Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured articles 11 Jul 2024 – Still Reigning (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb 08 Jul 2024 – RoboCop (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Bremps (t · c); see discussion 02 Jul 2024 – Twice a Man (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Hinnk (t · c); see discussion 27 Jun 2024 – Pure Japanese (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 06 Jun 2024 – Breaking Through (2022 film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Toadboy123 (t · c); see discussion 03 Jun 2024 – Kaur (short film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Whispyhistory (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – Avatar Studios (production company) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 05 Jul 2024 – Lake Michigan Monster (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Paleface Jack (t · c); see discussion 04 Jul 2024 – Kubrick stare (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bremps (t · c); start discussion 01 Jul 2024 – Buzz Lightyear (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 28 Jun 2024 – Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by De Disney (t · c); start discussion 26 Jun 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 17 Jun 2024 – The First Fallen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 11 Jun 2024 – Rogue One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cocobb8 (t · c); start discussion 30 May 2024 – Mushu (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion (8 more...) Featured article reviews 13 Jun 2024 – Jason Voorhees (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 19 Jun 2024 – Me at the zoo (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by TrademarkedTWOrantula (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Linking to "year in film" in film-related articles

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

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

Thank you for trying to personalize this. "Regime" indeed. Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, these links add nothing, especially as they are hidden, easter egg-type links. Anyone wishing to retain them or even to add more as Ed has done, needs to demonstrate some encyclopedic utility that they add to articles, and a current consensus that this utility outweighs the advice in the style guideline linked above. I currently do not see either. --John (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

John, there is no personalization, merely a description of what has occurred. As demonstrated by these threads on WP:ANI: [1],[2], [3], even under the new date-linking guidlines ("regime" was not used in a pejorative sense, but in the sense of "a way of doing things") at WP:MOSNUM, there is no consensus in the general community for the wholesale de-linking of dates. The lesson to be learned from these threads is that de-linking needs to be an evaluative process, and not an automatic one.

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

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

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

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

If you look at any article at the end of the year which sums up what happened in any particular subject area, the death of major figures is always included. This year, summary articles about the film world will certainly mention the death of Newman, and longer articles may even have a list of prominent actors who died that year. Now, we are not a print encyclopedia, and are not bound by the physical restrictions that print vehicles have, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be extended to the birth and death of actors in general. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that the "XXXX in film" articles had "Notable Deaths" sections. It's a good point, though I was wondering, how are we addressing film actors who were also TV actors and theater actors? They have their own similar sections. I understand that Wikipedia is flexible, but I just want to see if we're not trying to force a square peg into a round hole in terms of linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I removed two easter eggs, Ed added 99, and I am being criticised for "mass edits". Let's make this really simple. Where is the consensus or policy that makes adding 99 hidden links acceptable. I'm not looking for opinion here, but for the previously described consensus to use links indiscriminately like this. --John (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've retracted part of my statement accordingly (sorry, I did not have time to look at the contributions on all sides). Let's all refrain from further "year in film" edits and see what kind of consensus we hammer out. John and Ed, are there other editors who are involved? Is there a reason to dispute the ANI outcomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs)

Thanks for keeping your comments accurate. I would welcome a proper discussion of the utility of such links. Does anyone else feel that adding 99 indiscriminately is a little pointy?--John (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, please, the only reason I added so many was because the filmography was totally unlinked, a rare occurence in a film-related bio. By this time most of the major stars' filmographies have already had their release dates linked for donkey's years. Let's not only keep this accurate, let's also make sure that the proper context for actions is recognized.

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

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

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

John, the consensus exists in the general convention that film release dates are linked to the "year in film" articles. You don't have to have 35 editors trooping by here to tell you that, you can see it yourself by looking at those articles.

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

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

Well, it would be a great start if you could stop adding these links which you say yourself add nothing. I would still take your arguments more seriously if you could demonstrate a consensus (evidence) rather than tell me it has always been done that way (opinion). --John (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, John, but I don't understand you. What links am I adding that I myself say add nothing? And, John, as I've repeatedly said, the evidence is in the filmographies and release dates that exist. Do you think that editors such as myself went to the time and trouble to link release dates because "that's the way it's always been done"? Perhaps you should AGF and trust that we took the time and effort because we believe that being able to see what else was going on in the film world at the time adds context, and therefor value, to the article.

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

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

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

Ed: perhaps you should take a moment and re-read the discussion here. Remind me, who said "There are plenty of linked dates that are clearly ripe for being delinked: ... non-release dates, non-significant events, and so on...", and who added 99 such links to an article on an actress the other day? I am not particularly interested (no offense) in your opinion of what consensus should be; it is pretty obvious there is no clear consensus here at all as if there was somebody would have pointed to it by now. --John (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

John: Obviously, I was not being clear. There are plenty of articles all over Wikipedia in which dates are linked to plain-vanilla year articles, but which, by the new guidelines, shouldn't be because the links don't provide any real added context or value. These, I suggest, are ripe for removal, and perhaps should be the focus of a diligent editor who wants to further the delinking of dates.

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

State of play

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afd nomination for A Bullet in the Arse

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

italics?

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

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

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

Have you tried switching off the internet and switching it back on again? Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All the double apostrophes don't make italics appear for me. I thought maybe there was some new preferences issue or code change or something else I dodn't know about. --Melty girl 19:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be something wrong with your browser? Have you tried another? It could even be something wrong with the fonts on your machine. Does everything else display OK? Steve ^{T • C} 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this work? Or this? Steve ^{T • C} 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you added to Perrier's Bounty to Cillian Murphy's filmography today. Is that what you can't see as italicized? It looks fine to me so I'm also thinking it's your browser or something. Rebooting sometimes fixes these things. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel silly now. Something's wrong with Firefox, but Safari shows everything looking as normal. Thanks, everyone. --Melty girl 04:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take over my film watchlist?

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

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

Film infobox. Color??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've changed the example to show how this would look in the actual film infobox. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It might be best asking the question over at Template talk:Infobox Film, in case anybody else has any opinion. I'm not sure to be honest; I'm not awfully keen on doing something like this just for the sake of it. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lassie Films

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was originally created under the wrong title. I've merged the histories. Flowerparty^☀ 16:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Requested deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impetuous Fire

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

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

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

While I'm not too sure what your point is (that's a marvelously random example!), I've merged some content there from a duplicate article; hard to believe that two versions of the same article have been around for two and a half years with no-one noticing! PC78 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Blofeld, the Lucas film is manifestly notable by virtue of the Lucas connection, to say nothing of the Coppola one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally I know this Giro, I am talking about in terms of lack of detail/content (all it said before was .... is a short film directed by George Lucas). Glad to see that resulted in seeing the double articles!!Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you're confusing matters - notability has nothing to do with the lack of detail or content. A notable article is always a notable article. The only question is if it is making this notability clear or not, and if it can verify itself or not. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. Resolved - merged into alternate title Forever and Ever (1977 film). SkierRMH (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FUBAR: The Movie

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

The official website has FUBAR the movie, but it could still go either way. I'd say look to the sources, but the article is unsourced. What was it called at Sundance and on the Sundance website/promo materials? What about other sources? The article claims it won "critical acclaim" so where is all the acclaim and what was it called when it was being acclaimed by whoever was reviewing it? Random side note: someone needs to move the little ref section above the ELs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FUBAR? Is that German? Doing a search engine test and looking at the official website, I don't think that "The Movie" is a subtitle. If it is, it's not prominently used. I would suggest moving it to FUBAR (film) and cleaning up the disambiguation page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As both imdb and rotten tomatoes list it as simply FUBAR, being bold and making the moves as discussed above. SkierRMH (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling rules versus the films title - again

