Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cbrown1023 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 6 November 2006 (→Revamp: created). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archives

Naming conventions for foreign titled films

Can I just refer back to this: [[1]]. I dont think there was ever a consensus reach about how this should be tackled. It's certainly still a mess out there! My thought are that we should use the original title as the main name and the English should redirect to it. My reasoning is that if you visit one of the foreign film categories it looks very strange to see English titles. It'll look even stranger if we use the English convention as there will be a few that haven't been renamed that will stick out like a sore thumb. Categorising using the foreign name makes sure we can follow a convention is (virtually) all cases. This is the convention which I notice the IMDB uses. Mallanox 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to use one's own judgment when deciding the title. Surely Film d'amore e d'anarchia, ovvero 'stamattina alle 10 in via dei Fiori nella nota casa di tolleranza...' should use the English title Love and Anarchy, although this is a pretty extreme example. Japanese and Russian titles also seem to be up for interpretation. For example, IMDb lists this film as Okaasan, but other reliable sources call it Okasan, Oka-san or Okaa-san. Original titles on IMDb also change quite often, as original prints are discovered and released on DVD and/or wrong info is simply corrected. English titles are usually well-known and "easy". On the other hand, several 70's Italian genre films have multiple, even a dozen, English titles which should rule out just picking one of them. And then there are the films that are best known by the original title, as Ikiru and Le dernier combat. I think there are too many factors that stop forming a naming convention for this. Prolog 11:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions are fairly clear on the general concepts behind article naming. Basically, as said above, use English unless the foreign title is the predominant one. IMDb is a good reference source for many things, but as noted above, the contents do change and oftentimes do have subtle (but important) errors. Much like Wikipedia. Another thing to consider is how the most recent English-language DVD release names it - although this may also vary with region, if most or all of the legal and commercially available copies of the film in English concur on a common title, that should probably be respected. E.g. La dolce vita should stay in Italian, but Nights of Cabiria should be in English. Girolamo Savonarola 21:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions also state that non-latin characters should be excluded with the original name in the first line (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Cbrown1023 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filming locations

Many city articles, especially those in Southern California, list films and TV shows that have used those places as filming locations. Currently the material is treated in a haphazard manner, sometimes having a special section (like "Filming in X"), sometimes coverd in "trivia", othertimes as "X in popular culture". I think it'd be helpful to develop a more standardized approach, perhaps a section heading that could serve for both TV and films. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the smaller towns and cities which don't see much filming, it probably could be noted amongst a culture and arts section. However, for locations which have a larger share of filming, it might not be a bad idea to split these off into separate list articles. Just my two cents, but it will likely improve the quality of both if there was a split. Again, which articles warrant which approach will have to be somewhat subjective, but surely at a certain point creating a separate list article should be more obvious. Girolamo Savonarola 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hello, everyone, I hail from the guys over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cinema. Maybe someone of you could have a look at two or three of our articles:

Salman Khan - if you have a look at the history, you'll see that a user, User:LuckyS, has started to revert each and every edit anyone else has made to the article. Most recent example: [2] He claims that I vandalise the article and now, I'm not sure - am I really? I provided references from news agencies I deem trustworthy and I tried to remove the brackets, since they are awful for people who use Screen reader and the likes. I'd be happy to get some neutral oppinions on the issue.

Ajith Kumar - the filmography and the notable roles get added by User:KingDracula time and again. I'm not sure, but in my humble opinions, notable roles, unless you provide a link from a critic, are POV; what qualifies them as notable? Also, the filmography includes co-stars and directors. None of the filmographies of featured articles include those and I suspect it's a case of fan glorification (Actor XYZ has worked with more famous collegues than actor ABC, therefore actor XYZ is better). Again, I could be mistaken and over the top. Could you have a look at Kumar's article, too?

Thanks a ton and best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a look through for you. It looks to me that you've stumbled across a couple of users who are "particularly attached" to those articles. If it is a question of you and those other users edit warring back and forth, then it might be worth your time taking a step back for a bit and check out WP:3. The important thing is you don't give your name in the request for help, meaning that the 3rd opinion will be impartial as they won't know (unless they look at the edit history of that page) who requested their assistance. If this doesn't solve the matter then it may require mediation. In the short term, I would stop trying to update the pages and seek help either through 3rd Opinion or Mediation. Mallanox 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - you might want to also use their talk pages to discuss the ownership policy and editing policy. Failing that, dispute resolution is the best method. Girolamo Savonarola 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tvguide movie TfD

Hello all. I've just put a recently-created template flagged with this project's banner, Template:Tvguide movie, up on TfD amongst a couple of other related ones. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tvguideshow. Mike Peel 08:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oviously result was delete. Cbrown1023 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week

I want to point all cinema fans to Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week, which I feel should be back and running once more, due to the amount of B-class film articles.Wiki-newbie 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

I notice that the Infobox Syntax Guide advises the format $100 million [[United States dollar|USD]], which produces $100 million USD. This seems unencyclopedic, i.e. wrong, to me. $ and D mean the same thing here, so effectively, the word dollars is in there twice; 100 million dollar dollars.

