Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Archives
1 2 (Topics: Naming conventions for foreign films, Ratings, Films based on books, Infobox film fields (trailer/ratings), References in Popular Culture Project ...) 3 (Topics: Promotional Posters, Silent footage count, Wikipedia 1.0/Worklist, Deficiency in the Wikifilms project, WikiProject Filmmaking ...)

Release date

I have a concern about release dates. In most of these articles, the release date mentioned is the date of wide release in the United States, even though some films are released earlier in other countries. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was released on November 15, 2002 in the US, and that is reflected in the infobox and lead paragraph. But it actually had wide release in the Philippines two days earlier. [1] There's a similar situation with X-Men: The Last Stand. [2] What's the correct way to handle this? Coffee 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall this conversation coming up in the past, so I think the issue you brought up is new. In my own personal opinion, this is something that will have to be done on a case by case basis. (As you can probably already tell, the US release dates seem to have preference here.) But I'm sure if a majority of the countries released days earlier, then that should be noted somewhere, either in the Infobox or in the body of text. However, having a "list" of release dates is probably a bad idea, unless there is some clear encyclopedic value in that. --P-Chan 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise proposal

I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/theme ride would be in order? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to discuss this? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

filmography

I was wondering if there is any consensus on how filmographies of actors are to be presented. Many are listed in reverse chronological order, while others are not. What is preferable? Personally, I like the reversed ones better... — riana_dzasta • t • c • 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there is a policy which says that the reverse chronological order is preferred, but I'm too lazy too look for it. The reason why many filmographys are in chronological order is that some editors just copy/paste them from other sites (generally IMDb), sometimes wikify and then don't bother putting them in the right order AdamSmithee 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Long time; No work

But I am back and ready to work! For my abtance and hasty departure, I am going to help create a cool new "project" homepage. I sorta did this with my own project that I started. So.. if anyone wants to help, I am going to be working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sandbox Design. So any bit will help. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know how to program or like grunt work it would be great for all film related stuff on wiki if each article was sorted by Stub, Start, B, etc. so we could see what work needs to be done. Andman8 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Program mostly and grunt work tagging. I also created a new design of the main template banner here: Template:FilmsWikiProject/Sandbox Design. This is based again off my {{Project FBI}} template. The only problem is I don't want to change the main page of the WikiProject Films page without most of the groups consensus. That's why I been working on the "Sandbox". -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template has been updated. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What about ratings?

This project seems rather complete, but what about film ratings? IMDB gives ratings in various countries. It would also be nice to cross reference the reasons for a particular rating as well. Could a ratings section be added? Electronic.mayhem 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive2#Ratings (but don't comment there, as it's an archive). The JPS^{talk to me} 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the rather deep dicussion, but it appears that a straw poll favored inclusion of ratings. What gives? personally, I'm more concerned about reasons for ratings than the actual ratings themselves. Shall we begin adding ratings then?--Electronic.mayhem 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image - Help!

Hi there... I have just joined the WikiProject Films, I found about it while I was creating some articles. I'll be working on Argentine Films.

Im having a bit of a problem with the infobox images, my first article was Un Argentino en New York and the image works great... the problem is in La Fuga and El abrazo partido. Where the image is suposed to be, that transparent background with a red cross sign in the corner appears. It might be my computer that at the moment isn't getting the image; or might be a server problem? The thing is when I click on the image file, the image appears perfectly... it just doesn't works on the Infobox. Am I doing something wrong?

I would appreciate any help... Thanks! --CROWDUDE 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• It works perfectly on my computer! Dont know what the problem really is , Sorry if I can't be anymore use! Empty2005 09:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh well... it is now working fine for me too, it must of been some weird temporary thing that went on with my computer. Thanks for checking it out anyway! Cheers. CROWDUDE 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast Listings

A lot of the movies have all very different style "cast" sections. Now.. a lot for the FA movie pages have them in non-table format and just plain text.

1. Should we standardize this with Tables
2. Go with the look of Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith#Cast.

