it. I looked at the list o' chars and agree that it is high duplicative of the cast section in the main article and support redirecting that, too; it may be worth merging a few bits. The cast section is actually more complete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's already done 3 reverts, so hopefully someone left him a warning (and now someone has). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And I see you've left him one; terima kasih. He was quite out of line and the restoration of the image sans-FUR was quite inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew

Are you talkin' to me? There seems to be a fair few of these in this category. Lugnuts (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's even an article on Charles Foster Kane. I know Citizen Kane is a highly-regarded classic, but isn't it a bit ridiculous to have a fictional biography of a character whose movie appearance was a fictional biography of himself? In my opinion, most of these articles (with only a few exceptions) are thinly-veiled character shrines that are only kept separate from the movies they appeared at just because one editor really likes the character so much. And when they try to argue for the article's inclusion, all they do is add whatever references they can find from Google Book queries, even though most of these are only describing the film itself and not the character ("Character X is notable because Google Books has over Y number of hits when you search his name, even though his only appearance was in film Z"). Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually believe that Charles Foster Kane would be the ideal example of an article about a film character. I researched the film, and I found quite a lot, listed here. The character article would really be a sub-article because while the film was about that character, there is not just the character to discuss, too. It could be not a fictional biography but an analysis of the character too in-depth for the main article. Most instances of film character articles are probably pretty lousy; the articles would have to be exceptional. Erik (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wasn't too impressed, as the bulk of it was in-universe. The Inspiration(s) section is worthwhile, though it contained statements that had been unsourced for over 2 years. I will say that for an article about a fictitious character it was better than I might have expected. Doniago (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Charles Foster Kane article and while it could use some work, there's certainly enough to support it. So, this would be one of the exceptions. There are a huge number for which we will never have much more than a fan-shrine and they should find their way to wikia or the ash-heap. Given the sheer numbers, this will need to be done in large blocks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've long held views along the lines of what Jonny2x4 expresses, above. Content driven by fanish enthusiasm is rather inherently biased. Another concern with all these fictional character bios is that they separate whatever their content is from the context of the work as a whole; i.e. the reader is really better served by coverage of characters in a well written main article on the work they appear in. Too many simply want moar articles, without regard to quality of coverage. Also, many of these articles amount to the efforts of fans intent on a form of vicarious participation in the work itself by engaging in all sorts of synthesis. Sure there will be some exceptions, they would be exceptional, but the bulk of these should be transwiki'd to Wikia, where all these concerns are the norm. If many of the editors that prefer those norms were to follow the content to that more appropriate home, both projects would benefit and both environments would be less rancorous. (Not speaking to the Kane article, which I've not looked at, yet.) Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. There are far too many individual character articles that are clearly unnotable. Most need to be transwikied, but unfortunately we have sets of folks who apparently have made it their life mission to try to band together and force keeps in AfDs for them, and to undo any merge no matter how much consensus they have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Their sin is disruption. Their day will come. — although it sometimes takes years. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, that article is a bit shorter than when you first posted its link here; I pulled some AGF edits from it that I stumbled onto because of an IP editor who hit some stuff on my watch list. Not that this really changes the relevance of whether the article is too in univers but I thought I'd throw that out there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland

Since the film is an "American" film, but the language used is British English. How should the article's language be written: American or British? Thanks. —Mike Allen 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

American English is appropriate per MOS:TIES since it is an American film. Nothing I see indicates an ambivalence where WP:RETAIN would sometimes apply, like for American-British co-productions. Erik (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Erik for citing those guidelines. —Mike Allen 01:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalida (film)

Hello, I need your help to read again this artcile, i'm French so i certainly made a lot of mistakes. I may have mistaken in the title also. thanks by advance. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions about Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire

I've brought up this issue before here when it was only concerning a section within the article. This section of negative responses to the film has since been expanded into an entire article with much more criticism directed towards this film. To give you an idea, Rotten Tomatoes currently holds a 93% positive rating and, in case there is an argument (as the article attempts to imply) that the film was not well received in India, All Bollywood records a rating of 81% positive reviews.

I am of the opinion that minor viewpoints here are being given undue weight considering how much of a positive response the film has received. Whereas the film article cites about a dozen reviews from circa 200 available on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems that the article on reactions from India cites just about eveything that could be found on the film that had a negative tone; except for one paragraph, there is no positive commentary included. To myself, personally, the entire article reads like personal criticism of the film, this criticism attempting to be supported by external links. I have removed ([2], [3]) some weasel words but there are plenty of other examples of this as well as overly extensive quotations of sources that support the minority viewpoint.

I would like some additional input on this from other editors. Does the article give undue weight to minority negative viewpoints or is it properly balanced? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be alot of cross-over with this article - Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire. Lugnuts (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Next Three Days

• The Next Three Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruption at this article by Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user apparently does not understand that Production sections of film articles give historical info on stages of production and filming. -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Input is appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As he gave no reason for actually adding the tag, I've removed it. Also left a note on the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User gives himself "The WikiProject Films Award"

• User gives himself "The WikiProject Films Award"

[4] = Is this appropriate? I think not... -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It means nothing and, as long as he's not claiming that it was given to him by someone else, it's harmless. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd and inappropriate behavior for a confirmed sockpuppet of an established user. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Its silly, but apparently from his talk page and editing history, that's about all he does here is randomly pop in, give himself barnstars (or really just copy/paste them all from various pages), make random remarks to contentious discussions, random edits, then goes away again. He also claims he has 92 alternate accounts that somehow meets Wikipedia's policies regarding those....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Odd it is, most certainly, and utterly pointless but, in itself, it's really not punishable. Barnstars really aren't officially governed in any way. So long as it's not disruptive, let him have his fun. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Return of the King

There is continuing discussion on the page from random IPs on the article for the articles for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Any user willing to help contribute to the discussion to help chase away trolls is welcome. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Coordinators#Election

There is a currently ongoing discussion at the above link concerning Coordinators of WikiProject Films. Up until now, coordinators had to be elected every six months and the discussion is trying to determine if the elections are better held once every year instead. The current term for coordinators also expires at the end of March but, due to the Tag & Assess drive as well as other coordinator responsibilities, the election will not be held this month. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Mainly, there are two points on which consensus is sought:

• 1) should coordinator terms be changed to one year instead of six months? (If consensus is no, elections will be held in April for a term of six months.)
• 2) if answered yes to item 1), should the current term be extended to expire in September of this year or should an election be held in April of this year and the term to last one year from then?

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the lack of response indicates that the elections are No Big Deal. :) As an ex-coordinator, I am okay with the term being one year. I'll still be involved regardless. Erik (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You pre-empted my intention to state the same thing. I will draft a proposal shortly and post it for the coordinators' attention. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A year-long term makes more sense, as new coordinators do go through a bit of orientation and familiarization process before getting to work (speaking from experience). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: ALT text no longer required for FAs

Hi. I just wanted to make an announcement in case you're like me and miss important changes. Per this discussion ALT text is no longer required for Featured Articles. Just a heads for future FAR. :-) —Mike Allen 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we can hold off on adding alt text in the articles included in the cleanup listing in case it is decided to again add alt text to the FA criteria. The more important issues are cleaning up the citations and prose anyway. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks be to the gods. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

YAY! That is one of the hardest things to do...and it seemed so subjective as to what was "good" alt text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nod, it always did seem subjective... -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text should be added, where appropriate, regardless of FA criteria. Its an accessibility issue, and guidance can be sought from WP:ACCESSIBILITY and elsewhere, on- and off- WP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In reading the discussion about alternative text, it appears that the process became unnecessarily complicated. This is a particularly useful read; my take is that in most cases, the caption will suffice in describing the context of the image. I can't imagine many situations where we don't already provide a description, since we usually assume that readers are new to the material and the related media. Erik (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Template up for deletion: Buzzify film

The template Buzzify film (being used like the Metacritic/RT templates on film articles), is being considered for deletion here. —Mike Allen 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

Archiving useless discussion that degenerated into sniping. Long story short, a question has been asked about the use of commercial links for verification in media-related articles. Discussion is thataway. Steve ^T • C 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Gosh, don't bias the discussion in any way, Collectonian! I disagreed with adding DOZENS of links to amazon.com in a handful articles, and suddenly it becomes an "attack". Last time I heard, adding links to largely commercial sites was called WP:SPAM. And gosh, I was "stripping". And "all". Wow. I thought only took out some. Yes, read through the many opinions on both sides, by all means. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't mention you specifically by name, but I was referring to your interactions with ChaosMaster which came across as an attack and insulting. I also did not bias the discussion, I recorded the basic summary of what occurred (and yes, you did strip those types of links from several lists, an edit warred over it with over 4 reverts counted). And when I refused to agree with you on my talk page, you then turned just as snippy there, which would seem to be far more an issue than actually having sourced content.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) As if a reader following the link wouldn't immediately figure out to whom you were referring. And, you put a heavy bias on what the "right" attitude was. I removed what were a very unusually large number of links to amazon.com and a certain mob started foaming. If some "pop culture" editors don't get their way, they immediately start distorting the facts, and using underhanded arguments. Yes, I do attack people who cheat and lie to get their way. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Interesting, so now the many editors who have disagreed with your idea are all liers and cheaters? Might I suggest a revisit of WP:CIVIL since you seem bound and determined to call editors sourcing content to reliable sources as spammers, and now dishonest cheaters. And let's not forget "hysterical". If you want a read a bias, that's your point of view. I trust other editors to actual be independent minded adults, read the summary to decide if the discussion is worth responding to, and to read the whole thing to give their view. I'm sorry you seem to have such a poor view of the lying, cheating editors who disagree with you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot description in No Country for Old Men (film)

There is an ongoing discussion here about properly wording a particular scene. It is a GA class article so additional input is welcome. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Examiner.com as a source

Not sure if this as already been discussed but is Examiner.com considered to be valid source? For theose unfamiliar Examiner.com utilizies citizen journalism so basically anyone can report and has been noted for a lack of editorial oversight. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS requires that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Examiner.com has a well documented lack of fact checking and editorial oversight so it fails the requirements of RS by its very definition. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Citizen journalism sounds synonymous with interactive columns. WP:RS says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It would help to see the article to see if this could apply at all. Erik (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was debating wether to add the casting relavation (Jay O. Sanders as Carl Ferris) found in this article [5] to Green Lantern (film).