It looks like the pedantic devotion to WikiP's spelling rules (I am thinking of the One Flew O(o)ver the Cuckoo's Nest case from several months ago) have effected a films page again. The Trey Parker/Matt Stone film BASEketball has been moved to Baseketball. The films credits, posters etc. use the upper case lettering for BASE. A search on the web does turn up a few instances where the "ase" are lower case but not many. I do know that when the film shows up on my cable TV the use the uppercase lettering in all of the information about its air times. As with the instance above (FUBAR) I think that this should probably be moved back. However if everyone else is okay with the move to lower case then I won't make a fuss about it. Just thought that I would get the filmprojects input. MarnetteD | Talk 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the move, and as it is always credited as BASEketball then this should be the title. I didn't want to move it and get in to all that, but considering the page has been BASEketball for years I would say that the uppercase spelling is the settled consensus. As it stands at the moment it would need to be an admin move, but I would support keeping the page as BASEketball, consensus for the move should have been gained first. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. BASEketball is the proper title and should be used for the article heading. I think it would be certainly okay for you to be bold and return it to its original status, make baseketball the redirect, then leave a note on the discussion page. You should also drop a quick note to the editor who made the new move and refer him to the discussion page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As it stands that would be a copy and paste move, and would lose the history, so an admin move is better. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire title is formatted using capital letters, just that the "BASE" is a larger text size than the "KETBALL". I do not see how you can infer from this that "Base" should be capitalised, whereas "ketball" should not. The name of the film is Baseketball. Simple. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, use of BASEketball [eg: http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie980730-3,0,6137214.story] vs Baseketball [eg: http://movies.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A04E7D71238F932A05754C0A96E958260] is inconsistent, and as per WP:MOSTM we should "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". Nouse4aname (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In most promotional material (and I'm thinking back to when the film was out and any interviews Parker/Stone have since done) it is styled as BASEketball. As it stands there was no consensus for the move, a little discussion beforehand would have been nice, rather than after the fact. And without getting in to the bag of snakes that is whether or not the imdb is reliable it is listed as BASEketball there. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for that, but I figured that the guideline was pretty self explanatory and supported the move. The way others have formatted the name does not necessarily dictate the way wikipedia should. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't but as the article was moved to BASEketball four years ago, and hasn't moved since I would assume that consensus was for that spelling. And I don't think that MOStm covers this, insomuch as film titles are rarely trademarked. I think that WP:COMMONNAME is more appropriate. And I think that the links from imdb and Allmovie are both on the article so it makes sense they match the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything is trademarked, so I would say it does apply, as does Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of copyright, trademarking is a specific legal term. Again, I will go back to consensus, and that move took place without it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the two are differentiated in respect to the policies/guidelines. For example, the example given at the WP:NC link above is Invader Zim, which is a TV show and is stylised as Invader ZIM (and on IMDB), but is referred to as Invader Zim in the wikipedia article. WP:COMMONNAME does not really refer to the capitalisation, but more to common vs official names (Eg, Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)) and states follow its guidelines "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". Nouse4aname (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering this required an admin move, I assumed that my reasoning was correct and endorsed by the admin involved...Nouse4aname (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although Nouse4aname is correct that the applicable term would be trademark, neither copyright nor trademark is applicable here. Titles can never be copyrighted - even if the title is novel or unique. Film titles can be protected under trademark law -- but only when they become a series. One-shot titles are not protected under trademark law. So that issue is irrelevant. The problem I find is that the naming guidelines on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) don't address the issue of the oddball title. The guidelines at WP:NC do indicate that a article which uses a title should follow standard English (as was stated with the Invader ZIM example). My own preference would be to use the film title commonly written in source materials. And doing a quick search of article reviews, I saw that an occasional review (e.g., NY Times) used the lower case "Baseketball," but the vast majority of reviews (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Variety, etc.) used the "BASEketball." However, either way, BASEketball or Baseketball, the issue isn't very critical since redirects allow readers to find the article using either spelling. And the article uses the common usage title throughout the text. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It only uses BASEketball throughout the text because I reverted it to that. It would make sense to have the title match the common usage throughout the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseketball should be used throughout, as per the standard of using correct English and the example at Invader Zim. I don't want to get into an edit war however, so haven't reverted it as yet. Furthermore, I still don't see why BASEketball should be used, just because other media outlets incorrectly use it, doesn't mean wikipedia should. As I pointed out above, the title is actually entirely capitalised, just with larger letters used for "BASE" than "KETBALL". Nouse4aname (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It it the name it is most commonly know as, imdb lists it as that, Allmovie lists it as that, the majority of newpaper reviews list it like that. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it correct. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See Adulthood (film) and Kidulthood, which are rendered according to standard English, not according to the stylised title. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes it correct here is consensus opinion. As Darrenhusted correctly states, "BASEketball is the most common usage in reliable sources. And there is a line at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name where it says Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Although that wording doesn't apply specifically to film titles, it is the essence of the argument. I think this should wait for a further consensus among WP:FILM editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether the article is located at BASEketball or Baseketball is besides the point, they are essentially the same search terms. Article naming ensures that the article is at the most commonly searched for term, (see Bill Clinton example above). The use of BASEketball or Baseketball within the article is determined by whether we use correct English or not - which we do. I think consensus is also needed from those familiar with WP:MOS, and the general use of language in the encyclopedia, not only from those interested in preserving the formatting of the title. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of discussions around INLAND EMPIRE (IE - all caps)! Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point about the title of the page, Nouse4aname. However, within in the text, correct English usage has absolutely no bearing on the spelling of names or titles. A name is as it written. If someone uses the name Criss, we don't need to call them Chris throughout the article as if it was misspelled. Just as in the first sentence I did not correct your user name to No Use For A Name - that is not how it is used nor spelled - and, equally so, BASEketball is the most commonly used form of that title in English texts. That is confirmed by looking in the published articles. Unfortunately, this is one of those many cases in WP that will need to be decided by consensus because it seems to fall outside the guidelines. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link, Lugnuts. I figured there were other valid examples here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is nothing to do with spelling, but regards non-standard capitalisation. There is no justification in the English language for using partial capitals for this name. WP:MOS and all sub-sections thereof refer to both titles and the main article text, and clearly state to use standard English capitalisation, regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner. With regards the example above, the capitalization was only changed to all caps within the past month, by an anon IP [4]. Prior to this the article had been steady with correct capitalisation used throughout. Assuming I will be reverted immediately, I am not going to revert this yet, but it will be done. There are plenty of policies and guidelines out there, its just you choose to ignore them in favour of preserving some random stylised capitalisation, which I may add for the third time is not even adopted by the film. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, while you're at it, best go ahead and change that great old Fats Domino tune from "Ain't That A Shame?" to "Isn't That A Shame?" -- or maybe "Is That Not A Shame?" Oh and there's an article on the "Lovin' Spoonful", that's not proper English, better change it to "Loving Spoonful". Hmmm... "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On" should be "A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On," and "Les Girls", well you can't combine French and English like that!

Look, some people made a film. They called it "BASEketball". Period. Over. Done. Go write an article or something and stop wasting everyone's time with this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not about spelling. This is about capitalisation, and WP:MOS is quite clear about how we should render it. You say “some people made a film and called it BASEketball”. Well they didn’t actually, did they. As I keep saying, the title is rendered BASEKETBALL. All capitals. Some letters are bigger than others, yes, but it is not some capitals, some lowercase. Other people may have incorrectly adopted some random capitalisation, but that doesn’t mean we should – as clearly stated in WP:MOSTM. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is about trying to apply the rules of English orthography to a title, which is a different animanl altogether from plain old text. And, yes, they did call it BASEketball, because in the limited typography we have available to us to use on article names, that's how you render BASEKETBALL. Please stop being so incredibly and annoyingly pedantic and go do some helpful editing. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for trying to bring a level of consistency and sophistication to the encyclopedia. I do not view it as annoying or pedantic, but a rather important topic to discuss. Do we follow the stylistic whim of every trademark, company name, film title like an obsessive fan, or do we ignore such unimportant stylistic preferences are render the encyclopedia in correct English? I think it is quite clear from the guidelines I have cited which it should be (and no, it is not the one that involves random capital letters). As for you comment that due to the limited typography we have, we have to use capitals to indicate where some letters are bigger than others... what an absolute load of nonsense. Do you really want to start a precedent where we render all words that are styled in a larger font in capitals, and lowercase for smaller fonts? What would we do when there are three font sizes? Surely the universe would collapse in such an event?! I also find it incredibly rude that you would move the page despite the fact that there is clear opposition to such a move. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to stir it up but the page was moved four years ago, and stayed like that for four years, there was no consensus to move it, so the move back is just a revert. If you want it moved you need to gain consensus for the move. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I thought this discussion had been concluded - finally. But I'll state a position one final time. The lone objecting voice here keeps citing WP:MOSTM, even though it clearly states at the top of the page Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. It further states that some exceptions (like eBay and iPod) can depart from standard written English because of consensus. In BASEketball, common sense and consensus have been exercised. The term is used because: 1) of use in numerous reliable sources, e.g. LA Times, Chicago Sun Times, Washington Post. Entertainment Weekly, Variety and even Califonia Supreme Court documents (page 10)] by the WGA.; 2) It has been used in WP for the four years by the consensus of dozens of editors working on the article; and 3) The consensus of editors in this discussion. Clearly, consensus has been reached. This is not the death knell of the English language. Please use some common sense and move on. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Standardising the Cast List in Films