I am really in conflict, but if I had to choose a style, I go with tables. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to change the current description to accomidate a wider variety of formats. The table format really wasn't that encyclopedic in the first place, as it was pretty much like a IMDB cast list. It was gradually replaced mainly because it was difficult to include character specific plot/production information into that section. This is not to say, that the new system is the only system to use, but that it is another option for articles, especially for articles that have detailed character info. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer we "standardize" on a simple list -- that's all that 90% of articles need (and even then, only the most notable characters or actors, we're not IMDB). In special cases, tables might be able to add something, but mostly they add visual clutter. Only in certain epic storytelling cases like Star Wars is the "character sketch" approach useful (sort of like sprawling novels that have a dramatis personae list). --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Willem Dafoe

Hi, could someone confirm that this picture [3] is indeed Willem Dafoe. If so, since this is a free image, I will photoshop and add it. I put this here since the Talk:Willem Dafoe is not used so much, better chance for a fast response here. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like him to me, though only the photog knows for sure. Anyway, it's an attribution license, not a "free image", so be sure to tag it appropriately. I'm assuming you would crop out the other guy, but you'd get an odd picture that way, is the other issue -- not the best for a main article image. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant 'free' as in Free content though. It's better to use this image, than a fair use image. See also Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1. Thanks for checking. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well..I replaced it. I think it looks ok. Considering the original... Garion96 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On spoiling the ending

Why have we decided that spoiling the end of a film is a bad thing? If, for example, I come to wikipedia and read the article for Mulholland Drive (film), I am going to do one of three things, for one of three reasons. 1. Read the cast and director information, and the brief summary, in order to decide if it is a movie I would like to see. 2. Read the entire article, because I have already seen the movie and hope to garner a greater understanding of it. 3. Look up a particular piece of information about the film because I want to know it before I watch or I missed it in the movie.

In the case of 1, it is unrealistic and counter-intuitive to think that I would read the spoiler information and HOPE that it only reveals the parts I want to know and not the parts that would spoil the movie. In the case of 2, the parts I need a greater understanding of could very well be in the ending, especially for psychological films like Mulholland Drive, as this is often the most convoluted portion. And in the case of 3, if we are truly to be an encyclopedia, we need to include as much information as is reasonably possible. How does it reflect upon us if a reader missed the last five minutes of a film because he had to go to work or some other distraction, and tries to use wikipedia because the movie is not accessable to him. Not well. In addition to these three points, leaving out the ending of a film effectively prohibits any interpretation or analysis, even those that are well established and ARE NOT original research.

An encyclopedia must be thorough. We must have as much information availble as reasonably possible. Why are we ommitting whole sections of a film?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaergoth (talk • contribs)

I believe that, as long as there is a spoiler warning, it is standard to include the ending. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films even says in its guidelines, "After [the spoiler warning], start a new paragraph going into more detail about the plot of the film, including the ending." I think this is generally followed. For example, the page you cited (Mulholland Drive) does include the ending in its 'Synopsis' section. If you find any films where any important plot details, including the ending, are not mentionned, you are more than welcome to add them in. Thanks! --Gpollock 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

About plot summarys

Hi who ever is reading this!. Im having a trouble with the plot of a movie that im doing, it is a 3D animated spanish movie that it have just been realesed this July. Because it is now showing on cinemas, not many websites have the plot of it, or complete. And the best synopsis that I could find is in the movie's official website, which also happens to have it translated into English. My question is... is it ok to use official synopsis found on the film's website and copy them into the article? I might be able to re-make it a bit - But is it alright? CROWDUDE 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's usually frowned upon to lift text directly from another site, but in the interests of having complete information, it might be the best thing to do. My advice would be to quote the official site's synopsis word-for-word, and then (and this is so incredibly important) cite your source. A general guide on how to do this is at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The alternative method would be to read the official site's synopsis, and then, based on that, try and reconstruct from memory the plot of the film. However, this can get dicey, as there's a good chance you'll end up quoting directly from the site anyway. And of course, you'd have to cite your source with this method too. So I'd suggest, unless you can write a synopsis without using any source other than your memory, probably just quote the source directly. But that's just my advice. --Gpollock 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:FilmsWikiProject "comments"

Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but: Is this "Please rate the article and then leave comments here" stuff really necessary on the WikiProject-template? Leaving comments about the quality of the article is the whole point of the articles talk page, I don't see the point in creating a subpage for this. I'd really love to see that part go, so people don't create kinda useless subpages. It would also make the quite big template a bit smaller, which is a good thing, too! --Conti|✉ 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I kept the new design up for a couple of days. A few people like it because it centrilizes discussion. I could make the comments go under "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/PAGE NAME Comments" or "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/FILM NAME". -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see the point here. How does it centralize discussion more than the actual talk page does? It rather seems to distribute discussion about the same topic over different pages. --Conti|✉ 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... in a talk page that might be long and complicated, it might be missed or looked over especially if it got into an archive. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or it might be ignored because no one looks at the special comment page. I'd still see no convincing reason to keep this part of the template. Big talk pages aren't easier to read when there are two talk pages. --Conti|✉ 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments gets displayed on the template itself if there are any posted. It's not like you have to view a new page. It shows right up on the template. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. It's as if someone writes his comment at the top of the talk page, which he should not do according to our guidelines. This is simply unneeded and I still can't see any benefit from this. --Conti|✉ 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed that section from the template, I hope that's ok. --Conti|✉ 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As a seperate point about the template, is there some reason why the wording has been changed so dramatically? Almost every Wikiproject's text seems to take the form:

''This article is part of XXXXX, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to XXXXX on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion."

or some such thing. That specific example was taken from the way Template:FilmsWikiProject used to look, but almost all other equivalent templates on other Wikiprojects are worded the same (especially the first sentence). Also, why has the name of the Wikiproject been changed for the template to WikiProject on the Films? One final thing, why has the picture been changed? I kind of liked the older one. I think I'll be bold and make some of the changes myself. It can all be reverted anyway. --Gpollock 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the "design" up for a few days I never got any comments back and no one objected. We can certainly revert everything back to the old text, but I do hold objection to removing the comments section for article grading. Because there is so many films, 10391 of them, and these are "Unassessed", are you or me really going to be looking through all these pages to see what we should rate them? I like to check Category:Film articles with comments, in which the article would go if someone did comment on the article that is not part of the project, if someone did leave a comment. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are actually supposed to read the article before you rate it, yes. It's alot of work, but people will do it. I don't think that such comments would help anyone in rating the article. --Conti|✉ 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the old version of the template to double check its wording, and to be honest, I think I have to recommend a full revert to the old template. I'm just not really sure how this new template is better than the old one. This isn't a saying I often use (or often agree with), but in this case, it seems to be true: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially since the old form of template has worked, and continues to work, for almost every other Wikiproject out there. Simply look at Category:WikiProject banners and you'll see that they all look pretty similar. I see no real reason to change a popular and effective standard. (At the very least, I agree with Conti that the second talk page should be removed.) --Gpollock 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I read very quickly, but if someone was commented on someone's rating or rating them them selfs, and then left a comment, and all of a sudden we saw a different count on the stats, we wonder why something changed. We could check to see if someone left a comment, and that's why it's there. What is a movie you never saw or even read on Wikipedia? If someone read the article and they thought it was really well written, and they marked it {{B-Class}}, and then they left a reason why, and then you were wondering why it was marked "B" class, you wouldn't know unless you contacted the author. That could be 100+ edits later and then on archive 5 if it's a long talk page already. We can change it to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/FILM NAME" and then on the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment" page translucent in so there is a long listing of all the comments, or keep it on the talk page of the movie page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment should be kept for moving articles to A-Class anyway according to the Editorial Project. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sandbox Design) On a side note, I have to fix a few pages because I just noticed there is already another place where Collaboration is done so that will be changed. the new design was to give some color to the project which needed some. we are big project, and this was designed to "bring" the group together. No one was grading them, so why not give some encouragement? -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I mainly oppose that there will be a subpage to every single article. Why don't you just link to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality, where people can discuss things if they agree or disagree on the rating of an article? --Conti|✉ 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I can see for keeping the new template is that the text box in the middle tells any joe shmo ip address/user things they can do to help the article. The default banner currently in use on most pages requires going to the project page and reading a long article thats looks to a lay person like jargon. With the new layout a few bullets (which I think need to be reworded or changed) quickly state the most important information. Also, if the text box told how to add |class=X and |important=X the sorting of articles would get done lightyears quicker instead of a few dedicated people (me) having to do all the films by hand. The more I write the more I think the new template should stay and maybe this template should become the new default banner. Andman8 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, to me this isn't very informative. The text in the middle basically just retells the general rules of Wikipedia, NPOV, infoboxes, etc. I'm not sure why this should be mentioned in that template. And I'd really like to see smaller rather than bigger templates, imagine an article with 4 wikiproject-templates, every single one telling you that NPOV is an important thing. --Conti|✉ 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can change it. I added a link on the template page. I would love to put the comments thing back in just to see if it works. If it doesn't we can remove it, but stupid to remove something without trying it. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)