Interesting I had to supply a secondary source because Examiner.com is blocked by wikipedia. So I guess that answers my question-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worthy to note that comicbookmovie.com reporting the on the same article from the Examiner also has picture of Sanders on set.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have a pretty hard time justifying myself using the Examiner as a reference in most circumstances. It's not reliable but that doesn't mean that it's always incorrect. If an Examiner article states a fact, it's OK to use it as a jumping off point and see if you can verify it through another source. If you can find a properly reliable source confirming this, use the good source. I find it akin to the trivia section on IMDb; some useful info can be found in the heaps of useless and uniteresting garbage that, if it can be sourced, can add some value to the article. But I would really not use Examiner directly since no one verifies if the information is correct before it's published. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried using the website the other day and found it blacklisted. —Mike Allen 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Golden Schmoes

I was editing the List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds article and getting it ready to be nominated for WP:FL, when an editor added a list of awards called the Golden Schmoes, which are hosted by website JoBlo.com. I was wondering are these and the Online Film Critics Society Awards usually included in film award lists? Are they prominent enough? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I included the Online Film Critics Society Awards on the List of accolades received by Avatar article before nominating it for FL. Quite a few notable film critics are in the group so it seemed notable. Nice looking list by the way. DrNegative (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the Online Film Critics Society Awards. What about the Golden Schmoes though? I've never heard of them.

Thank you, I went through the whole table yesterday adding in the dates of the ceremonies and making sure everything was okay. The only problem I had was with the written prose and trying to find an appropriate image, I haven't found any free images of someone holding an award yet. I hope Avatar gets FL. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just found an image of Waltz at the Academy Awards, but only on the red carpet (not holding his Oscar) if that would be helpful for inclusion. Concerning the Golden Schmoes, I don't know if Joblo.com currently qualifies as a reliable source. It covers film news, but usually first gets it from other sources although they do get their own interviews and breaking film updates occasionally. The Golden Schmoes are voted on by the members of the site, so it probably is not notable for including for now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice and the image! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

35 mm film's FAR

I have nominated 35 mm film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 17:51, April 4, 2010

Kansas City Film Critics Circle

Are these articles really needed? It seems all of the pages are basically an exact copy off their website. I could see having a main page with details about the circle but 40+ pages about each year of awards that can be found on their site seems pointless. It is duplicate information to have pages for Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor and then have the yearly pages too Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards 2007 --Peppage^tlk 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy is bound to happen; these pages are supposed to be spun off from the main article because we cannot fit all the details in one place. These pages are lists, and lists are for navigation, so it is not a problem to have them. It would be a problem to have these lists under a topic that is not notable, and I suspect that this circle is not notable. I see that it has been deleted once before, and there does not seem to be any improvement to the main article based on my reading of the AfD discussion. I would recommend checking for significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, and if none are to be found, to add a CSD template since it has been deleted before and is not different from in the past. Erik (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Huge lists of nominations for GA

There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Film, which is part of "Theatre film and drama" at Wikipedia:GAN#Theatre film and drama. Some ways to improve this:

• Ask your descendant WikiProjects to get involved in the discussions and actions below.
• At the discussion at WT:GAN, let us know how you think the situation can be improved - or whether you're happy with things as they are.
• Can your members do more GA reviews? This should only be done by members who are interested in doing the job well, as a poorly-produced review will probably need to be re-done at WP:GAR.
• There's a possible COI if your members review Theatre and Films articles. However, there's also a backlog at Music, and if Music review Theatre and Films articles while Theatre and Films review Music articles there's no COI. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 17:35, April 5, 2010

Thanks for stopping by. I don't believe there would be COI if members from WP:FILM review film articles. In fact it would probably be in the best interest since we know how film articles are usually done per WP:MOSFILM and other factors. —Mike Allen 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mike. I don't think its COI at all (unless you're reviewing your own or your buds). Indeed, I think most reviews in most topical areas tend to be done by folks in those projects because they have the most interest and knowledge of what those articles should be like. Other than that, though, not sure of solutions. Can't really "make" anyone get involved, and I'd suspect those with an interest in reviews are already involved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA specifies a very limited subset of MOS, which does not include WP:MOSFILM. So I think it's easy enough for non-WP:FILM members to review articles about films. --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is one of several reasons I don't do GAs anymore, that the criteria do not include any requirement for following the MoS for the topic to any degree. That aside, yes, anyone can conceivable do any GA review, however I wouldn't try to do a science review without at least some knowledge of the topic. Its easier for Film members to do film reviews because we know what the main aspects of the topic are and what should generally be focused on, versus someone who does, say, primarily military history and wrong thinks that the plot is okay at 2000 words because its comprehensive and has no idea how much reception is good for a film. Project members also can tell far more quickly if a source is a reliable one, versus someone who might wrongly think IMDB is fine because they like the site themselves. So yes, non-Film members can review film articles, of course, same as any topic, but I think its incorrect to state its as easy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"3-D" versus "3D"

I see that Alice in Wonderland repeats the hyphenated version again and again. Why is it so when all of the promotional and branding material, not to mention the film itself, use the plain "3D"? It looks strange to visitors. Tony (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). From what I can tell at 3D, the two are interchangeable. Is there a manual of style on or outside Wikipedia that addresses this matter? Erik (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because that's how the Wikipedia article has it written (3-D film). The article had 3D and 3-D used interchangeably and we are supposed to be consistence so I chose to go with how the article is written to avoid an unnecessary redirect. I assume it's a preference and not a standard. However, if their are guidelines to prove otherwise, we should follow that. I wasn't aware of any. —Mike Allen 23:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no guidelines: that is not my point. Why have we falsified the way "3D" is used in the films themselves. Our readers never see the clunky version on screen or posters or tickets or in online or print schedules. Never. They use what in my view and, by the way, clearly the view of the producers and PR film people, is a more attractive and easier-to-read version: plain "3D". Some scientists use the hyphen, I know. That's fine, because it is optional. But we should go with the overwhelming wall of relevant sources, which use "3D". And then there's the potential for chaos if you use the hyphen within: this WPian knew better: "I came to this article hoping to find out about the techniques used for 2D-to-3D post-conversion". Talk:3-D_film#Post-conversion. Please note the previous section there, in which someone had already raised the issue. Tony (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally it's not an issue to me as I don't see a small hyphen as "clunky" and I have not seen anyone edit war over it or really seem concerned about it, so I assumed it was not a problem. It seems you are concerned about it, and I would like to see what anyone else has to say about it before making a guideline, or whatever. So for the record of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  :) —Mike Allen 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the average reader is going to get confused if they see "3-D" or "3D". I have enough faith in the average reader that they are intelligent enough to know those two figures are one in the same. BTW, Some movies do us the hyphenated form. Another example, and another. Just food for thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "3D" is an absolute abomination, and I'd sooner see an article of mine deleted than changed from "3-D" to "3D". I'd edit-war to my very last breath to keep an article like Perverted Criminal from being so bastardized, and I think any editor with even the slightest respect for Wikipedia would do the same. Dekkappai (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Not to be overly obtuse, but 4-D film seems to have this figured out: use whichever one is applicable to the given film. Jaws 3-D uses the hyphen. My Bloody Valentine 3D does not use the hyphen. My feeling is that, as the new wave of 3D films and technology (such as 3D television) become more prevalent, the hyphen will not be used much at all; that doesn't mean, however, that it shouldn't still be used here when applicable. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A search of "3D" at IMDb shows these results, and it seems to me that "3D" is more common than "3-D" in titles these days. For individual film articles, we should adhere to whatever is typically written with the film. For Alice in Wonderland, it would be more "3D" than "3-D", especially with the whole "IMAX 3D" experience. We don't have to constrain ourselves to the hyphen in 3-D film; we can pipe the link for articles that use "3D" more popularly than "3-D". Would that kind of approach work for everybody? Erik (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have a lot in common with other versions of English. The guideline there is that if one particular version of English is closely associated with the subject matter (i.e. American subjects would use "color", English subjects would use "colour", and articles about computer languages, for example, would use "color") then you use that version. If you extend that logic then the film articles should use the version it is marketed with, since the subject matter is associated with that particular usage. In the cases where neither prevails, the most important thing is article consistency. For instance, if an article is written in British English, then converting it to American English where the subject matter doesn't warrant it is not permitted, and vice versa i.e. you retain the language version the article is originally written in. So the situation here is clear cut: use the version the film is marketed with, and if both versions are used in the marketing then whichever version the article author adopts is retained. Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dekkappai, could you specify what it is about "3D" that gives you such as sense of revulsion? And could you explain why more recent films appear to go with the term, prominently? Clearly they see it as preferable. Mike Allen, I meant no judgement on your choice of "3-D"; it's the kind of thing I'd do, then perhaps later rethink it. Chicken monkey (and Erik): I like your idea very much, and it should appeal to WPians who want our text and stylistic choices to match what is used out there. It requires no change in the title of 3-D films; but it would involve changing the text of Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) and the article on Avatar 3D, since those films don't use the hyphen. Does anyone object? Tony (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I am mostly positive that Dekkappai was demonstrating mock fury. Erik (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, hi Erik & Tony. I must apologise for my outburst, Tony. I can't explain it, but I was just shaking with outrage at the potential loss of this hyphen. On further consideration, it couldn't matter less to me whether the term is hyphenated or not, or even both within the same article. I will bow out retaining what dignity is left me and leave this decision in other hands. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• "but I was just shaking with outrage at the potential loss of this hyphen." Quote of the year right there! I've never read so much about something I care so little about. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment request

Could someone take a look at True Lies for a re-assessment. It's currently evaluated as a start-class, although it's easily beyond that status now. Shadowjams (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree; minus the overly-long plot summary, there is not much in the article. The "Reception" section is certainly a start, but there is nothing about the film's production and themes. Erik (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Second poster image at 300 (film)

The Featured Article 300 (film) uses File:300 monster.poster03.jpg in the "Depictions of Persians" section. There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the image is appropriate to include. Editors are invited to weigh in; discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Fair Use in the US, but IIRC there are guidelines as to the resolution of images which are allowed in various cases. I'll have a look now. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the guideline: WP:Fair use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion was about if the image has contextual significance in the way it was used, and there was a disagreement about that. Erik (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy on the page is quite clear: the onus is on the editor who proposes keeping the non-free image to provide a clear explanation of all ten points listed, otherwise the image will be deleted. Perhaps our keeper could do that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Tannhauser Gate

A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The AfD consensus was keep. No doubt there is a good reason for ignoring it..... --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask others to ignore Michael C. Price's commentary about the RfC. Viriditas posted a neutral notification on purpose, and I hope that others can review the discussion without any preconceived notions. Erik (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so to. But at least now they can read the previous AfD. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the future, it may be more even-handed to write, "For reference, see the AfD for the article here." Erik (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the AfD Michael is referring to is dated 31 July 2009. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DVD release dates