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

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

My impression is that different editors use different connectors. From what I can tell, there are different ways to apply the different connectors. For example, I think "..." usually applies to "Actor ... Role" and nothing further. Using "as" leads to a fragment description of the character, "Will Smith as John Doe, a homeless person." Using "plays" and "stars" are usually tied to attempts to write fuller prose, especially to avoid bullets: "Heath Ledger stars as the Joker, a psychopathic criminal who... blah blah blah." I don't know if it is possible to fully standardize something like this since editors have different preferences, though I've always thought that MOS:FILM#Cast and crew information could use clarification in this regard. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely it woud be better though if we at least cut it down to one or two different styles, one where there is the character and the actor solely, and the other where it talks about the character maybe? I intend to go through all the films I know to try and change this, and trust me, I will when I know what to put it as. Ste900R (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not mind minimizing the number of styles, but the variation does not bother me too much. As long as you can be accurate about the actors and their roles and try to be informative about them whenever possible, I don't think that the different formats are a huge deal. The only thing I would actively advocate is to deprecate wikitables in Cast sections unless the situation warrants them, such as different voice actors across multiple versions. Wikitable coding is not much fun and does not provide flexibility on expanding with details. I think that this sentiment has been echoed a few times in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has. Tables look out of place in the middle of an article. Casino Royale (2006 film) has always been a good model for cast sections, (although I would say that)!!Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on deprecating those tables! Ugh... For cast lists where all there is is "Actor ... Role", I tend to also just incorporate the actors into the plot and drop the whole section. If more can't be said about the cast from reliable sources, it just makes it neater, to me. And helps auto limit the cast to just the people of actual relevance to the plot, rather than some of the monster IMDB copy/paste jobs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that the cast lists should stay because when you are trying to find out who played the role in a film in a hurry, it is no fun having to read through the whole plot to find it out. Can we please though come to some sort of conclusion though as to which style to put the films in that only have the actor and the character listed? Whether it be "...", "-", "as", "table", or other. Sorry to go on about this, but I've been searching for about 5 hours for a answer now. Ste900R (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the method of combining minimal Cast sections into Plot sections is a little tricky. On one hand, I understand that the information can be redundant especially with no real-world context, but on the other hand, identifying cast members involves reading through plot detail, which may be problematic in two ways: 1) time-wasting, and 2) possibility of being spoiled. Sometimes I've merged the content, but it's usually when there's not a lot of important cast members, like at Fight Club (film). I do work mostly on upcoming films, though, so I have not had much trouble with finding real-world context. An in-between might be to write prose paragraphs without disclosing much plot detail. For example, "Members of the Anderson family include: John Doe as Bill, Jane Doe as Sally, etc." Just some thoughts on that. We might be moving a little bit away from the original discussion, though. (after edit conflict) I see that my suspicions are confirmed! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the variation in styles in cast lists, although tables are my least favorite format. Most times, I find that tables waste a lot of space, but there are circumstances in which they help to visually organize the material in to coherent groupings, or keep additional information better organized and more easily connected to actor & character names. (I'll see if I can find a good example later.) I would say that tables should be avoided except when the specific circumstances call for one.

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

Actor's name as Character name

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

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

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

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

Thanks Ste900R (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Going with what it says in the guidlines, how about having the standard as "Actor as Role: Description of character...". Or if no description is available, having just "Actor as Role" ? For example my efforts on this film? Ste900R (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you need to use bold formatting for your example. You may want to review MOS:BOLD. The instances in which I've seen bold formatting used are usually cast lists where there is multi-line content containing real-world context about the actor or role. See an example here. I don't know if this approach with bold formatting is completely in compliance with MOS, so just giving fair warning. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, going back to somebody else's suggestions, what about it being "Actor as Role: Description of character...". Or if no description is available, having just "Actor as Role" (I'm not sure about the italics), but otherwise it is hard to distinquish where the Role is? Examples of these three different styles are 'bold', 'italics' or 'no italics'. Ste900R (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My 2¢: I personally find that "Actor as Role" sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish names, particuarly when dealing with unfamiliar Asian names and/or names that are not wikilinked. For than reason I tend to use "..." or "—", though I've occasionally had this changed by some users, presumably because the MOS reccommends "as". I'm not sure it's something that needs to rigorously enforced, though. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I essentially agree with PC78. Although I have my preferences, I don't think that strict uniformity buys us all that much in this instance, as long as the information is presented in a way that's understandable and doesn't confuse the reader. If the existing formatting in an article works, leave it alone, if it doesn't, fix it into a format that does. That's the bottom line for me. It's much more important, IMHO, to expend energy on making sure the information is the article is accurate and well-presented, then it is to make sure that the presentation is strictly uniform across all articles. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Adding "Marketing" to MOS:FILM

Hello, I am proposing adding a "Marketing" component to MOS:FILM. Please see discussion here. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have weighed in about the potential component. Further feedback would be greatly appreciated! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

Okay, so I know it has been established that IMDb is unreliable, however, is this the same for their award sections? On Veronica Mars, there are several awards which are very hard to find, and IMDb is used to source them. The page is getting prepped for FAC, so I was wondering if the site would be accepted as a reliable source for awards. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(And I realize this is better suited to WikiProject:Television, however I think the response here would be better.) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. What are the awards? There are most likely other sources out there. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So IMDb is not reliable for awards? Teen Choice Awards, Saturn awards and the television critics association award are being reffed by the site. Would these be okay? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not reference the awards directly? If they have their own websites, you could use them and not worry about IMDb being an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most awards organisations notable enough to warrant a mention in the article are likely to have their own awards archive. I brought up the reliability of the cites to IMDb during Veronica Mars' FAC simply due to finding errors in the site's listing of another television show's awards. I'm almost positive what's listed at IMDb is correct for Veronica Mars, but if we're to be consistent on the site's reliability, it shouldn't be used. Steve ^{T • C} 00:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. We've run into trouble for some awards, though we should be able to find better refs eventually. I'll come back if I have more difficulty. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, IMDB might be a useful starting point for possible awards, however, individual reliable sources should be found for them rather than just taking IMDB at its word. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It's just that I cannot find direct references for the awards, and all the other sites that cover them are blogs. Teen Choice Awards are the hardest to find, but I will try to find alternate refs. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)Would someone please point me to the reliable source that supports the statement that "it has been established that IMDB is not a reliable source"? Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb has been determined through long-term consensus that it is not a reliable source, in the community and out of the community. Articles don't become Featured if they use IMDb as anything more than an external link. There is nothing written to say that a reliable source has to back another reliable source. IMDb has user-submitted information like Wikipedia, only with gated authorities. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Can you please point me to where that consensus was determined? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question, what is the norm for awards? Do we write them under the year they were presented, or under the year they were for, e.g. the Saturn Awards for 2004 were present in 2005. Thus, under which year should I write them? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed as I myself understand that IMDB is considered a tertiary source, that can be used if it otherwise supported, per discussions at [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10][11]. With IMDB as a tertiary source (WP:RS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.").I do not depend on IMDb, but it does have its uses, if supported. I do not use it if it cannot be otherwise supported. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What you say, Schmidt, is not so far from the current consensus. We don't accept it as a reliable source, but we are supportive of editors using it as a jumping-off-point for research. Essentially, however, if you don't ever use it unless it's supported, then you're basically requiring a non-IMDb source and not judging the site to be reliable enough, which is our current position. No one is saying that the IMDb is totally wrong, but it does have its fair share of errors and misinformation, and in addition, much like Wikipedia itself, its editorial content controls do not meet our reliability standards. But using the IMDb to get ideas as to what to start looking for, or where else to find information are both excellent uses of the site in service of Wikipedia research - I just wouldn't call it a reliable tertiary source. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. It's a tool. And depends on what one is trying to source. For instance, I occasionally use it when building a film's infobox... as for instance, multiple international release dates for older films. As for sourcing... I would far prefer to have 10 sources that say similar things, than only one. I have seen argumants about sources slice both ways at once. While reviewing an article, an editor might decide "we don't need so many sources saying the sa things" to justify removing them... and then when that article winds up at AfD other editors might opine "only has one source - isn't notable". Its a tough Catch 22. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination for Category:Films with animal cruelty