Not that anybody follows the guide. Worse still is the much more common $100 million. $ doesn't mean anything here; it might as easily refer to the U.S. currency, the N.Z. currency, the Australian currency, or the Alpha Centurian mega dollar. Mercans, eh?

How about $100 million US, US$100 million, USD100 million, 100 million USD, or, by far my favourite, $100 million? TheMadBaron 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and changed it because you and I both think that it looks best and I've seen it in a lot of articles. Cbrown1023 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Plotnote

Template:Plotnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

This is because it conflicts with the stated article style guide. Vaergoth 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also contradicts the site-wide content disclaimer. I've also noted this on the project's style guidelines page. Girolamo Savonarola 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being assessed wrong

I just wanted to point out, several films coming out in the future are marked as stub. I've changed the ones I've seen to future class. If a movie isn't out yet, there usually isn't much information... thus the need for it to be tagged future class. RobJ1981 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin (The Invisible Man)

Hi, in order to complete the above article, we need someone to list any movie versions of the above character. I am unable to do so due to knowing nothing about the character history--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on SGCommand's talk page. TheMadBaron 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define "movie versions". There have been numerous invisible men who were not the HGW Invisible Man named Griffin, even though they vary in degree to which they were based on that work. Doczilla 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know film-related bios fall under the biography wikiproject, and not this one, but I was hoping one of you film buffs might be able to help me out. A single user, User:RJNeb2, has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures, and that the articles on allmovie are possibly copied from the same book. If anyone happens to own a reference work that might fit the bill, I'd appreciate if you'd give a few of these articles a look and see if they match up. Thanks so much!

Note: I've also posted this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: most of the articles in Vary's list need editing to disambiguate and italicise the film titles. (Sorry I couldn't help with the actual enquiry....) TheMadBaron 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for help

User:Cbrown1023 and I have been slowly going through the film articles, and I know that some more of you are helping assess. However, at this rate it'll take weeks, maybe even a month, to assess less than 2,000 articles. Could we get some more people involved? It's really quiet simple, and it will be finished in short order if we all help.--Supernumerary 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assessing several articles a day for a while now as well. I've also found many untagged talk pages for movies, and then added the film tag along with the rating. A good tip for finding untagged: go to Category:Upcoming films. Many of the articles in the category haven't gotten tagged yet. I'm doing my best at assessing, but I'm also assessing for horror project, plus trivia cleanup as well, and stub sorting. RobJ1981 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been assessing films, but not at the rate that User:Cbrown1023 & User:Supernumerary are. I also have been adding the template to the talk page whenever I check the newly created articles and search for films. I will continue to assess them and add them to films. When I get the time, I'll take one of the pages and start assessing them at a faster rate. I'll set this as my priority right now until it is done and I'll continue to adding films to Lists of films by letter from the lists of films by year. Perhaps a message can be sent to some/all of the WikiProject Film participants and request their help. Nehrams2020 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been assessing films also. The problem is that at some point the unassessed cat was filled up with articles for film characters. The thing is, I think the vast majority of these are not notable and, IMO, the articles should be deleted (yep, I believe there shouldn't be a page on every Pokemon). I don't really want to push my opinion on this, but a side effect was that assessing articles stopped being fun when I had to dig through a pile of insignificant characters :-(. However, what I do find interesting and equally important is assessing importance. Does anyone have any idea how that works? 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) I was that AdamSmithee 07:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible more classes to be created just for fictional objects/characters/places, etc? Because I too have stumbled across too many articles that I can't grade because of being one of the articles based on a film. Examples include Wilson the Volleyball, Thomas Edison (the person), and Tholme. There needs to be one or more new levels of classifications for articles like these. Perhaps there could also be a class for actors, directors, or film studios. I don't know how to create the classes and I'm sure it also takes some discussion first. However, these new classes could help weed out the film articles that we don't have any idea how to grade.--Nehrams2020 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time for assessing or sorting stubs, but in each "year in film", in the list "Films released in YYYY", I keep notes such as "film only mentioned in article", if a "blue" links points to a general non-film article. If this is any help, I've covered from 1960 to 2004 and am moving backwards now. Hoverfish 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just assessed the majority of section 39, but was unable again to rate the fictional characters. I'll start back on the earlier unassessed sections next.--Nehrams2020 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanatic fans