Anyone know of a reliable source for DVD release dates? (Specifically region 2...) --BelovedFreak 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find in reviews, news releases, or an official site, Amazon.com (or for Region 2, Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.co.jp) is considered acceptable as a last resort type source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Currently using Amazon, just looking for something better.--BelovedFreak 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I know some editors fall back on web store listings (amazon.com etc.) when all else fails; others are opposed to that, and I can see why these sites are considered a last resort. There's no one source that's suitable for all, or even most, films. Really, your best bet is to use Google News or similar to look for news stories from around the time of the film's DVD release. Many film periodicals re-review notable films upon their DVD release, so look out for those, as they'll usually note the date too. Perhaps the BBFC database would be of use for some films? For an example, see here; those might be release dates, but I'm not too sure. Ah, no, they're the classification dates; never mind. Steve ^T • C 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. It's The X-Files (film) I'm looking for, by the way. I haven't found anything in gnews so far. I think I have some old Sight & Sounds, and maybe some Empires or Total Films from back then, so I'll have a sift through.--BelovedFreak 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Found this from The Digital Bits. Reliable? Don't know. Gary King (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's a thought. I should still have every SFX magazine in storage in my parents' cellar. I'll have a quick look when I'm over there at the weekend. Steve ^T • C 07:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gary, I'll look into that, and thanks for that Steve, I would be grateful. I'm looking for Region 2 DVD released January 24, 2000. Unfortunately my own collections only go back to about 2001.--BelovedFreak 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the link provided above by Gary says the date was the 23rd of Jan.--BelovedFreak 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Staff (January 2000). "DV-Delicious". SFX (60), p. 100. Go me! Steve ^T • C 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thankyou so much - go you indeed!--BelovedFreak 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hello to the members of the project. There is something about this new editors changes (seen here [6]) that is ringing a bell with me. I seem to remember that, a few years ago, we had an editor who came back more than a couple of time making these same kinds of changes. The most common one was changing the run times of films by a minute or two. They also enjoyed adding unsourced info. The name Bambifan springs to mind but I am not sure that these changes were the ones that that editor liked performing. If any of you can remember anything about this please add the info here and then we can start on getting this new editor reported to the right spot (vandal - sockpuppet - or other). I thought about taking this to AIV but I decided to come here first to see if any of you can help. In case I am wrong about this and all of these changes are okay then I will apologize to the editor involved and rvt my work. My thanks ahead of time to any of you who can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this one has already been blocked by Kuru. However, if this situation jogs anyone's memory would you still post what you know here. Then I will copy it to my sandbox and have it for future reference. Thanks again MarnetteD | Talk 23:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Development of Watchmen GA

Development of Watchmen only lacks some things with the sourcing to pass. Can anyone help me? igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lists of awards by film

Per the consensus from a few months ago, shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Lists of accolades by film? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Can we just move it or is some discussion necessary? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It'll need to go through a CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Casting sections

More feedback is appreciated on how to format casting sections, here. —Mike Allen 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing required

There are a few articles listed below which don't have significant references. An activist editor has noticed, so it would be good time to fix them. Take your pick!

• Edit Decision List
• Continuity editing
• Jump cut
• Buffer shot
• Cross-cutting
• Dissolve (filmmaking)
• Fast cutting
• Slow cutting
• Flashback
• Video logging
• Long shot

Also ones which I am already working on

• Match cut Three film examples still require references
• Shot reverse shot Requires a conventional film example
• L cut One film example still requires a reference
• Cutaway (filmmaking) Only references to film example required now Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Establishing shot Started Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ones which I've done so far:

• Insert (filmmaking) Done Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Eyeline match Done Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Axial cut Done Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Cutting on action Done Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually acquired a film dictionary recently. I will try to see if I can use it as a reference for quick definitions of some of these. Erik (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Particularly for the ones which have been marked as without references for several years. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox for the Avengers film

This is just a notice that Fandraltastic and I have created a userspace draft for this film and that anybody who wishes to contribute may do so. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good start! Glad to see that you've both taken up the mantle of stewarding superhero film articles. :) While I've mostly moved on, these articles do get significant attention, so it's good that they're well-updated to be informative to readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Several film articles refer to Rotten Tomatoes in their critical reception sections, and several refer to the "cream of the crop" or "top critics" section of that website. It recently came up in a GA review, that I, from the UK, am automatically redirected to the UK version of RT and subsequently see a different RT score than somebody else from the US. I don't know if people are already aware of this, but it means that some percentages given in articles are going to appear to be incorrect, or unverifiable, depending on the location of the article writer, and the location of the reader. Thinking about it now, I've actually seen it mentioned in a few reviews that the RT reference doesn't back up the score given in the article. I'd thought, maybe RT changes as it gets updated or something, but now I'm thinking it probably depends on which version they're redirecting you to. Does anyone know how we can deal with this in articles, if there's a way around getting forcibly redirected to the regional version, and whether there are other versions of RT (Aus/NZ for example)?--BelovedFreak 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I see Rotten Tomatoes cropping up, linked, in just about EVERY article on 2010 films. What I want to know is: how authoritative is it? Tony (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been covered extensively in mainstream media, and articles have cited a film's score on it as it is released. It's a good reference to capture the overall consensus for a film since we can't reference five reviews and say, "Many critics liked the film." Typically, Rotten Tomatoes is paired with Metacritic. The use of the websites have limitations, though, and an essay was put together for guidance: WP:RTMC. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something we should cover at WP:RTMC! First, what are some examples you have seen of disparate scores across US, UK, and AU Rotten Tomatoes? I checked Alice in Wonderland randomly, and all three pages have 52% with 232 reviews. However, in Top Critics, UK has 50% with 12 reviews, where US and AU have 62% with 34 reviews. Another example is The Queen, which is 97% with 178 reviews across all pages. In Top Critics, UK has 82% with 11 reviews, US has 100% with 39 reviews, and AU has 100% with 39 reviews. Now for an Australian example, to see if anything is amiss... The Proposition has 87% with 122 reviews across all pages. In Top Critics, UK has 100% with 8 reviews, and US and AU have 87% with 31 reviews. My guess is that in retrospect, all reviews are accumulated across the board. As we see, Top Critics will differ, but I don't think we usually mention Top Critics. It's possible that films would be different in review-posting as they come out in various territories. Just my theory for the moment. A possible resolution is to cite US, UK, or AU, depending on the nationality of the film as it comes out, but a year after the film has been out, it would not matter anymore. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In Halloween II (2009 film), the "top critics" score quoted is 17%; when I click on the reference, I see 0%. Presumably different reviews are chosen. As well as Variety, Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times, they have Kim Newman for Empire, who is British. On making some edits to The X-Files (film), I have "corrected" the RT top critics score from 53% to 33% because that's what I saw when I clicked the link, and I assumed that someone had made a typo, or that the website had changed. Those are the only examples I can give (although I have a vague recollection of reading about other RT discrepancies and not realising why) because I can't see anything other than the UK site. I'm curious as to how you're managing to view all the versions. I just keep getting redirected. As for mentioning the top critics, it's not something I've done in the past (I don't think) but something I've noticed more lately. --BelovedFreak 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried going to http://us.rottentomatoes.com/? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Er... no... I hadn't, thanks. Just the www version! I guess we have to make sure we link to the specific version we're referring to in articles to make sure the reader isn't directed elsewhere.--BelovedFreak 13:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Tomatometer Criteria page, both the US and the UK sites list the same criteria for approving critics; basically it's determined upon circulation and website hits. The Top Critics explanation for both websites reads like this:

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

My guess is that the very last sentence is what makes for a different top critic rating in different countries. The general selection criteria allows for no subjective choices on the part of the RT staff whereas the criteria for top critics does. For example, The Times resident film critic will likely have a much higher "influence, reach, reputation" in London and the UK as a whole than they might have in North America; James Berardinelli might be considered the opposite. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good find! I was trying to find a passage about the Top Critics on the website. The difference makes sense. I'm wondering, though, do we have a reason to use Top Critics in articles? In some cases, the sample size of Top Critics is too small to be accurate, like UK's 100% from 8 reviews for The Proposition. I do prefer for editors to reference critics who are labeled Top Critics when quoting them in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of them I've seen are only based on four reviews, which is probably not very helpful.--BelovedFreak 13:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think there's any reason to cite the top critics score, no. What makes sense is to summarize the aggregate score and then sample individual reviews in which case I would concur with Erik that top critics are probably the best choice. Only if we're writing about a film in which the national connection is highly important (such as Ten Canoes in Australia), it might benefit the reader to understand how differently the film might have been received by North American and UK critics as opposed to Australian critics. Other than that, the top critic score really can be subjective and, thereby, possibly less informative. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion. My immediate concern that WP, with all its authority, is giving a free ride to these sites on a massive scale; so they'd better be worth it. Lucky them: it's the kind of publicity you'd pay millions for, given that our articles come up at the top of Google searches and we are high profile. BTW, if "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" are footnoted to a URL, we don't need to slavishly apply a formula of linking them in the main text as well, do we? (Unless there's a particular reason case by case ...). Tony (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have some problems with this template. It need an A.L.T. code on the main infobox. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Category 2010 films

There is a discussion at WP:FILMS/Categorization to gather consensus on removing Category:2010 films from upcoming films that are scheduled to be released in 2010. See here. —Mike Allen 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Spotlight non-free image cleanup

Since progress at our cleanup listing is going a little slow, I thought I would break it up a little more, so I went through all of the FA/GAs and looked at all of the images. I made a list of the images that may require discussion on whether to remain in the respective articles or not. Some are clear-cut cases that I probably should have just removed, but hopefully this list will illustrate how much cleanup some of our older articles need. Other images listed could use multiple editors' opinions to determine consensus on whether to keep it or not. As times change, and guidelines/policies along with it, we're bound to have images that don't meet non-free criteria or new editors adding images to the articles as decoration. I would appreciate any and all comments on each of the listed film articles' images so we can knock that out and focus on the more troubling prose and citations for many of the articles. We don't have to finish this list in a day, so don't be put off by the long list. As we focus on each article, it will gradually be finished. More opinions will speed up the process though! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, the length of this list could demonstrate that WP:FILMNFI may not be quite on track and may need tweaks.

Let's remember the more fundamental policy test here is WP:NFCC#8 -- asking whether or not the image significantly adds to reader understanding about the topic. Many of the images being flagged up in the list are group shots showing the key characters in the movie. It's notable that WP:NFC, more precisely the section WP:NFLISTS specifically indicates that such group depictions are considered to appropriately add to reader understanding; a judgment apparently shared by the FA and GA reviewers, who are not usually a pushover.