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

List of Tartan Films releases

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

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

Vera Drake

Am I correct in thinking this reads more like a film student's thesis than an encyclopedia article? Nothing in the Background, Production, and Themes sections is referenced and much of it sounds like POV rather than factual information. I'm willing to work on it if others agree with me. Thank you for your input. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The background and production looks fine, albeit somewhat unreferenced, which is the only major issue there - the information, however, is correct and has no other issues that I'm aware of. (At least in the current diff I'm looking at.) Themes is the only area that has POV/OR concerns, as far as I can tell. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say the information is correct, but how do you know that if there aren't any referenced sources for the statements? Are "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section supposed to be references? How do you interpret them? What does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Someone named Jim Leach is quoted, but the wikilink leads to a politician, not a film critic or historian. And the quote is followed by "(61)" - again, what is that supposed to mean?

Your response left me uncertain as to whether or not I should spend time cleaning up the article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. As it stands, the article isn't in terrible shape, but every article could do with some improvement. There's definitely scope for expansion, and the uncited sections could do with having goods cites found for them. But it's not the worst article I've seen. If you're interested in the subject, and have a desire to improve it, then I'd say go right ahead. But leaving it as is won't bring Wikipedia to its knees, or leave readers with a dangerously false impression of the film. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me if "(Fuller 1995: xi, xxi: 51)" in the Background section and "(1994: 7: Watson 29)" in the Production section are supposed to be references and, if so, how do you interpret them? Also, what does "(2 of 4)" following the Ebert quote mean? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that whoever originally added those sections, dropped them in verbatim from their source - including the reference notations from the original source. I think that they were probably getting everything from this book: The Cinema of Mike Leigh: A Sense of the Real, by Garry Watson, Wallflower Press, 2004. (It's mentioned in the background paragraph, although it was incorrectly attributed as Leigh's book). The Fuller citation was probably from an interview of Mike Leigh by Graham Fuller, which would now be available in this new book: Mike Leigh On Mike Leigh by Graham Fuller, Faber, 2008. I went ahead and changed those cites on the Watson book and the Ebert quote, since I could find them. If you had access to those books, or other materials, and could clean up the language with references, it would definitely help the article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Milk (film)

Hello, there is an odd situation at Talk:Milk (film). A discussion about the "meaning" of the film title keeps getting restored, and I don't think that it is a discussion of good faith, considering that the film is named after the protagonist. Can a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

70.48.170.129 (talk · contribs) started with this, which struck me as a potentially bigoted comment, considering the protagonist is Harvey Milk. The comment was removed by another editor, and it was restored by 76.116.243.246 (talk · contribs), who seemed to humor the person unnecessarily. To assume good faith, I poked around to see if this title was really contentious beyond the fact that it is based on the protagonist, but there was nothing. Maybe there was an actual topic like the possibility of a double entendre, but this was not my impression with the way it started out. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I'll keep an eye on the article and user. The edit summaries and talk page comments are way overboard and easily blockable offenses. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Documentary or propaganda: original research?

Can someone else please have a look at this article? The sole cited source (indeed, the only source I could find from a Google search) describes the film only as a documentary, not propaganda - not surprisingly, of course, as the source is a North Korean news agency. While the film may well constitute propaganda to a Western audience, I'm a little concerned that labelling it as such is original research.

Also, the source mentions no year for the film; does it seem obvious that this is a "2008 film" from the context of the article? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the general notability of this topic. I did not find any results in either Access World News or LexisNexis Academic. To answer your question, though, I think propaganda films need to be historically established. It's a genre that has been studied, and think with zero details about this film, it shouldn't be labeled as such. If it were kept, it should probably not specify a genre, (e.g., "a film"). —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "propaganda" and the category from the article. I also share your notabilty concerns, but would be reluctant to lose an article from an area where our coverage is relatively weak (i.e. North Korean cinema). PC78 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"This article is in the scope of the Canadian cinema task force"

I'm a bit confused. There are lots of articles in Category:Canadian cinema task force articles, but with a lot of them I just can't see the relation to Canadian cinema. What do Evolution (film), I, Robot (film) or Jersey Girl (2004 film) have to do with Canadian cinema, for example? --Conti|✉ 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

With Evolution the director, Ivan Reitman, is Canadian (Canadian-American, according to the article), so I guess that's why it's been tagged. Without checking the others, I guess they have a similar connection. Lugnuts (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the task force's scope, it includes films made by Canadian filmmakers (even abroad), films produced by Canadian companies, and films shot in Canada. So Evolution is made by a Canadian (Ivan Reitman); I Robot and Jersey Girl shot there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, shouldn't Hulk (film) be part of the Chinese task force? Can't say I'm a big fan of this myself. I would much prefer to see the task forces restricted to films produced within a particular country, and get rid of any tenuous links like those mentioned above. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard I usually use is where did he become a filmmaker? Ang Lee trained and started in the US, so I'd call him an American filmmaker. The point isn't to draw a line in the sand; it's to create a scope where different editors in the task force with different interests and expertises can organize topics related to the national cinema. For example, a big American studio picture that spends a week on location in Italy might not seem like a reasonable tag for the Italian task force, but we may have Italians in that task force who have access to local sources that discuss the production, etc. In the case of filmmakers, is a Luc Besson film suddenly not a part of the French cinema because he shot it in a different country, or had it financed through an American studio? These are all factors that can be used to assess the "true" nationality of a film - but I don't find any of them overwhelmingly compelling exclusively, and I don't feel that it's our obligation to do so. By allowing overlap, this leaves it up to the editors of the task force to decide how they want to support the article (if at all). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree here. :) Drawing boundaries—lines in the sand, if you will—can be a good thing, otherwise the whole process, as indeed you describe it above, can become hopelessly subjective. Still, it's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That explains why the films are in that category, but that still doesn't explain what, exactly, the Canadian task force can do to improve these articles. Or what "This article is in the scope of the Canadian cinema task force" actually means. My first interpretation was that it means "The Canadian cinema task force will take care of this article", but that seems not to be the case. "This article has something to do with Canadian cinema" seems to be more accurate. Just including the films at List of Canadian films seems like a more reasonable approach to me.

Additionally, Evolution (film) mentions filming locations in Arizona and Fullerton, but none in Canada. Does that mean that even if only a small part of a film is filmed in Canada, the category will be added? That seems very, very vague. --Conti|✉ 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As per above, Evolution has a Canadian director, not Canadian locations. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Still, my other points/questions remain. --Conti|✉ 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're only looking at it from one perspective. From a filmmaker-perspective, Jean Renoir shot in France, America, Italy, and India, but his films are all a part of French cinema, regardless of where they were shot or who financed it. From the locations-perspective, films that shoot in a country will use crew from those areas and are considered a part of the film culture - see for example the original Star Wars trilogy. From the producing perspective, those who control the film obviously also can lay claim to it, as some view the Harry Potter series to be American since it is financed by an US studio. In some cases, such as Potter 3, you have an American financier, British locations and crew, and a Mexican director, and it's difficult to make an evenhanded case as to how you choose or exclude - and most people don't even feel consistently about how to apply this uniformly across all films. My perspective is that none of these is wrong, and different editors, focused on different parts of the national cinema and with differing resources that can be brought to any of these aspects, should each be allowed to contribute to the task force, and none of these types in particular has any special privilege above the other to lay claim to the scope. Does this sometimes lead to head-scratching and confusion amongst editors not versed in the task force scopes? Sure. But I believe it is far better for the project than the exclusionary paths of the alternative. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