Hullo, I don't know any of you ... I'm one of the people who have been working on WikiProject Cinema of India [WP:INCINE]. We've been having an growing problem with fans who "annex" the article for their favorite star. They rewrite the article so that it's a glowing fan tribute to the beloved (often be written in ungrammatical Hinglish) and revert any other edits as "vandalism." We have been struggling with one teenage Rani Mukerji fan for more than a year, and lately the Rajnikanth and Amitabh Bachchan articles have been taken over as well. There are only about three editors who try to keep the project as a whole under surveillance, we all have limited time and energy, and it's exhausting to deal with a fan who has apparently endless time to obsess over one article. Are there any policies or guidelines that apply besides WP:OWN? I'm sure that you must deal with this sort of thing in the wider film project ... how do you do it? Zora 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they are doing can be considered vandalism as it is written in WP:NPOV and probably violating WP:3RR. You could take it up with:
I hope this helps. Cbrown1023 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue with film characters that needs to be dealt with

Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, Robots, Toy Story, and much more: have too many articles just for one character. Alot of these character pages are just cruft, in my opinion. A list page should be made for many of these movies. Why is there such a need to make so many pages just for a single character that has appeared once or twice? In the case of Robots, no sequel is planned (that I know of at least), so all those pages can't be expanded much. In the case of Toy Story, there is only 2 movies so far. These little character pages shouldn't exist, and a list page should be made instead for most characters at least. RobJ1981 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob and I were also having a discussion at the Robots page here. Cbrown1023 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft indeed. I would say delete, but merge in alist should be fine AdamSmithee 22:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible more classes to be created just for fictional objects/characters/places, etc? Because I too have stumbled across too many articles that I can't grade because of being one of the articles based on a film. Examples include Wilson the Volleyball, Thomas Edison (the person), and Tholme. There needs to be one or more new levels of classifications for articles like these. Perhaps there could also be a class for actors, directors, or film studios. I don't know how to create the classes and I'm sure it also takes some discussion first. However, these new classes could help weed out the film articles that we don't have any idea how to grade.--Nehrams2020 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Thomas Edison is definately not a film character. I don't know why it was there, so I removed our tag. As for Tholme, I don't think that character was ever in a film, so I removed the tag. When in doubt if it is a film character/article just remove the tag (if you've read the article and found nothing that could make it related to a film).
Second of all, we don't do articles on living (or dead) people (so no actors or directors). That is in the scope of WP:WPBIO (and possible future projects). We also don't really do film studios, they are probably more related to WP:FILMMAKING.
I'm curious to know what is it that makes those article difficult to grade, I may be able to help you or at least tell you my grading criteria. If you think of any more possible classes I'm sure that I could figure out a way to add them to the template. Cbrown1023 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another issue. I would prefer it if WikiProject Film kept away from characters in books, comics and other related media: I feel the tag should go to solely film-originated characters. From what I understand, the issue came about due to Indiana Jones: well that counts as a film series really. Wiki-newbie 09:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue didn't, the issue you were referring to was before we allowed any type of characters in our project... The we re-evaluated the scope and now they do belong. Cbrown1023 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help with a splitting/redirecting issue?

Some users are starting Jesus Christ Superstar (Film). The main article has a suggested split, but the page Jesus Christ Superstar (film) contains a redirect. Someone who knows how, please help the new article to move there. Hoverfish 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood the problem correctly, you can request the move on WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. Prolog 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prolog. The thing is, I don't know if the users starting the new article are in agreement with the split suggestion. I see no talk about it. It could be controversial... Hoverfish 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing controversial about it. I just redirected Jesus Christ Superstar (film) to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973 film), where the film article is now. I think you would need an admin to delete Jesus Christ Superstar (film) so you can move Jesus Christ Superstar (1973 film) to that location. TheMadBaron 10:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Bobet 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American films

Until just now, I had no idea this category existed. Like English-language films, we have about 15,000 articles to add it to, right? I think I'm going to cry. TheMadBaron 10:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I see for crying: there are so many categories, not all very obvious or easily accessible, and a lot of lists, many of which cover some categories. Ideally we should have all categories and lists compared and take a decision on how to best organize and maintain them. If we manage to get some order, there could ba a way of entering a film only once, along with all possible categories and lists it should be listed in, so that the input goes to all lists concerned. I have been trying to find input wiki markup, to experiment with, but haven't found any yet. The action should be: enter title, date, categories, and the entry should update all appropriate lists. Does this make any sense, technically at least? Hoverfish 12:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the better idea is to make categorization into a key priority of the project, much like assessment. What can be done is an evaluation of the current state of categories. Then you can propose a general structure for film article categories and perhaps redesign the categorization as necessary to streamline things. Once that is done, you can create a standard categorization scheme which can apply to all articles. See WP MilHist for an excellent example. Girolamo Savonarola 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's awesome. They've got task forces. That's what we need. We need task forces. TheMadBaron 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It IS awesome, but here we have quite a (famously) busy task force too. We do have to create a category map to give users (including ourselves) an idea where to list a film. Structure of categories is what we need. Dares anyone start unraveling? Hoverfish 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is a famously busy army. I was drawn into this project after seing film stubs I'd created pwned and improved, and what's been accomplished so far is very, very impressive. I'm now speculating that the reason that the military articles are among the best on WP is that they have task forces within their army, each with different areas of 'responsibility'. What we appear to be is.... and I know I'm a relative newb here, and this might be a mistaken impression.... Cbrown1023 and Supernumerary doing the boring jobs, like assessing the articles, and pretty much running the show, while the rest of us tag articles and make infoboxes. What I'm suggesting is....