It might therefore be appropriate to reclarify WP:FILMNFI and WP:NFCI, that use of a single image of this type probably should be considered compliant with WP:NFCC. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We also need to realize that there wasn't really a strong focus on non-free images in film articles until maybe the last year or so. The majority of these articles have passed their respective GA/FA nominations several years ago. We have already removed many of the images that don't meet the criteria in various film articles, but not that much of a focus in the GA/FAs. There are some occurrences that illustrate the cast (usually within a cast or casting section), and I have listed all of those for discussion as well. If we can determine what type of image is allowable for film articles (for example, an image to illustrate the cast) it will be easier to provide examples for future articles and to keep out images that merely serve as decoration. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that group shots tend to be decorative in nature because most cast members do not look too different from their everyday appearance. A group shot would not be contextually significant for me just because it is able to show multiple faces instead of one. WP:NFLISTS applies to list articles, which I think would usually indicate franchises that have character lists apart the films themselves. They do not seem to apply as much to film articles themselves. I don't find WP:NFCI or WP:FILMNFI flawed; it just needs to be applied more. Like Nehrams said, there has been lenience with such images in the past. Featured Article standards are higher, and I think that non-free images in more recent film FAs are backed by much stronger rationales. There will be differences in genre, too... a relatively obscure drama film will not warrant showing a group shot as much as a science fiction film or a period piece. Contextual significance is a matter of discussion, of course, but I think that non-free group shots in general shouldn't be added in with a cast section just to show what they look like. Erik (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Take the first example on the list for example -- the group shot of the cast in the movie The Mummy for example. To my mind this does add significantly to the sense readers get of the film by showing not just who the cast were, but how they were dressed and styled, giving a sense of the feel of the film and the characters in it. If that argument applies – and it is routinely upheld – for the article on almost any character that is thought to be worth an article; or for group shots of the characters of television series in the article on the television series, then should it not similarly apply in the case of The Mummy?

Of course it is important that our use of fair use material needs to be constantly kept under scrutiny and appropriately limited. But NFCC #8 is quite clear: genuinely adding to reader understanding is to be our first concern, and material which does that should not be removed. Jheald (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All three actors in that image have free images, and the "Cast" section says nothing about how they were dressed and styled. For me, there is no contextual significance. It's one image of many from the film and one that is easily replaceable. A more useful image for that article would be one of the Mummy himself because the "Special effects" section discusses that character's appearance. (Characters with extensive costume design, prosthetics, and visual effects will always warrant more representation than characters like the ones in the group shot.) Character articles and list articles are focused on the characters themselves, so I assume that such images are used for identification purposes. In film articles, posters are what are used for identification purposes because it is the film that is the topic at hand. Secondary images need to be well-supported. We should not read NFCC #8 so lightly; the start of the guidelines say, "There are situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject may not be possible; non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in these cases, but only within the doctrine of fair use. The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law as defined by our non-free content criteria as described below." What I take from that is if I am going to use non-free content, I better have a very good reason for using it. Back to The Mummy, I think that the group shot is more debatable than a possible visual effects shot of the Mummy. It seems to me that there is a stronger case for the visual effects shot because of article content rather than personal argument. Erik (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

About the ones that need resizing, like this one. What size should it be, because it's already 24KB.. or do we need the dimensions reduced also. If so, what sizes? Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That one doesn't need to be resized (usually the non-free images should have one of their dimensions at 300px, which usually ensures a small file size), it was tagged because its fair use rationale does not list the article it is being used in. If we don't link to the article it's supposed to be used in, it could be deleted (a bot a year or two used to catch these ones all the time and put them up for deletion). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL duh. Well you got what I meant.. thanks. I think I've completed all the resizing ones. —Mike Allen 22:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started discussions for each of the FA images that I included in the listing. Many just need an editor or two to comment on whether image should be removed or help reinforce why it should remain in the article. Once we finish addressing the FA images, we can move on to the GAs. Finishing off the images will allow more focus on the prose and citations of the articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Our film genre articles are way substandard

Colleagues, I've been gnoming around quite a lot of film-related articles recently. There is a practice of linking to genre articles right at the top, as a formula.

The problem is that many (?most) of these link-targets are on the trivial side, some are stubs, some have troublesome tags at their tops. To link them right at the start might be OK if the category was well-developed, but I believe their current state makes us look amateurish.

Now it might be argued that they should stay linked pending their improvement; but that is not likely soon, and even then, I believe it's hard to make some of those targets sufficiently useful. Maybe I'm being too conservative in that respect, but I am very concerned.

What about "is a Superhero film", which I unlinked from the opening of a film article out of embarrassment the other day? And it's not as though it wasn't diluting the better links in the same sentence, all jostling each other. Please let's provide our readers with a cogent wikilinking system.

Even links to more mainstream genres, such as Romance film (unhelpfully piped in a bunch of blue items as "romance" here must be questioned. The target article greets us with this spellbinding statement:

"a romance film can be loosely defined as any film in which the central plot (the premise of the story) revolves around the romantic involvement of the story's protagonists".

Gee.

"The appeal of these films is in the dramatic reality of the emotions expressed by the characters."

Well ... and the clincher:

"Another prerequisite is that the film has a happy ending (or at least bittersweet) and many would argue that no film with a sad ending may be correctly defined as "romance;" however, this second prerequisite is admittedly disputable and many screenwriters and directors will push the boundaries of the genre in this aspect."

Hello? This article deserves several tags I can think of: refimprove, original research, POV. And we're endorsing it by linking prominently in our film and actor articles.

The external links and the list of examples of romance films might be useful, although (1) I'd be happier if it were a proper list article "List of ...", which would make it more searchable by our readers and give it a stronger centre of gravity; and (2) wouldn't it be more appropriate to include such a link in the "See also" section of the anchor article? But better still isn't such a plain list accessible via the Romance Film category at the bottom of the page?

Your thoughts on article improvement and smarter linking practices would be welcome. Tony (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the page views for several film genre articles, and the traffic was not significant. My impression is that the proliferation of the genre links inevitably drives a portion of readers to these articles, but even so, it seems that most readers overlook these links. Even if an article like comedy film is widely linked, most readers likely do not find value in it. If we are going to talk about smarter linking practices, I would rather judge the article topic and not the article content. Links are everywhere to articles of varying quality. Sometimes proliferation helps them improve, but for this set of articles, it does not. These genre articles are "common knowledge" articles where people just write what they "know". Editors and readers alike do not view film through an academic lens, and that would be needed for genre articles to be better. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so we cannot quite control trends nor command an entire WikiProject to make something better. With film on Wikipedia, there are so many individual films that it is easy to have narrow foci on films of interest. Film is still entertainment to most people, and only in the past year or two have we tried to encourage academic input on individual films.

For smarter linking, I would rather avoid linking to common film genres like comedy film, drama film, romance film, etc. As article topics, they are not of high value because they are more definitive in nature. Assuming a reality where such articles were Featured Articles, they would still not be links of value at articles about individual film. For example, do readers really need to know the background of comedy film when they read Hot Tub Time Machine? I'd rather make the argument for less linking to primary genres because they are commonly understood and more linking to sub-genre articles, which would have more pertinent value.

For article improvement, nothing is going to happen overnight. Any real writeup about a genre is not going to be a Google search away, so this means that editors have to want to work on these articles. Such articles require going out of the way for our demographic, which I think at its simplest is a group of young and busy people. The initial approach to genre articles should be to list the primary genres (for now), order them by page view, remove the uncited "common knowledge" junk from the articles, and add cited definitions. I acquired a film dictionary recently to help address genre and filmmaking articles. It's in my lap now, and romance is defined, "A film that emphasizes a male-female love relationship at the expense of other story elements. The relationship itself is presented in an emotional, sentimental, and general positive manner that glorifies the feelings of each character for the other and heralds love as the saving grace of human existence, even when environment and circumstances lead to ultimate sacrifice or unhappiness." Well, that's a marked improvement from what we have now, isn't it? :) Essentially, we should ensure basics of identifying these genres (with citation). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes; that definition is better, but problematic in a number of ways. I hate "at the expense of other story elements", and the assumption that romance is exclusively heterosexual. It's really really hard to define romantic film; perhaps we should try to do so. I still think a series of "List of ..." genre articles would be much better—it could be a fine achievement for the WikiProject during 2010. Good list articles usually have substantial leads; you might wish to check out WP:FL for examples, and User:Dabomb87, User:Matthewedwards and User:The Rambling Man as Directors can offer expert advice. I suggest that the WikiProject identify one genre and work it up to a FL candidate to see if this can be done, and how well. Tony (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why we cannot have a prose article and a list article about a film genre. It would not be smart linking if we have "romance film" pipe-linked to a mere list. It is better to provide a link to the list of romance films in a "See also" section. There is potential for the article about romance films to have content. As a starting point, see 1 and 2 from one database. Lists of films in a particular genre will never be complete. WP:FL? says lists should have "at least all of the major items", and this would be very subjective for the broader genres. It would be a good idea to review the style of such lists, but I cannot foresee them becoming Featured Lists. It would be a better goal to actually transform a genre article into a respectable body of text. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we should delink articles out of embarrassment. Wikipedia is open to everybody so instead of pretending these articles do not exist we should encourage traffic to them so that they might be improved. Also regardless of the fact that many people might skip over these links, they should still be present for the few that find them useful. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could start by creating a list of romance films like the ones for horror films and science fiction films. A history of the genre could also be included in the article as well as a section for subgenres (see the horror film and science fiction film articles). And getting sources from different places and critics and film theorists would be a good way to counter definitions that might be too narrow in relation to the full variety of the genre.–Cattus ^talk 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat has hit the nail on the head. Tony - I suggest you be bold and create the missing list, and for the genre pages, be bold again. Fin. Lugnuts (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree they're substandard. I suggest improving them. Dekkappai (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"It would not be smart linking if we have "romance film" pipe-linked to a mere list."—Actually, I've seen a reasonable amount of that piping practice throughout the project. It's not among the most problematic pipings, IMO. But better explicit, under See also. Tony (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad link-piping

Sorry to be negative again. I want to report that I'm finding a distressingly large amount of bad piping practice. At issue are pipes that are misleading, pipes that are more general than their target article name (in which case readers are unlikely to click), and pipes that are plain wrong.

Recent examples:

• "soap opera" piped to daytime television;
• "copyrighted material" piped to copywriting.

In addition, film articles appear to be badly overlinked with common terms. Please remember that the first of WP's pillars (not policies, pillars), states that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Readers are supposed to be able to read English. Recent examples:

• "Book"
• "Bomb"
• "Museum"
• "Heart attack" (twice).

I think it is time we regarded common terms in film and television as not worth linking, particularly as we have so many valuable links to people and other films we don't want to dilute. Examples are:

• Live-action
• Film studio
• Animation
• Film producer
• Screenwriter
• Soundtrack
• Comedy
• Drama, and possibly other genres (see section above).

Three geographical locations recur again and again and again, and are so well-known not only to English-speakers of age seven but non-native speakers:

• New York City
• Los Angeles
• Hollywood.

I urge users to reconsider linking these items. This is particularly the case because they usually occur bunched with high-value links.

The names of the main actors and characters are sometimes repeated three or four times. It kind of loses its punch when readers see these blue by default. A single linking of their names on first occurrence, and in the infobox, should beckon readers more effectively to click. The text looks more professional that way, too.