The Film project's topic workshop is now running. Its purpose is to facilitate the production of good and featured topics, and everyone is free to propose topics to work on and sign up to work on existing topics. Even if you feel that your potential topic is very difficult, or don't feel that the topic is viable, feel free to propose it. The whole purpose of the workshop is to give proper visibility to potential topics. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Future film template

A request was raised at {{Future film}} about a parameter for differentiating between article and section. Just wanted to bring up the request here to attract more eyes and maybe some useful ideas. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

An unusual circumstance has arisen whereby The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, a film abandoned by Terry Gilliam in 2000 and which satisfied general notability (largely due to the catalogue of mishaps that dogged its short production, and the documentary Lost in La Mancha), is now supposedly going to start up again. If this is the case, we will have two independently notable productions here; one completed, one not. An editor has substantially rewritten the above article to concentrate on the new production (whereas it used to look like this). I'm not sure I agree with that. As these are two separate productions ("The film will be reshot completely"), my own feeling is that we should have two separate articles, but I wanted to get some more input before touching it either way. Steve ^{T • C} 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno Steve, I compared the current revision to the diff you linked and didn't notice any "substantial rewrite" - the bulk of the text looks pretty much the same to my (tired) eyes. Not sure if a split is the way to go as the two things aren't entirely seperate, but either way I think it's a bit soon to be worrying about it. I'd keep an eye on it for now and see what happens. You never know, it might get jinxed again! :) PC78 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yes, I noticed after posting this that the rewrite is more the lead than anything else (equally tired eyes!) But it does signal an intention to tailor the article to the new production, with the old one as part of its development. While it could be argued that this should be split as soon as possible, to satisfy eventual history concerns, keeping an eye on it for now is probably all that's required. Though the point stands that if the film goes ahead these should be separate articles. Steve ^{T • C} 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the old shoot can't be mentioned within the production history section - after all, this is not completely unheard of - witness Apocalypse Now, Eyes Wide Shut, or Lawrence of Arabia - and those are only the first three instances that popped into my head just now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on the Action films category

I've noticed that a lot of categories, especially Category:Action films, are being removed from articles if categories such as Category: Adventure films amd Category: Western films are present. Although I can see the reasoning, those do not seem to be children of the Action films category. In one case, Spy Smasher (serial), both Action and Adventure categories were removed in favour of Category:Thriller films (Adventure wasn't appropriate for this film but then Thriller isn't either). I haven't found any guidance elsewhere, so can someone suggest when and where the Action category, and related categories, are appropriate? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, problem solved. Action films only began in the 70s. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Trailer links to youtube

Are links to official trailers on youtube allowed? Mjpresson (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, no. While they are official, they also add nothing to the article. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Proposed "Marketing" component for a relatively related discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda thought that, I've been seeing a few lately. Mjpresson (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with trailers being on YouTube is that it could be copyright infringement. An exception may be that the studio has an "official" page on YouTube through which it has a trailer and other featurettes. But for the most part, it is usually people who convert trailers from other formats to the one used by YouTube (so one does not have to download QT or anything). It's still copyright infringement despite the convenience, and Wikipedia does not take part in it. The links should be removed where they exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that even if wikipedia has external links to other sites which provide a muc needed video clip we are somehow responsible for copyright elsewhere too? Thats the most copyright paranoic comment I've ever heard. Its absurd. Its like claiming that for a biographical article where there is only an external link to a general biography of that individual on a different site that there are copyright problems. YouTube clip or trailer links are frequently of major benefit to understanding films, particularly when you haven't seen the films, particularly as they are not permitted on our site. How can it possibly affect the wikipedia site? Isn't this policing going a bit far to the point that it is affecting the actual enjoyment and understanding of the subject by taking away virtually all the forms of related media we have? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works explains it best... it's not my personal policing, it's the way Wikipedia is run. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I figured Erik you didn't make it up, it wasn't specifically directed at you, rather the principle that we can somehow be held prosecutable for content on other websites. In reality I think its more about reputation that we don't want to be associated with copyright violations and non-free content rather than any legitimate claim to be actually violating law on the wiki site. I find this rather extreme, to say the least, and somewhat subjective and in regards to films video clips and images of a film is essential content and media. So under this copyright criteria, do you think it appropriate to remove any external links that may perahps have images of an actor or film which are copyrighted and not owned by the film company. Sorry I'm finding this rather odd. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) It may not be "prosecutable", but we certainly don't want to deliberately link to copyright violating links, and therefore appear to be endorsing copyright violations. Its another reason for not linking to fansites as well. For your second question, there is a difference between a fair use image used validly by a news source versus someone uploading stolen videos and there is a difference between such a valid use versus a photobucket account with a glut of stolen copyright images.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am also aware of this. Where possible we should link to the best websites or "official" sources as much as possible rather than shady blogs or photobuckets. It will inevitably though be difficult to impose a mandatory ban on links to youtube for film articles, whoever uploaded them. Where possible I think "official" film trailers issued by the companies on their webistes is appropriate but this is not always possible, particularly for old films which are not quite public domain. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Blofeld, and the caveat that if a film has an official Myspace or Photobucket or Youtube page etc, where they do officially share their video clips, then that link does not violate copyright and would be acceptable. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I cannot see such sites being used for pirated clips, but official clips as authorized by the filmmaker, it should prove suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the more relevant question: why do we need to link to trailers? Surely an official site link is enough, unless the trailer itself is part of a critical commentary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about if there isn't an official site available and for articles where the trailers on youtube provide an essential part of the puzzle so to speak if it is discussed in the article or improves understanding of it further.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I see it too. If a filmmaker has an official Myspace or Photobucket or Youtube page etc, where they do officially share their video clips, clips which may not be hosted on an "official" company site then that video link does not violate copyright and would be acceptable. There can exist situations where one official clip is worth a thousand words, leading to better understanding of an article... and oftentimes filmmakers take advantage of the utility of such hosting sites to have them as an official page for clips. A blanket ban of proper links does not improve Wiki, and improper links are already covered under copy-vio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not a promotional site - I don't see how that changes things. It's not our job to link to the trailer just because it exists. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand that, and agree. A trailer need not be linked "simply because it exists". But if the trailer is required to source something that cannot otherwise be verified, then it serves Wiki. If it is not so required, then its use is not neccessary. I myself am currently having dificulty in sourcing the participation of certain actors in a film, and just discovered the trailer/preview on the film's official site that distinctly shows several of these actors performing for the film... actor's whose names have only recently become attached to the film and whose names have not yet made into the various film sources I have been researching. I am not trying to promote the film... but wish to include as accurate and up-to-date informations as possible per WP:V... in this case to use the trailer, at least temporarily, as verification of facts not yet acvailable elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow,thanks!Mjpresson (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you cannot source information to a trailer, not even one on YouTube or an official website. Trailers are infamously misleading. Just because you see an actor in a trailer does not mean that they will be in the film. The funny thing about trailers is that they are cut before the film is edited. Anyone can be edited out, and if you didn't know they were in a film before the trailer, then they might not be there after the trailer. Saying "Actor X can be seen in the trailer" doesn't provide any information to the reader, especially if Actor X doens't make the final cut. Secondly, and this is especially true for YouTube, videos CAN by altered, just the way still images can. I don't know how many different fan posters I see that look authentic, or even altered trailers by fans (though, what I was watching was clearly identified as being altered). It isn't that hard to do if you know what you are doing, and that is why we don't source to any video, unless it can clearly be identified as an official video (and even then, we don't put our own interpretations and perceptions in, but include what the video actually says - e.g. We don't list an actor in a cast list because we saw their pretty face in a video, we list them when we have publication that actually confirms they will be in the film.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Joe Hacker can alter a video and post it on youtube and elsewhere. But I was specifically not speaking toward such hoaxes. I was addressing the copyright issues of videos placed online by filmmakers themselves... just as you wrote above, "identified as an official video"... as official representations of informations by the copyright holder. I do not advocate that an online video be considered in any other manner. Further, the content of an official video can indeed convey information to a viewer. Using your example, If I were to assert in that actor X was considered for the role and then cut fom the film, a trailer showing his efforts would confirm that assertion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting in Infobox Film

There was some discussion here regarding the "country" parameter in {{Infobox Film}}, specifically about the removal of generic links (such as United States) per WP:OVERLINK and the use of templates such as {{FilmUS}}. It was suggested that piped links to a country's "Cinema of..." article (i.e. [[Cinema of the United States|United States]]) might provide a better alternative, and Giro put forward the idea of having the infobox do this automatically, much like it currently does with the "langauge" parameter.