Please see WP:OVERLINK for more. Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these examples of overlinking. It is too bad that the novice users responsible will not get this message; they do not frequent this talk page and are typically passersby in making their edits. There are many articles about individual films that unfortunately cannot be monitored manually, and they would have other pressing issues too. It would be useful to suggest specific tools that editors can use to automatically address these links, such as using a script that checks a film article for unnecessary linking to certain terms and removes these links. Surely such tools exist? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js does common term delinking as well as other basic article fixes. However, the creator is currently blocked so no way to edit it to expand the list of common terms, unless you replicate it and customize it further. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a script is already in use, although it unlinks only a proportion of redundant low-value links, and the diffs need to be checked for false positives. If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:

importScript('User:Tony1/monobook.js/script.js');

If it's to be adopted by the film project, it will need customisation at some stage; I might be persuaded to break out a separate script for that purpose. Tony (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Any script used by the Film project would need to be hosted in project space, rather than user space, so as to ensure transparency and accessibility for discussion and modification purposes. That's one of the key problems with the existing script. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Adopted by individual editors, I'm referring to. Tony (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. If it is proposed for use by the Film project, it needs to be accessible. The problem with user-space scripts is the lack of accessibility. It's one thing when we're dealing with scripts that perform standard functions, such as Twinkle, but another matter entirely when the script incorporates content-related material that needs to be accessible by all editors. Ideally, the technical side of the script should be split off from the content, to protect the code while allowing editors to tweak the content. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles nominated for Featured status

• The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) – FAC page
• Themes in Avatar – FAC page

Informing editors here that the two topics above are currently Featured Article candidates. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on Sherlock Holmes talk page

I could use some feedback here on what is turning into a content dispute, I guess, for the recent Sherlock Holmes movie (the Robert Downey Jr. film). I say I guess because the history of how these edits came about leaves me questioning the whole situation. The editor attempted to make an addition to the text of one review in the critical response section. I felt it was POV and interpretative and reverted it. So he deleted the entire review. I've restored it well over the limit of 3RR and the whole situation is escalating. So, on the chance that I'm letting my perception of the editor's attitude cloud my judgment, I could use some more eyeballs. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Thing moving problems

Resolved

I was going to move The Thing (2010 film) to The Thing (2011 film) but it was already used for a redirect to The Thing (film)#Prequel which leads to The Thing (film). I moved it from 2010 film because it appears it won't be released in 2010. I manually moved the contents to 2011 film, but the page history will be left behind. Was this the right way to do it? MikeAllen (talk • contribs) 01:45, April 20, 2010

No, you can't do that because it doesn't keep the page history. That's called a copy-paste move. You need to file a move request, or tag the target page with the {{db-move}} tag. An admin can then do the move over the redirect, keeping the page history. I've undone your copy/paste and tagged the 2011 version with the move request. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see now per WP:CUTPASTE. Thanks. :D —Mike Allen 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that Independence Day (film) be renamed and moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Opinions are needed here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed as having no consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with disambiguating film articles

There was a request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) as seen here. The argument was that the 1996 film should be disambiguated from the 1983 film. WP:NCF says, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release." Those who opposed the move chose to ignore these guidelines. They believed that "Independence Day (film)", including "(film)", was the primary topic. Those who supported the move said that the 1996 film was not the primary topic and that only Independence Day (without disambiguation) was the primary topic. A similar issue was seen with Avatar (2009 film), where there was discussion to move the film article to Avatar (film) with the argument that "Avatar (film)", including the disambiguation term, was the primary topic, but the discussion was closed with consensus for not moving. WP:NCF needs to be clarified in this regard as to whether or not "<Film title> (film)" that contains the disambiguation term ought to be considered a primary topic, even though it is disambiguated from a primary topic that does not a disambiguation term. I am considering the possibility of an RfC. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Those who opposed the move chose to ignore these guidelines" No - they applied common sense. Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible searches by readers unfamiliar with naming conventions would be "Independence Day" or "Independence Day film" or even "Independence Day movie", or if they are aware that there are films with the same title then "Independence Day 1996 movie" or "Independence Day 1983 film" or maybe just "Independence Day 1996". Such search patterns suggest that "Independence Day" is the primary topic since it is the only part of the phrase that is common to all likely search terms. It's common sense that this is where you disambiguate. What is the point of disambiguating at "Independence Day (film)" when it is extremely unlikely that someone would actually type that into the URL and go straight to it? Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, the 1983 film has two disambiguation points - one on "Independence Day (disambiguation)" and one on "Independence Day (film)". An article should only need to be disambiguated once shouldn't it? Clearly if you have to do a further disambiguation at "Independence Day (film)" then "Independence Day (film)" hasn't properly been disambiguated at "Independence Day (diasmbiguation)". Disambiguation only needs to be done once if it's done correctly. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason that a topic should be considered primary based on how famous it is, and I agree that separating (film) from (year film) as some sort of halfway-primary topic is ridiculous. What if the more famous film becomes less famous over time? And what about remakes that are more famous than the original films, should the original be primary as it is what the remake is adapted from, or the remake since it is more famous? The only sustainable way is to treat all articles equally. Smetanahue (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Betty, do you think "Independence Day (film)" is a primary topic? My perspective is that it is not because it is already being disambiguated. There is another film from 1983 that also needs to be disambiguated from the primary topic, but these two film articles also need to be disambiguated from each other. When we look at "Independence Day (film)" by itself, we don't know if it's the 1996 film or the 1983 film. It seems to me unnecessary to argue about the popularity of one topic over the other; readers will be going to the disambiguation page anyway because neither was the first-tier primary topic. It's not going to be the first thing that pops up when they search "Independence Day". Erik (talk | contribs) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "Independence Day (film)" is not the primary topic because (film) is used to disambiguate it from "Independence Day", so it's a disambiguated topic by definition but others obviously disagree so it's a semantic argument. But surely the whole point of disambiguation is to make the disambiguated topic a completely separate entity, so why pick a disambigutaion term such that the disambiguation needs further disambiguation? An article should only need to be disambiguated once, because if it needs to be disambiguated a second time then it clearly hasn't been properly disambiguated the first time. Presently the 1983 film is disambiguated twice - once at "Independence Day (disambiguation)" and again at "Independence Day (film)". The 1996 film is also dismabiguated as "Independence Day (film)" at "Independence Day (disambiguation)". The question here is why do two articles need to be disambiguated three times?? If we moved the 1996 film to "Independence Day (1996 film)" then the further disambiguation wouldn't be required, and the two article would only have two disambiguations as opposed to the three it takes now. Why would any sane editor choose a disambiguation procedure that requires two articles to have three disambiguations instead of two? Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're using the right words here. You say that the 1983 film is disambiguated twice with one instance at Independence Day (film). What's at that article is a hatnote. For example, if the 1996 film was at Independence Day (1996 film), then discussion may lead to redirecting "Independence Day (film)" there per WP:ASTONISH since it is likely that readers who search for that term are looking for the 1996 film. If they are not, the hatnote guides them to the 1983 film. The hatnote is a matter of convenience, not organization. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1983 film is disambiguated twice. It is disambiguated from "Independence day" with a disambiguation page and disambiguated from "Independence day (film)" with a hatnote. Regardless of the method used, a single article is being disambiguated twice, which is perplexing because an article should need to be disambiguated once if it is done right. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean. The fact that we have to say "this way" to the 1983 film's article means that disambiguation is currently not good enough to uniquely identify each film. Right? I hope? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if I haven't made clear. The 1983 article is disambiguated at two places (as a result of the 1996 film being sloppily disambiguated), and my main point is that if done correctly it should only need to be disambiguated at one place. I'm on your side if that makes it any clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

While it may be more difficult to establish if one article truly is a primary topic by whatever criteria we currently use, it seems logical to me that no article title can be considered a primary title if it contains brackets with a disambiguation term immediately following the title. If more than one article on a topic titled Independence Day exists, they need to be disambiguated all the way down to the point where there is no reasonable possibility to mistake one article for another while, at the same time, not going down the path of assigning articles the status of being co-primary topics and secondary-primary topics. WP:DISAMBIGUATION states:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.

Regardless of which film may be more popular and considered a primary topic, if Independence Day (film) could likely be "the natural title for more than one article", then that term is not properly disambiguated.

To answer your question, Erik, RfC sounds appropriate on this one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If we have one it would probably be at WT:NCF. I'll try to put together a writeup and a rationale for it that all can discuss. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose Infobox film industry

For a while now I've thought it would be a good idea to have a film industry infobox with facts so go in the cinema of articles, e.g Cinema of the United Kingdom and Bollywood etc, such as films produced annually, revenue etc. I think the articles would look a lot tidier this way. Would anybody support such an infobox and have any ideas for what could be included? I'm thinking some of them could also have montages images related to the national cinema industry (free of course) made as the main image to spice them all up a little. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Offhand I'd say the following paramters would be useful:

• Country
• Language/s
• Founded (date/who by)
• most recent annual output (2009)
• most recent Annual revenue (2009)
• National Awards
• Notable film festivals
• highest earners (people)
• Highest grossing film

These are just ideas. Of course reliable sources would be required to reference the information but as a factual infobox I think this would be very useful and would also help smarten up the beginning of the articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to be a bit careful of adding infoboxes which contain a large amount of information that can change very frequently. On a page like Cinema of the United States, an infobox containing information from 2009 is practically obsolete, rendering the infobox not quite so informative anymore. At the same time, including information about the year 2010 would mean several updates daily. The information you propose be included in the infobox is very valuable information but I do think it's best if it's described by prose in the article body. Big Bird (talk • contribs)

Of course the information is best presented in prose within the article. But that argument would make all infoboxes obsolete. Infoboxes are intended to summarise the main facts to make them instantly accesible as a reference point. The information given in Infobox film for example is also mostly replicated within the article. I think any "current2 information could be updated annually. Besides top grossing films of all time, saying the top 5 by each country rarely change weekly or monthly. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about including information such as all-time highest grossing films and highest earning actors without it changing often. I guess I just don't find such information to be quite so self-evidently important to the article as much as the information contained in the film infobox may be to an individual film. Alternatively and additionally, I wouldn't want to see a scenario where we decide first that we're gonna have an infobox and we then try to decide what to put in that infobox; it seems backwards and counter intuitive. Again, that's just my opinion, others may disagree :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinocchio (1940 film)

Please see semi-prot edit request in Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)#Rotten Tomatoes - discussion to reach consensus would be welcome. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why no ratings?