To that end I have written the necessary code to handle this, and have a working test version of the infobox in my userspace. Any raw country names entered into the infobox will automatically be rendered as a piped link, i.e. entering country = usa (or similar) will display as United States. I've set up the template to recognize most country names, certainly all those for which we have at least some film-related content; anything not recognized by the template will be ignored and displayed as is, meaning that existing articles won't be broken.

There are a few finer details to consider, namely:

• How to handle those countries that don't have a "Cinema of... article". At the moment I have the template redlinking these, but that might not be the best way to do it.
• Whether to use this feature to categorize articles as well, e.g. add American films to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American films; this would be easy to code, but category structures might be tricky for some countries.

But primarily we need to establish whether or not people think this is something worth adding to the infobox. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point but again one of those proposals which are not really essential. Remember though that often the Cinema is linked in a template or at the beginning of the text in the article e.g The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a 1966 [Cinema of Italy|Italian] western film etc. Technically if you were to make the change it should be "Industry" rather than Country as it would look odd a Cinema of being labelled as a "country" even if it hiddne using pop ups. Whatever the case it should be made consistent, as with adding the Americanfilm template to the articles we agreed on for consistency.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with double-linking in this context - the prevailing convention seems to be a link in the infobox and a link in the text, for most articles. Delinking the infobox is a problem if the body doesn't have a link, while delinking the intro text could create accessibility issues for certain cases.

As for the country links where they don't exist, I believe that every country has at least section of a larger list article, if not more. (See Template:Filmsbycountry) It would be fairly trivial to redirect the redlinks to those for the meantime. (And probably long overdue anyway.)

Finally, the country categorization should be fairly straightforward, because we would also include obsolete countries (e.g. Czechoslovakia, USSR). Since it operates off of a #switch parser, it's trivial to add new instances where we have omissions (as well as a tracking category for anything which falls into the switch default, in order to look for these omissions, as well as typing errors).

D'accord? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A couple of categorization issues I forsee (off the top of my head) are with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German films, where besides East and West Germany you also have seperate categories for the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, and also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Soviet-era Estonian films. The problem is not so much with obsolete countries, but with specific eras and regions within a country. With regards to redlinks and redirects, I have the following in the template:

"Cinema of..." redlinks and redirects

• Cinema of Algeria
• Cinema of Angola
• Cinema of the Bahamas
• Cinema of Belarus
• Cinema of Benin
• Cinema of Bhutan
• Cinema of Bolivia
• Cinema of Botswana
• Cinema of Cameroon
• Cinema of Chad
• Cinema of Chile
• Cinema of the Republic of the Congo
• Cinema of Costa Rica
• Cinema of Côte d'Ivoire
• Cinema of the Dominican Republic

• Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Cinema of Ecuador
• Cinema of Gabon
• Cinema of Ghana
• Cinema of Greenland
• Cinema of Guatemala
• Cinema of Guinea
• Cinema of Haiti
• Cinema of Jamaica
• Cinema of Jordan
• Cinema of Kazakhstan
• Cinema of Kyrgyzstan
• Cinema of Laos
• Cinema of Libya
• Cinema of Madagascar

• Cinema of Mali
• Cinema of Malta
• Cinema of Mauritania
• Cinema of Mauritius
• Cinema of Nicaragua
• Cinema of Panama
• Cinema of Sierra Leone
• Cinema of Swaziland
• Cinema of Syria
• Cinema of Tanzania
• Cinema of Trinidad and Tobago
• Cinema of Tunisia
• Cinema of Uzbekistan
• Cinema of Venezuela
• Cinema of Zimbabwe

• Cinema of Bahrain (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of Bosnia-Herzegovina (redirect to Cinema of the Czech Republic)
• Cinema of Czechoslovakia (redirect to Cinema of the Czech Republic)
• Cinema of East Germany (redirect to section in Cinema of Germany)
• Cinema of Kuwait (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of North Korea (redirect to section in Cinema of Korea)
• Cinema of Oman (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)
• Cinema of Slovenia (redirect to List of Slovenian films)
• Cinema of South Korea (redirect to section in Cinema of Korea)
• Cinema of West Germany (redirect to section in Cinema of Germany)
• Cinema of Yemen (redirect to section in West Asian cinema)

PC78 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves correctly from my German task force tagging, many (if not most) of the pre-'45 films are actually listed as "Nazi Germany", Weimar Germany", or "Imperial Germany", time period depending. So these designations could be built into the sub-template, and it would also be minimal work to do cleanup on those which don't list themselves that way. That all being said, there's no reason why they can't also be categorized within German film - the designation is not exclusive to the current constitution of Germany, and at a certain point, it starts to split hairs on political grounds which may not be germane. (e.g. Should we split French films by Third Republic, Vichy France, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic?) While Nazi Germany certainly affected the films, did politics directly differentiate Weimar cinema from West German cinema in any meaningful aesthetic way?

Some of the Estonian films list both USSR and Estonian SSR, which seems a fair compromise - there's no reason why we can't sub-categorize all Soviet-era films by SSR, while also retaining their listing the Soviet films category. How does that sound? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds OK and should be easy to do. I guess my main concern was that something like "Estonian SSR" would be far less intuitive than either "Estonia" or "Soviet Union". I share some of your concerns over making divisions on political grounds; I'm not sure that you could draw a straight line between Weimar German and West German cinema any more than you could the cinema of Imperial and present day Russia, but the distinction between "Early German" and Weimar German seems far less tangible.

What about other areas of subcategorization? Waltz with Bashir, for example, is in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German animated films but not ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German films. PC78 (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Waltz in Bashir needs to be in both categories. While one is a subcat of the other, base categories for country, language, and year need to exist for all films, regardless of other subcategorization. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll sift through the counry categories again and see what needs to be included. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back and done some more work on this, implementing some of the things discussed above. I've added the appropriate categories for each country, as well as a tracking category for those articles which don't use this feature. Other changes are:

• German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany have been added as seperate countries, i.e. adding Nazi Germany to the infobox will display Nazi Germany and add the article to Category:Films of the Third Reich.
• Quebec, Scotland and Wales have been added as subdivisions of their parent countries, i.e. adding Quebec to the infobox will display Canada (Quebec) and add the article to both Category:Canadian films and Category:Quebecois films.
• Adding Estionian SSR to the infobox will display Soviet Union (Estonian SSR) and add the article to Category:Soviet-era Estonian films, Category:Estonian films and Category:Soviet films.
• Hong Kong and Palestine are treated as seperate countries.
• I've not added any of the Indian film industries, as this appears to have more to do with language than nationality.
• Not sure if Category:Tibetan films should be included here; see the CfD discussion further down this page. Ditto for Category:Kurdish films.
• I've also added a number of parameters to the infobox ("country2", "country3", etc.) to allow for the handling of multiple countries.

Does all of that sound OK, or is there anything that needs tweaking or changing? PC78 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Our Gang films cleanup drastically needed

A myriad of articles on individual Our Gang (Little Rascals) shorts are currently a mess of POV, copyvios, and bad formatting. I am requesting assistance from other editors because we're talking about well over a hundred bad articles. Anyone wanting to help can go to Our Gang filmography - every article on an Our Gang short made from 1929 to 1944 needs to be reviewed and likely cleaned up or rewritten. I've already reviewed and revised Small Talk, Railroadin', Came the Brawn, and Unexpected Riches, and am currently working on the articles for other Our Gangs made in 1929. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with these. I created a lot of inital stub articles a month or two back, with basic cast/crew info. Since then, several annoymous IPs have "helped" to expand the articles. I've not had chance to check the quality of their work. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles opinion needed

Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. WP:Films has been known as a a relatively big project that has produced a tremendous amount of quality input, and explicitly rejected the introduction of C-class. Could the coordinators from this project (as well as other members, particularly those who are involved in assessment) please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Need some other eyes here please