An anon user has brought up a valid point on the MPAA talk page. He wanted to know why Wikipedia doesn't include ratings on films in its articles. Yes, the IMDb has that information, but our readers shouldn't have to rely on external sources for such basic data. I know different areas of the world use different rating systems, but the video game template includes parameters for all the different systems used around the world for rating video games (look at the infobox for Gears of War, for example). Why doesn't the film infobox template include rating parameters as well? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, we have a writeup at MOS:FILM#Ratings. :) Let me know if you have any questions about it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There is information at WP:FILMRATING that addresses that issue. It's been brought up many times and it boils down to a long standing consensus that indiscriminate listing of each country's rating provides the reader with no further benefit in understanding the subject of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, cannot and will never be everything to everyone so it's perfectly accceptable for external sources to provide this supplemental information. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If we ever made a FAQ list, quoting what you just said would be perfect for this question. DrNegative (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Politely reminding my fellow Americans that not all English speakers come from the U.S.A. wouldn't hurt either. I've noticed that gets a "d'oh I didn't even think of that" reaction from a lot of people. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Freckle mentioned on another page that a lot of video game pages have ratings information and they've gotten around this problem. Is it simply too much effort to do for film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.3.75 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. I'm thinking (just guessing) that there a fewer countries with video game ratings systems or maybe more use the same system. I know the U.S. and U.K. use different game ratings but maybe other countries model theirs after one of those? No idea. But I do know every single country seems to have a different way of rating movies. So yeah, it would get a bit weighty in the movie articles. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Erik's link: Rating within country of original release doesn't seem random, and isn't addressed at the link... Also, I think the Midnight Cowboy 'X' example is a bit spurious. Even at the time no one understood how it landed an 'X'. Think I heard somewhere that it was something of a marketing gimmick-- producers only wanted adults in the theater, or something along those lines... Dekkappai (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Midnight Cowboy example was one that had existed in an older draft of the guidelines, and it was just reused. We can use other examples like the PG-13/R or the R/NC-17 fence. I'm not sure what you mean by randomness of a rating, though? People tend to proliferate MPAA ratings even in articles about non-American films, so it spreads unnecessarily. It's of more value to discuss how a rating came to be, and it does not have to be for the country of origin. Some films are banned, some countries assign questionably loose/strict ratings, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik. By 'random', I take the reason of the exclusion to prevent a random list of countries and ratings for each film-- something like "Original release date" fields sometimes become. But just the rating in the country of original production/release would be useful information within the infobox, I think. Not something I feel strongly about though. It's just as well put in the body of the article. Dekkappai (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, what useful value does it serve? It's hard to argue that a reader would come to Wikipedia to find out what a film was rated just to see if they were going to go see the film in theaters or not. Especially given that when you check the times for showings at a theater they typically list the ratings for you right there. The fact that movie Y is rated R and movie W is rated PG-13 is meaningless without context. Even with the description of what gave the movie the rating (e.g., strong violence) it's still too vague to draw any real context from. Unless we know exactly why a film is rated what it is (e.g., to avoid an X rating, or to seek larger audience with a PG-13 rating, etc.) then it holds no actual value. We don't list the rating for a television show on the TV WikiProject, because they vary even further with some channels rating harder than others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no more meaningless than exact date of release or running time. It tells what it was rated at the time and place of release. Except for rare items like Midnight Cowboy, that gives a general indication of target audience and maybe the tone of the film. Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratings for individual films and rating systems in general change over time. The mechanisms behind and reasons for their change can be very interesting but it is not something that's suitable to be brought up in each and every film article that falls within the scope of that rating system (such as MPAA in the United States). Centralized articles can handle this better except in cases of films that were notably impacted by this or somehow caused the process to occur. And as far as ratings for the country of origin, the same applies but, additionally, the vast majority of discussions on this topic were started by a group of editors asking that MPAA rating specifically be listed even on non-American films or by a group asking that all available ratings be listed. Opinions differ on which of these provides more benefit but the consensus has been that neither provides any significant benefit. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I look at a random film FA: Fight Club (film). I see "Distributed by" Oh? In which country? I see "Release date(s)" Oh? In which country (I think that plural should be removed since obviously only one country is indicated, and should be-- i.e., country of original production/release), I see "Running time" Oh? Have there been other versions released? If so, which version does this apply to? All these are variable, but none of these varies in regards to the original release. Neither does rating. But obviously our thinking about this case has become very uptight, and it doesn't matter to me, so consider it dropped. Dekkappai (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As a representative here for the French-task force, several films are co-produced between countries in Europe and there are many French-Italian co-productions. I label the distributor from the original production countries and the release dates from the original production countries. Running time is actually interesting and notable! For example, while working on the articles for White Zombie and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, I found that even the best home video copies are still missing a few minutes of film from their original release. I'd only bring up ratings if it's notable to the production history or release (i.e.: Midnight Cowboy or even Hard Target). Either way, original distributional rights aren't going to change historically. Ratings will eventually. 204.101.124.98 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there aren't many video game ratings that are used unlike film. —Mike Allen 00:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Damned Dirty Ape

This has just been started. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for everything. I'll be back, I'm sure. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This makes me very sad --Peppage^tlk 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I never really interacted with you (except of course to probably make some silly suggestions), but I always really admired your contributions. You were like the Wiki-friend I never had :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move: Shrek Forever After

There is a requested move discussion for Shrek Forever After. Mike Allen 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Opium War

FYI, Opium War has been proposed to be repurposed, see Talk:Opium War

70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

A request for comments has been opened at Talk:Al Pacino#Filmography spin-off regarding a recent spin-off and the need to form consensus regarding it. Please take a look. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:None but the Lonely Heart (film)

This discussion seems to have halted but has been relisted and could benefit from additional input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Powder Blue (film)

Additional input would be helpful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Films with two parts

Hi WikiProject Films. I notice the recent creation of (uncategorised) Category:Films with two parts. I don't know whether it should be categorised, populated or deleted - I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I say deleted and have made the move towards that end Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 28#Category:Films with two parts -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

creating/populating filmography tables

I am looking at FA examples, and know where the template is, but so far, understanding how to fill in the table (multiple films in a year, column size, etc.) is eluding me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with the table syntax, I'd suggest sticking to the list format the manual of style suggests; see:

• WP:Filmographies

Table syntax is a well understood impediment to editing; *most* editors have trouble in this area. The whole point of wikitext is that it's supposed to be quick and easy, not convoluted.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's now an easier and more effective way to do this: a template! Happy edits. :-) Mike Allen 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which template is this? I'm having a hard time finding it at WP:ACTOR. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's on the talk page. Template:Filmography table headings You can see it in action here. Mike Allen 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike, why point that template out to me when you are quite aware that I suggested it, created it, and have deployed it at the page you offer as an example and on others? Hmmm? Jack Merridew 20:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you David. I was replying to Jack Sebastian. Mike Allen 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:INDENT; the indentation you used led me to believe you were replying to me. Regards, Jack Merridew 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I fail to see how that template addresses User:Jack Sebastian's problem. If a user has trouble understanding how to place multiple films in a year (the rowspan parameter), that template does not help them. That template, frankly, does nothing but take up space. The same work it will take to implement that template into filmographies could be done to simply correct the use of a wikitable.

If you don't understand a wikitable, The advice to just stick with a list is optimal.  Chickenmonkey  21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. The purpose of the template is to encapsulate the gratuitous styling markup they've been poorly hard-coding in heaps of articles. The template is only about the head and foot of the tales, not about the body of the tables, and does not address the table vs list structure of a specific filmography, nor does it address the difficulties many encounter with the per-row details of tables. I think it would be great to skip the template and go all the way to bulleted lists for most of these filmographies. I also agree that the use of rowspan is probably the most frequent rough-patch for those out on the thin ice of modern wiki-table syntax. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Most editors here have probably learned how to use wikitables by trial and error. When first working with tables, I would look to an article that already used a filmography table and then modified it accordingly (a copy-and-paste can be helpful as well once you then correct all the parameters). As long as you use preview frequently when working with the table, then there shouldn't be too many issues (a sandbox may be helpful as well). After a while, the formatting gets easier, and you will be more likely to catch and correct mistakes in existing tables. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I had more problems with ref templates than the tables. Mike Allen 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Like I said, the preview button has save me many times. Although now that I've been on here so long, I foolishly think that I've nailed the formatting, and then make the one little error that causes the whole page to have issues. However, I just can't convince myself to use the preference option where it prompts a preview before each save... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I use the wikEd preview button. It uses javascript (I think) to load a preview at the bottom of the edit field (without the whole page reloading). It's much quicker, but it only works with Mozilla and WebKit based browsers. Mike Allen 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope on Animated shorts

I've been seeing a lot of these animated shorts come up when I was reviewing articles for the tag and assess and also articles that are unassessed. I'm just wondering if these articles are in the scope of the project. I'm leaning more toward they are not in the scope but that isn't very fair because they are bit like very short films and they didn't air on TV. Any input would be great. --Peppage^tlk 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe they fall under the scope of our project. Many of these appeared as short films before main attractions at theaters, and probably became more popular by now appearing on television and home media. Although they seem to be covered by our project, I highly doubt that more then just a few of these are ever going to be significantly expanded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Cannes 2010

Tomorrow the films selected for the 2010 Cannes Film Festival will be revealed. This year I have set as a personal goal that all films in the main competition should have a Wikipedia article of at least C-class as soon as possible, and it would be great if some of you wanted to help (a higher class would demand developed plot and reception sections which in many cases will have to wait). Any contribution is valuable and if you know any foreign language that would be of particular help, as the countries of origin often have a better early coverage. Plenty of interviews and highlights will be published during the festival (12-23 May) and hopefully this can be a fun and engaging collaboration! Smetanahue (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, Smethanahue. Gets thumbs up from me. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to see so much support for one of the most important events in the film calendar. I guess those really important page moves wont move themselves. Lugnuts (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no hurry, there isn't much information available this early anyway. Besides, the selection has been quite disappointing. I had expected The Turin Horse and Tree of Life and if it hadn't been shown at Sundance I would have hoped for Four Lions. Instead they give us Burnt by the Sun 2 which I don't even dare to work on, as it feels like it can be disqualified any day in what has to be a bribery scandal. But that's the charm of Cannes I guess, always lots of surprises. Just like every year some of the more anonymous titles will turn out to be great, and then it will be nice to already have the articles prepared when the awards are handed out. Smetanahue (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Followed by/Preceded by

What exactly do these two fields in the Template:Infobox_film denote? Are they meant to denote strict chronological order? For example, Halloween H20 followed Halloween 6 but was conceived as a sequel to Halloween 2. Superman Returns also ignored the last two films of the Superman series and was made as a series to Superman 2. Should this link be captured in the infobox so that it's documented that Halloween H20 followed both Halloween 2 and 6. The text body makes it clear that the film is an official sequel to Halloween 2 so should the infobox also reflect that? The documentation doesn't make it clear if the field relates solely to chronological production or not.

Also, how do these fields relate to spin-off films? For instance, Caravan of Courage was a spin-off from Return of the Jedi, Supergirl was a spin-off from Superman 3, and Wolverine was a spin-off from X-Men:The Last Stand. Should spin-offs be ignored by these fields, or should they be included? You can argue that Return of the Jedi was followed by The Phantom Menace and Caravan of Courage.