A user has been stonewalling progress in removing unsourced fancruft from Dr. Strangelove. Here is my preferred version, here is the version it has been reverted to. It would be great to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of references in popular culture. First, it should be recognized that such references are not necessarily original research. It may depend on how explicit or implicit the reference is; a reused quote is explicit, where seven protagonists being like Seven Samurai is implicit. Secondly, a gathering of such references is easily viewed as indiscriminate because a reference could be very much in passing and very likely to be unimportant. An example from the article is, "In the videogame Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Norman Soth says the line Mein Fuhrer, I can walk as he speaks on a phone call." Some items, like those from The Simpsons, could be more substantiated; I think a lot of high-quality Simpsons articles deal with popular culture fairly well. I think that such sections are easily identified as trivia, and per the MOS, items should be moved elsewhere or removed entirely. Each item could be reviewed... I think the best criteria is that if it is a passing quote (such as the Californication example), it should be removed. If it has some thematic impact (such as with The Simpsons or Futurama), it should be further explored and relocated or rewritten as prose. With that, please do get a kick out of this xkcd comic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the fallout at the Wood article due to this. Most especially "XKCD comic #446 references the 'In Popular Culture' section of the Wikipedia article for wood." However, to stay on topic, I agree with Erik's view that it should almost always depend upon the notability of the reference itself. A passing comment, a reused line, is almost never relevant. A theme or line, or maybe a specific shot that's been copied and reused by lots of other notable productions probably would be worth a mention. In addition, yes, this should always be fully cited. The argument that the primary sources provide the necessary information is a false one, as it's an editor's interpretation that there is a link between the works. Steve ^{T • C} 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid using the word "notability" and its variations in this context because the notability guideline is meant for the suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. I prefer importance or relevance in discussing the merits of such a reference. Also, I don't think it is original research to identify a link between the works if the link is clear. For example, the Disney characters used in the video game Kingdom Hearts are easily identifiable; same for films mentioned in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Same goes for add-on merchandise for films such as novels and comics. I think that it would be nice to have a secondary source back a reference, but I don't think this is mandatory, and even if one is used, it does not guarantee inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As usual, John has exercised his unique ability to put the most pejorative spin on something he disagrees with, a capacity especially in evidence wherever I am involved, so let me unspin things a little. I am not "stonewalling", I have requested specific discussion about the specific deletions that John wishes to do, whereas John seems to feel that a general agreement that the list should be trimmed is tantamount to a blank check for him to remove whateever he wants without discussion. That, of course, is not the case. So before we get too deep into this generalized discussion, perhaps John might like to head on back to the article talk page, and actually discuss the deletions with me and anyone else interested. It's quite possible that we might have a meeting of the minds on specific items, even if we don't actually agree on principles.

In other words, this conversation is premature at the moment. It might be applicable if no consensus can be reached about specific items, or if I actually "stonewall" a deletion or John "stonewalls" a item continuing on the list, but we ain't there yet.

John, the ball is in your court, and if you can manage to have the discussion in a civil way, without warping what's been said so that it favors your position, as you are prone to do, I would appreciate it. That means that something isn't "fancruft" until it is agreed by the participants that it's fancruft, and an editor isn't "stonewalling" until they actually refuse to discuss things.

Over to you. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Ed: Comment on the content, not the contributor. This entire response reads like a personal attack, and it is unacceptably pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of them have history, so both parties are "guilty" in a manner of speaking in how they are touching on each other's conduct. Please don't single Ed out. The discussion on the film article's talk page seems to be going as well as it could. If you really feel that an editor's conduct is an issue, please review WP:NPA#Initial options: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters." You don't want to do that, do ya? ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is at FAC here, in case you didn't see it, and is somewhat stalled, so more attention would be nice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards as recurring items in WP:ITN

I have started a thread here to check if Filmfare Awards can be made recurring items on ITN as Grammy Awards & Academy Awards. Please pen down your thoughts. --GPPande talk! 10:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot and cast not needing referencing and imdb as a source

This is a something that has come up in recent converstation by an IP address and he does have some valid points. Here goes:

Why don't plot and cast need citations? If imdb isn't considered a reliable source why are there two links to it in articles. Isn't this hypocritical (that we have two links to it but are prohibited from using it as an official reference)? When I want to verify if someone was in a movie, I use IMDB, or Wikipedia. Or if I want to see what the movie was about, I use those two sources. Verification for cast and plot goes back to IMDB usually.

For example, theoretically one could have been the first one to make an entry about Biwi No.1, and then claim that Raj Kapoor was in this movie and then bitch and moan about anyone who tried to change the article to indicate otherwise because apparently the burden of proof is on the other person to show the creator of the entry that Raj Kapoor WAS NOT in this movie. And it's not easy to verify such information without resorting to IMDB. How do you propose we do something about this paradox? 64.154.26.251 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could elaborate further and explain this more fullyDr. Blofeld (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative, and the imdb is a start for sourcing cast and crew. There are other sources and any dispute can be resolved by removing information until there is a second source other than imdb. The burden of proof (in every situation in life not just WP) is on those who wish to add information, if you want to tell me someone is in a film then you need to prove they are, not me prove they weren't. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(following up...) External links are not necessarily ones that would actually be used for reliable sources in Wikipedia articles. For example, some well-known fan sites will be linked to but never actually used in an article. Since IMDb is user-submitted, the quality of the information cannot always be guaranteed. This can be the case for older films or future films, the latter which is a hodge-podge of submissions before there is an actual electronic copy of the credits as they are displayed in the film. (Which is why you'll sometimes see them ordered by prominence or by first appearance -- it's because of how the film shows the credits.) We treat IMDb as an external link because it is not completely useless; it is just not up to Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source as it has been rejected in FAC and GAC processes. For referencing the plot section and the cast sections, the film information is already outlined in the neighboring infobox. We could cite a film article by saying <ref>''Fight Club'' (20th Century Fox, 1999), directed by David Fincher, starring Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter.</ref> but that information is already pretty much there in the article. Films also have credits to identify the roles so cast sections can be written based on them. It would be a good idea to cross-reference names with IMDb and elsewhere, such as Film Index International. For the example about Biwi No. 1 and Raj Kapoor, is it not possible to find another source? I mean, if it is verifiable, it should have been reported elsewhere. Remember that film articles do not have to use online sources; if you can cite a reliable print publication, it would be sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I must correct you. IMDB is not' essentially "user-submitted". The basic database was compiled by researchers and is supplemented by user input, which is vetted. When I get the chance (I'm currently prepping for leaving town for a five-week gig, so I'm a bit preoccupied), I'll find a source that says that specifically. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008

(after EC) In general, a plot section need not be sourced to anything save the film itself because the film can be checked as a primary source to make sure a particular event happened. As long as editor interpretation is not involved, this shouldn't be a problem. For example, I could write "Bond takes Jaws' parachute and Jaws plummets to the ground" without fear of challenge. If I were to add "Jaws is shocked, disappointed, and not a little aroused by Bond's thievery" then that wouldn't be. If such an interpretation is necessary for a more complete understanding of the article, then this would have to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Similarly with cast lists, once a film has been released, this can in theory be checked by almost anyone by looking at the credits at the beginning/end of the film. As for the IMDb, while it's probably right 90% of the time, there have been enough discrepancies noted over time that we don't consider it reliable enough for citing. It's less good for forthcoming releases than it is for older films, as the information is user-submitted without the safety net of Wikipedia-style transparency. It's fine as an external link, if only because it has resources (forums, trailers, news, etc.) other than simple cast lists. Steve ^{T • C} 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's specious reasoning. When you say "in theory" plot elements can be verified, what does that mean? Here I am claiming that at the end of Jaws, we find out the shark is actually a dolphin. I've created the entry for "Jaws" and I put this in the page. And then when someone tries to correct me, I say, show me a reference that says it's not true. The argument from the other person like "Dude, come on, anyone who's seen the movie knows this" falls flat on its face because it's not verifiable directly. Now unless some of the higher level editors get involved and basically lock up the page, I'll keep claiming that I'm right about the dolphin theory. Instead, how about we accept that IMBD is a credible source. Even newspapers publish retractions and the Encyclopedia Britannica has been shown to be wrong on occasion (citation needed?). So why can't we accept IMDB, which has a group of people actually vetting the information, as a reliable source? 64.154.26.251 (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should be less concerned about plot and more concerned about good faith and attacks per this edit Darrenhusted (talk)