I'm sure this issue must have come up before but can't find any discussion on it, but would appreciate it if it could be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

They are for chronological release of films, not for continuity. Continuity can change. New writers/directors can ignore previous storylines and make sequels to which film in a series they want. As such, we stick to the objective, unbiased order of release definition. As for spin-offs...that's a different beast itself. Typically, I have never seen spin-offs included in the list simply because they are spin-offs and not considered part of that film series (e.g., Supergirl may take place in the same universe, but it's a stand alone film that has no bearing on any Superman film) Wolverine is different, because it's a spin-off/prequel to a character that appears in the X-Men film series (the whole series and not just The Last Stand). But, the basic use of that field is chronological release of a film. You can debate the "spin-off" aspect as a separate subject, but The Phantom Menace should technically follow Return of the Jedi, because it was made and released after that film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it's being used for remakes to, so apparently it's chronological order. Like Freddy vs. Jason followed by A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010). My guess is, for one, it's used as a navigation tool. This is also a "problem" (to some) for TV series with "Related shows" option in the infobox. Some, like Law & Order, have every friggen spin off listed, even if the series have never crossed over or used characters. Mike Allen 06:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification chaps! Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

With all the navigation templates we have, these fields are pretty much redundant and serve no real use. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Paramount Television Network

Paramount Television Network has been nominated as a Featured Article. The discussion is here. Please take a moment to weigh in at the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has expressed the need for a copyedit on the article by an editor unfamiliar with the subject. The article is here and the FAC is here. If someone could give the article a thorough going-over, it would be greatly appreciated, and I would reciprocate with an article of your choice. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Fox and the Hound#Requested move

Input on a discussion to move The Fox and the Hound -> The Fox and the Hound (film), and its novel article from The Fox and the Hound (novel) to The Fox and the Hound would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move and disambiguation for Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles

Another editor recently attempted to move Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles to Fire & Ice (2008 film). I reversed the move because it was done by copy-and-paste, and I'm currently helping the other editor negotiate the proper move procedure. But I had this question: IMDb gives the film's title as just Fire & Ice, and shows Fire & Ice: The Dragon Chronicles as the U.S. "long title". Would it be preferable to disambiguate this article by using the (2008 film) clarifier or by using the long title, as it currently is (leaving aside the and/ampersand issue)? Certainly it would be great if any admin watching here could take a look at this situation and put things in order, if needed. Thanks!--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note an admin, but looking at the official sites[7][8], its title is Fire & Ice so it should be at Fire & Ice (2008 film), with Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles redirecting to it. As you already mentioned to the other editor, an admin will have to do said move. Though after the move, might be nice if the article were expanded to show why this film should even have article, as right now it appears to have no notability...also note I have removed its plot section as it was WP:COPYVIO from the Media Pro site.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do that messy move, sorry for that. Yes, the official title is "Fire & Ice" as AnmaFinotera mentioned. Can I add the synopsis back, as it is from the official site? I will add a reference for it. Also, I'm going to find sources to prove its notability. Malina Grigore | talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

Absolutely not. It was removed because it is copyrighted material. Wikipedia does not deal in stolen content. See the WP:COPYVIO link noted above as to why it was removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Followed by: Mission Impossible IV", etc

When filling in the "followed by" perimeter in the infobox, should we wait until there is an actual article or section within an article before adding a film? Like for example, adding red links or regular text for announced sequels that haven't yet entered production. I think the infobox doc should make this clear. Mike Allen 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if it hasn't entered production, then it doesn't really exist yet so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Agree it might be useful to have the infobox documentation say something towards it. Maybe something along the lines of it should meet WP:NFF or something before adding to the box, or otherwise be a finished/released film (for past films where it isn't notable)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, if we don't have an article on the subject them we don't include it in the infobox. Being as something could happen that ends the progress of the film before they ever actually make it--and thus before we would have actually created the article--and so it would create confusion as to how there could be a "followed by" film that doesn't actually exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, if the film takes forever to get made (or not at all), the link in the infobox may keep luring editors into creating the article, although it goes against future film guidelines. Best to wait until there is an actual article that should stand alone and meet the criteria before linking to the title in the infobox. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of crossovers and references in Marvel films

This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus here. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot Bloat Warnings

Hi there. I already mentioned this on the Talk page for the style guidelines, but thought I should drop a note here as well. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These could be helpful for helping to guide editors to the guidelines on plot summaries. Thank you for developing the templates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome! :) Doniago (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for chiming in this late about the templates. I don't think templates such as this are necessary but, if we must have a template, it should serve as a notification to the user, not a warning. I would be in favour of a single-level template (not an escalating system of warnings) that avoids classifying edits to a plot summary as not constructive. Calling something not constructive can easily make a bad first impression and alienate a new editor who came in good faith to add something from his knowledge to the encyclopedia but hasn't been around long enough to read MOS:FILM. Editors such as that need to be educated, not warned. I would suggest a template that contains no wording notifying the user that their edits are not wanted but to state something along the lines of:

• Thank you for your recent contribution to [film article]. It is preferred for film articles on Wikipedia to follow a manual of style that serves as a guide on how film articles are best improved. If some of your recent edits have been changed or removed, it is possible that another editor attempted to improve upon your addition by conforming it to the manual of style. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have about the above manual of style at WikiProject Films' talk page where the members of the project will be happy to help you.

That's just a draft. It's not perfect but you get the idea. If a user keeps making further non-MOS conforming edits after a template such as this is posted on someone's talk page, I suggest using your own words to talk to them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there...I hope you don't mind if I number your points in my response, to keep things better organized for me-

1. Well, I don't think this template should be necessary, and it's certainly not a must-have, but I've been in more than one situation where users inflated plot summaries by significant amounts, and having a standardized warning around, for me at least, was preferable to writing-up essentially the same message on repeated occasions, especially if I wanted to include links and attempt to be thorough. I certainly don't feel that any editor should feel compelled to use these templates if they have issues with them.
2. I modeled the wording for the templates from the standard vandalism templates, where level one is defined as AGF, while level two is a no-faith assumption (in this instance I can't really imagine issuing a level two without a level one having already been given). If the feeling is that even the level one wording is too 'warning' and not enough 'advice', I'd welcome suggestions for how to change it (see below notes, though). If a user were to continue inflating plot summaries after receiving both warnings, I'd think they're at risk of being considered a vandal and potentially looking at a 3RR issue.
3. I think people tend to overlook the actual wording of the template. It doesn't call edits unconstructive, it says they -appear to be- unconstructive. The key difference to me is that an element of doubt is explicitly indicated.
4. I'm somewhat concerned that your suggested wording is film-centric, while I intend for the templates to apply to other areas where word-count and such is stipulated as well, such as novels, non-fiction books, etc. If you think a more specific template is the way to go though, I'd be curious to hear from others on that point.
5. One of the reasons I prefer templates is that I -don't- trust my own words not to be poorly-constructed and/or misinterpreted and I find it comforting for there to be a standard that others have reviewed and (generally) agreed upon as well.

In any case, while we seem to have a difference of opinion on how best to approach this issue, I certainly appreciate your feedback and hope that you understand where I'm coming from. Please let me know if you have additional questions/concerns! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of those style guidelines are pretty long-winded. The Film MOS tackles the subject of plot length directly so maybe it would be better to direct editors to WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? That makes the template purely for Film usage, where as Doniago seems to clearly intend for it to be useable for all media articles. I think his idea makes it a much more globally usable template, and properly directs people to the appropriate reading for a specific article (Film's plot guidelines apply only to films, after all). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's for use on all media articles why are we discussing it on the Film Project? Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

because folks replied here instead of at the template talk page as requested :-P And we are one of several projects who would likely want to know it exists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd appreciate a link to the main discussion then so I can consider everyone's point of view. I don't see much point in having separate discussions about the same template spanning different projects. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally the template talk page itself would be where the main discussion occurred...which is why I did request that discussion occur there, rather than, say, here. I would favor moving further discussion there and just linking back to this conversation. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it being a template spanning several different WikiProjects and subject matters and I do see a clear benefit in it being that way; I only object to the issue of it being a warning and being worded as such. By nature, warnings can be interpreted as somewhat forceful and aggressive. Warning someone of unconstructive edits can easily be seen as an unnecessarily more aggressive approach compared to a gentler approach of informing someone of something they didn't know (as opposed to something they did wrong). Whenever a gentler or more cordial way of resolving any issue is possible, it should be preferred over a more forceful one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True. Perhaps just a single level, like other single issue notices? While it is aggrieving to deal with, unless it is an OR or copyright issue, it isn't a warnable offense per se. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely be open to this approach if people feel this is more appropriate than the two-tiered version (FWIW I never intended to take it beyond that, since I think if a user actually needed a level-three version there's probably larger editing issues at stake). Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Betty, there isn't a centralized discussion on this. Notices were posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) and here. The anime talk page has some feedback, the other pages don't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request that, per my original request, further discussion of the template(s) take place at their talk pages rather than here, so that anyone with an interest in them can see the discussion without having to peruse the various project pages for possible discussion. Of course, linking back here would probably be useful. (smile) Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created a thread at Template talk:Uw-plotsum1 copying over all comments made up to this point. Please take any further discussion to the template talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Erik

Why has Erik retired? He was like the most straight laced editor on here!! At times he was almost too professional. What happened? I was about to offer to sell my Tyler Durden leather jacket to him which is too small for me and he said he loved it previously when I uploaded a picture. Certainly the last thing I expected was to see a retired tag. If nobody wants to say here feel free to email what happened. It is certainly a huge loss to WP:Films on here, even if I didn't always see eye to eye with him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He edited an article about someone, and the subject of the article threatened an innocent person who he thought was Erik. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone had a psychotic episode towards Erik and he thought it was best he took some time off. You can probably still email him though. Mike Allen 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy is an [redacted].  Chickenmonkey  21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have started a discussion at Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy#Notability? regarding the notability of of said film (which is a DVD documentary) and its need to have its own article. Please provide opinions on the above linked page. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for more comments on this article's notability. Right now, a part from 1 person (who just showed up today), everyone else is in agreement that the subject is not notable and does not warrant a page to itself. That said, there were still IP additions to the page (which kind of looks more like the back of the DVD box now), so I'm still waiting to see if anyone changes their mind based on the additions or if it's still a topic that does not need an entire page to cover it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC notification

There is a current request for comments HERE that is discussing whether the article Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy should be merged and redirected to the Elm Street franchise article at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), or whether it has met, or has the ability to meet notability inclusion criteria in order to remain an independent independent article and be allowed to grow through regular editing. Findsources: [9],[10] All viewpoints are welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The return Criterion Collection films as a category

Hello to the members of the project. I just wanted to amke everyone aware that the category status for Criterion Collection films has been resurrected today. The cat was created by User:Deathawk and worked on by this IP 97.124.69.84. Although it has been a few years the members of the film project have reached a consensus that this should not be a category on our films pages. Here are a few examples of previous discussions. [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are others though I don't quite have time to find them now. As soon as I am done here I will make the editors involved aware and open a new CFD. Any additional thoughts and assistance will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Rodhullandemu has gotten the ball rolling on this here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_17#Category:Criterion_Collection_films so please feel free to add your thoughts there. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC Plot V for Vendetta

The current plot for V for Vendetta (film) is at 1200 words. I have made several attempts to condense this but I do not believe that it can be reduced to the 400-700 word range that is customary. I would like to know what members of this project believe should be done. Talk: V for Vendetta (film) --Iankap99 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the RfC? I don't see any section discussing it. My quick response is that it could easily be trimmed down if the excessive flowery language was cut back and some of the minor plot points more condensed. When it passed its FA, the plot was within the guidelines. Why not just restore that, with any needed corrections? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I may see if I can't get it at least under 1000 words? May I ask why the plot isn't tagged for being overly-long? Doniago (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh what's that? Where can I find the code for the tag? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

{{plot}} -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for future reference, however Nehrams has fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to the FA plot and made some minor modifications and further trimming. I haven't seen the film in a few years, so feel free to correct any errors. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nehrams as always, --Iankap99 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Task Force Importance Parameters

I more or less dropped out of this project a while back. The reason was that I started assessing New Zealand films for importance and had to stop when I realised that the importance parameter belongs to the parent project. Thus, while Goodbye Pork Pie would be of top-importance in the history of New Zealand film (as the first homegrown film to be a significant commercial success), it is low - medium importance on a world scale. I see that some other project templates now support task-force specific importance via additional parameters. While this project has many task forces (possibly more than any other Wikiproject), I think this would be a valuable addition. dramatic (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! We removed the importance parameter from the project banner a few years ago for several reasons, mainly because of the extra effort with our ever-growing article base as well as constant back-and-forth between editors on interpretations of the importance of each article. Instead of worrying about the importance of each of the project's main articles, it's better to center on the article's content and determine how each article can be expanded, sourced, and further improved. It's hard enough to keep all of our article's assessed, and our editing time would probably be better spent on article improvement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons

Someone's added MPAA approval numbers. Is this considered excess/fancruft by others before I remove them? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost on Mars - lost forever?

Two quite obscure movies, Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger, are up for AfD deletion.

I wanted to highlight it here, in case any movie buffs are able to locate any coverage in reliable sources.

Best,  Chzz  ►  15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding key crew members to the film infobox after contribution is nationally honored

You are invited to join a discussion I just started at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding crew members to the infobox after contribution is nationally honored. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful article size/word count script

For those of you who may not know, User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a very useful script in determining page size and word count. In edit preview mode, it also calculates section size and word count. Among other things, this could come in pretty handy for anyone working on bloated plot summary sections as it makes it extremely easy to get an updated word count. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The section prose size sounds useful. Do you know if it "plays well" with the DYK script? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Which DYK script? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question! I can't be certain but I would say they should play well together. I searched through the archives of WT:DYK and couldn't find anything about the issue. But I did start this thread so we'll see if anyone else knows something about it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, looks like they do, so will give this one a whirl. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely better than copying over the section to Word just to get a count. Thanks for sharing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help me.

Resolved

At the end of The Smurfs article where the navigation templates are. There is a space between "The Smurfs" and "Theatrical Hanna-Barbera produced films" templates. What is causing this? Mike Allen 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a hard return at the end in the Smurfs template. All fixed. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh it was a problem with the template it self. I was just looking at the article. Thanks. :D Mike Allen 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the film style guide

I've been meaning to open this discussion for a while, but only the recent page move has prompted me to get around to it. Erik and I discussed it before he left, but we never got around to doing anything about it. Anyway ... the film project style guideline is named as if it were a manual of style. It's long been my opinion that we've misnamed the guide. For the most part, it is not a manual of style, but a content guideline, much the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and similar. It gives guidance on structure and content, but very little—if anything— on the things traditionally covered by the main MoS pages. Therefore, I propose that we detach the guide from the official manual of style and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. This change would more accurately reflect its content and perhaps allow us more scope to make changes in the future. IMO, doing this wouldn't affect the way we wield the guide; it would still have the authority, backing and consensus of the film project. With a bit of luck, it would be no more than a paperwork exercise (and should we decide to go ahead with this, I'm happy to do all the donkey work with page moves, sorting the redirects, etc.) I've placed this message here, as WT:FILM has a wider audience than the style guide talk page, but I'll place a message over there and at WT:MOS pointing to this discussion. I welcome your comments, suggestions, support and objections! All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What about splitting the content and stylistic advise ? I think these things work better when style and content are separate Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, usually, but in this case it's not necessary. While some minor changes may be required to the page, a split wouldn't be needed as any bona fide style guidance is covered by about two lines. In all cases, we defer to the main Manual of Style, with limited guidance here about how that should be interpreted for film articles. Steve ^T • C 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I've no objection Gnevin (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, as I don't really see what the difference is, and certainly not without seeing an example of what, exactly, is not a "style guideline" about the current one. It might be a quibble to say this is really "content" but it is reflective of all of the other major media style guidelines out there, other than the pointed out video games (which I honestly do not consider a project to "look too" for examples of how to edit). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is ... it's not a manual of style by Wikipedia's use of the term. It doesn't give advice on formatting, fonts, language and typography. It's a content guide, in that it gives advice on what to put in articles, while not dwelling on how to present that information other than its structure. Steve ^T • C 13:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It covers structure and content in one. I don't see how that is an issue. There are 9 MoS related to content in the general MoS alone, and I really see no reason at all to basically render the whole thing useless by removing the content suggestions? What's left, nothing? Novels is the one media that has a "split" of sources, with a MoS that is basically a copy/paste template, and the actual content guide. They quickly went in two different directions, directly contradicted one another, and neither was kept updated rendering both absolutely useless. I just don't see any reason at all to not have one document, in one location, easy for newer editors to find. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about splitting this page, just moving/renaming it. I'm not entirely sure what about doing that would render the page useless; it's just more accurate is all. Best, Steve ^T • C 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS related to content was create by me and as it says This Category is concerned with the Manual of Style and stylistic choices affecting content. For the guidelines on content itself see Category:Wikipedia content guidelines. It's not about content ,saying that it's now down to 8 with a other under review. Gnevin (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subject specific guide if accepted would cover this guideline as it stands . Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding MRQE.com as another source of movie reviews

Hello all, please be kind to me as I'm a little new to the world of Wikipedia. First of all, I just want to say how much I respect the hard work and dedication involved with everyone here in making sure that movie information is complete and accurate. I was discussing the possibility of including another source for movie reviews with Nehrams2020 and he suggested that I bring it up here. Please forgive me for a rather lengthy post.

I'm writing because I work for a movie review site, MRQE.com, the Movie Review Query Engine, that may be helpful in providing useful information to movie articles. MRQE has been around since 1993, and its search engine provides links to nearly every review accessible online for about 80,000 titles (this includes classics, indie movies, foreign films, and current releases). I've noticed that many movie articles cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the "Reception" section, and I'm wondering if MRQE can also be included, or at least be placed amongst the External Links. Like RT and MC, MRQE supplies an average score for each film (called the MRQE Metric); but unlike RT and MC, MRQE also includes links to the original reviews written at the time of the film's release (so long as they've been archived online somewhere). This can be very interesting for people reading up on classics and older titles like the original King Kong or Casablanca.

Along with original reviews, MRQE uses a graph to compare the overall critical reception (the percentage of critics that give the movie an A, B, C, etc.); the MRQE Metric is the average of all the reviews, a number between 0 - 100. MRQE's graphs have been included on sites like Variety.com and EW.com (powering Entertainment Weekly's Critical Mass graphs) to help their users see the overall response to movies. It could be interesting to cite the graph percentages, but I'm sure the easiest thing is to add MRQE to the "External Links" section. I am more than happy to help out either way, and I can provide some documentation for linking.

Here's MRQE on Wikipedia. MRQE has already helped supply some information for existing Wikipedia articles, such as this one.

While MRQE has been around since the beginnings of the Internet, it's only recently that any investment has been made into the site. MRQE is by all accounts a start-up, and getting press has been a tricky task. Be that as it may, MRQE does get mentioned from time to time, and remains one of Roger Ebert's top movie review websites. He name-dropped the site in an interview last year with The Onion's AV Club. MRQE was also mentioned in Ebert's intro to the 2004 edition of his Annual Movie Yearbook.

Even though Social Times hated the site's name, MRQE was named one of their Top Movie Review and Rating Sites

MRQE also has a sister-site called Flicktweets, which aggregates and filters Twitter for relevant movie review tweets.

All in all, MRQE could help provide interesting information and links to reviews. While RT and MC are fantastic general resources, MRQE could supply an extra dose of information that some people might be interested in. I'm hoping that we can work together to supply some compelling links and valuable information. Let me know your thoughts, and I'd be happy to help out in any way. mliss4816 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose linking to this site directly for the time being. Please note from Special:Contributions/Mliss4816, that this account has engaged in link-spamming. Has this organization received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources? This whole thing seems like a Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Now at AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie Review Query Engine. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I explained this both to Nehrams2020, and supplied information for Cirt. As stated, I'm new to the world of Wikipedia, and in all my intentions, I am not trying to spam. I joined to fix the article about MRQE, and because I also noticed some movie articles were supplying improper, sometimes broken, links to pages on MRQE via the External Links section. After getting the notification that the MRQE article was now marked as having a conflict of interest, I stopped editing the article and have not touched it at all since March 2009 (other editors have fixed the article). As for the External Links, I only edited the external links sections of movie articles that were already providing links to MRQE; the links were either broken or not pointing to the correct location. I went in to fix these links. In all cases I didn't realize that I needed to go to the Talk page first. This was my error and it was not my intention at all to spam. I hope this explains things, and I am incredibly sorry for these actions. I am happy to continue to provide further links of outside sources mentioning MRQE, if needed.mliss4816 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • User stated above, "I'm writing because I work for a movie review site, MRQE.com, the Movie Review Query Engine" -- admitting the primary motivation by the user is a conflict of interest and promotion of employer. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest Oppose - nothing but spam from a nother unnotable random website that doesn't meet WP:EL in any way, shape or form. There seem to be several folks from that site who have engaged in quite spamming of it,[15] so might be useful to have it added to the spam filter if new instances show up and a clean up made of the 61 or so links added so far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is all too common at WP:FILM, and I'm not trying to be rude. If your site, or a site that contribute to is notable or "reliable" (per Wikipeida standards), then someone from the "outside" would begin to post and use your site as a source. Please note that adding your site to Wikipedia will not increase its search engine rankings. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, WP:PROMO and WP:EL. Thanks. Mike Allen 00:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)