The plot of the film can be verified from the source, in this case, the film itself. It's just the same as verifying it from, say, a script book or something similar. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources, the film is a primary source like any other, and as long as it's available to be checked, then there's no problem with it. Trust me, I wish we could count on the IMDb; it's got so much information that might be useful when building articles. But it's been wrong often enough that I don't think we can count on it, most especially for films that haven't yet been released. Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

64.154.26.251, you have to accept that the imdb is not seen by WP as a reliable enough source. If you want to claim that Jaws was a dolphin feel free to do that, then watch as fifty editors fight to revert you and you end up blocked for 3RR. In addition to the fact that imdb isn't reliable there is also the fact that we work by consensus, and as it is a fact that Jaws is a shark the consensus on the page for Jaws will keep that fact in, whereas if you try to change it to something that is patently false then others will revert you and you will end up blocked for vandalism. WP is not a free for all, there are rules, this is not 'Nam. You can try to be cavalier with facts but you will be found out. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Relax, this one is not about IMDb :-) Actually, I came here for some help. I realize things relating to Veronica Mars should be posted under WikiProject Films, it's just that you guys are so nice and helpful. Anyways, I have begun working on a season page (here:User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2), but I cannot figure out which awards are for which season of the series. Are all awards for 2006 handed out in 2007? Or is that only for some awards? I am confused, so some help would be nice. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of short live-action films

This list is in dire need of a cleanup, if anyone here feels like tackling it. Despite the title, there seem to be an awful lot of cartoons in there. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of issues with the list, primarily about the criteria for inclusion, but I've removed most of the animated films already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Are Breakout (film) and Break Out (film) sufficiently ambiguous, or should they be disambiguated by year as well? PC78 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They're fine, but there should probably be a "This is the page...for this see that" at the top of the page, given that someone could easily mistaken one title for the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Online DVD reviews

Is there a list of online review sites that are generally accepted as credible for use in discussing the critical and popular reception of a film? Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we have such a list, though I've contemplated setting up a "Resources" page for WikiProject Films. Can you clarify what you're looking for, though? Are you referring to online reviews of direct-to-DVD movies or just online reviews of movies when their DVDs come out? My experience has been that most online DVD reviews are self-published (DVD Town is an example), but some websites like http://dvd.ign.com/ are more than just self-published. An idea may be to look up DVD magazines and find their websites to see if they provide any reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• In this specific instance I'm looking to expand the response section of Dracula's Daughter to show how the film's reputation has grown over the decades since its release. Most of the reviews are pertaining to the DVD release. For example, these reviews compiled at IMDB. I'd like to get the article to GA or even FA standards (and I've requested a peer review for it if anyone's interested in offering some feedback). I'll take a look at the OFCS membership. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest using members of Online Film Critics Society. It is limited to professionals and accredited members of the OFCS are accepted by Rotten Tomatoes as meeting their critics guidelines. Their current membership can be seen here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome any input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tibetan films

Since this appears to be a category for films about Tibet rather than films from Tibet, I have proposed renaming it to Category:Films about Tibet at CfD. Discussion is here should anyone wish to offer an opinion. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

There is a dispute going on over at Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I am asserting that because the Canadian poster is far more recognizable to both US and Canadian movie goers while the US poster is only recognizable to US movie goers, it should be changed to reflect this, while there is opposition to this, arguing that because it is a US film, it should be used. Discussion can be found here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This just recently opened, yet its gross revenue is listed in the infobox. Isn't it customary to wait for a film to complete its theatrical run before posting those numbers? I can't imagine someone changing this figure on a weekly basis while the film is in release. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking for high-traffic articles, it is indeed the case that editors update the field regularly. However, my own preference is to have an additional line in the article that says "As of November 7, Zack and Miri has made $x million" that should be updated concurrently with the infobox figure so readers will know whether it's out of date. Steve ^{T • C} 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV question

Is the article 2009 in film considered a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules would be greatly appriciated. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

no ideas? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The selection may be biased, but the existence of the topic does not constitute POV - there will be films in 2009 after all. If deficiencies exist, then they should be dealt with the same way as we do with common POV - not by eradicating the POV, but by placing it in context instead. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is more about systemic bias. The XXXX in film articles tend to be more Hollywood-oriented, unfortunately. Maybe you could revise the article on the Hebrew Wikipedia to encompass any Hebrew-language films that are scheduled to come out in 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't that the film lists are more Hollywood-oriented but rather that lists on the "XXXX in film" articles on the English Wikipedia don't have any inclusion criteria for those specific titles to be chosen. As far as I understand (unless someone would correct me) the fact that there is no criteria (such as the most grossing movies or the most award winning movies) but rather a random selection, is a violation of the NPOV rules. Is that correct? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They're much like the categories - the only real inclusion criteria is that the film was released in that year and was notable (whether or not an article exists). Exclusion is generally limited to non-notable films. That many of these articles are severely deficient in foreign and independent cinema is merely a systemic bias, not a calculated one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic

Do reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic really hold significance? Please see Old Joy.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we supposed to be looking at with Old Joy? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are nothing but aggregate websites. They just compile reviews from what is available. What is presented is not "Rotten Tomatoes' review", but a review listed on their website. Those reviews typically come from some of the more well known and respected critics, though there are plenty that don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are plenty that don't, why would we use this website as a source of references?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are plenty that don't what? You're not making your argument very clear. We use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they supply us with an overall look at the critical reaction to a film. Instead of us citing 10 sources and saying "this film was loved by critics" or "this film was hated by critics", we use the average rating calculated from RT and MC to report on what the overall approval was from all the critics they have collected (which is typically far greater than the number we could ever cover appropriately on Wikipedia). Also, we as editors tend to cherry pick the best reviews (whether they are the best negative ones or the best positive ones) and reporting on what the overall opinion of the movie was based on our "picks" would not be very neutral on our part. It's better to have an unbiased party calculate the approval rating based on how critics rate the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at MOS:FILM#Critical reception. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be used as part of the big picture. Like the MOS says, RT and MC are more appropriate for recent films since the websites have only been around so long. They may not show an accurate reception of older films. For example, Fight Club rates highly on RT now, but when it came out, reaction was polarized. I used other resources to reflect its eventual popularity as a cult film. For today's films, the websites are pretty accurate, in my opinion. You'll see Best Picture nominees rate pretty highly, and for what the media considers "box office bombs", there's low ratings on RT and MC. Both are used to attempt for balance. Of course, it is a good idea to use retrospective reporting by major publications after a film's release. For example, a newspaper reporting the impending release of a film on DVD can say, "It was widely panned by critics when it came out in theaters." —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Film Noir of the Week external link

Film Noir of the Week is written by film noir experts about film noir. The articles are written by published film noir writers. Some are college professors; and just about anyone that has done an audio commentary on noir DVDs have contributed to the website.

For example:

William Hare http://books.google.com/books?id=KAMpUVy8X94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+hare+film+noir http://books.google.com/books?id=ef1qRwXs4tUC&pg=PT1&dq=william+hare+film+noir

And has written articles on my web page for The Killers, Vertigo, and Hangover Square to name a few.

Eddie Muller http://books.google.com/books?id=iQwy1Ug_eQoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eddie+muller+film+noir Has written an article on NOTW on The Big Heat

Andrew Spicer is a college professor and wrote a three part series on British Noir.

Alain Silver co-wrote The Encyclopedia of Film Noir and is a regular contributor to DVD film noir commentaries.

Ed Sikov has written a number of books on film noir and film including , On Sunset Boulevard: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder and Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the 1950s. He wrote an article on Sunset Blvd on NOTW. He recently can be heard doing the audio commentary for the newly released Sunset Blvd. DVD.

There are many more published writers as well as some that use "handles" instead of their actual names but are usually involved in the film noir community (members of the Film Noir foundation, bloggers for Out of the Past film noir podcast for example).

The following were considered when posting an external link

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. I feel that NOTW qualifies

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). I feel NOTW qualifies. This isn't a blog written by one person (it's not written by myself, however I am an authority on the subject of noir. I lecture and publish print articles on the subject)

Now these external links have been up for years in some cases. Two editors in paticular have decided that these links do not meet with Wikipedia guidlines and dozens of external links have been removed. I began to restore them only to have them removed again. What's the consensous? Can they stay or go? Steve-O (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)