  1. List maintenance (messy, messy, messy)
  2. Filmography disambiguation (bio project aint doing it, dab link repair are doing it one film at a time, and only where there's a dab page)
  3. Interwiki - coordinating with film projects on other Wikipedias to take interwiki links in hand, and encouraging the formation of such projects
  4. Categories Control, per Girolamo Savonarola
  5. Form Improvement Force - anything above stub level to be brought in line with style guidelines, regardless of the quality of the content
  6. Links force - IMDb, yes, but there are others....
  7. Prose Posse - lots of films have excellent content, but written really badly....
  8. Infobox Infantry - notice how nobody bothers with the "cinematographer" or "country" fields, or links the language per style guidelines.... I've stopped making infoboxes now, because I'm too busy fixing the ones that are already there....
  9. Image Infantry - some of those film posters have seen better days.... 'responsibilities' to include fair use checks
  10. Interproject Embassy - horror, novels, bio project, and task force coordination might come in handy....
  11. Split squad - some of the people who are splitting articles are basically doing it wrong, and that's because they lack clear instruction....

Aw, heck, all I really wanted was to know whether Category:American films is an achievable goal. Because if the category's going to end up getting deleted, I won't bother.

I'd start unraveling categories if I had any idea where to start. TheMadBaron 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we do do what GS (if i tried to spell his name I'd get it wrong and I'm too lazy to just copy and paste Girolamo Savonarola...) is proposing, we should do start at Category:Film because that is where everything is supposed to sub-ed from and it is very confusing to navigate (which I assume is GS's point). Cbrown1023 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would probably be where to start. Now that I've finished Assessment on WP Filmmaking, it's also something I've been warily eyeballing lately...can't say I'm too enthusiastic. (Yet. I thought we'd never be able to finish assessment either, but it was fun in the end!) There's so much which is either miscategorized or not specifically categorized enough (i.e. lazily being placed in Category:Film when there are more specific subcategories that it should be in instead), that it's a big project.
Most of the bigger WikiProjects tend to have a categorization department, which is in charge or maintaining it and making certain that misplaced articles are properly "filed", or even just adding or changing the cat links after new categories are added or restructured. I'd say that it's a perpetual task in the same way as Assessment in that you can clearly reach an initial end-point, but the work itself will never stop as more articles are written and the Wikipedia develops further.
As far as task forces/work groups go, I think that there is usually a clear divide between Departments and Task Forces; Departments handle project-wide initiatives, usually exterior of the content (e.g. Assessment and Categorization), while Task Forces are designed to break down the project into chunks and aggregrate subgroups of editors based on content (e.g. Indian cinema, Anime films, etc.). Others departments that may be useful are Translation (mainly for translating excellent quality articles from other Wikipedias where our English article is insufficient), Style, Image Creation, and so on. Girolamo Savonarola 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to sum up what I understood about the topic here: Category:American films should not be filled up with thousands of articles, but should rather have subcategories with articles. I have to admit that some of the more specialized issues pass over my head (and I may not be the only one). To me it seems like Girolamo Savonarola could give us some simplified lines to make easily available to new members feeling a bit unsure of how to proceed correctly. I am not long time member, but I would say the film army is more like a free jazz orchestra with lots of enthusiasm on it. I wish I could understand this "aggregate" better, because used in some appropriate jazz variant, it could optimize the situation here. Hoverfish 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) A department may organize things very well, in categories and all. It is important to keep this information available to any member or user, somewhere up top, where one can't miss it. There should be some more reaching out to projects film mostly unknown. Some central information panel, as well known as the WikiProjectFilms itself. Hoverfish 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Collaboration of the week

Just what is the score with the "Cinema Collaboration of the week"? I presume that it's active again, since there's a banner on the project page. However, it still says "The next winner will be selected on Saturday, April 1, 2006. Last week's article was Billy Wilder". Right....

Can we open a project page, and start discussions about the next collaboration? I propose Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - it starts with three cleanup tags. TheMadBaron 11:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that User:Wiki-newbie was going to open it again (and that's why I put it back on there) but I don't know what's going to happen now. Cbrown1023 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should model it on WikiProject Chemistry's selection process. I'll see if I can make a page like this for our project, but I might mess it up.--Supernumerary 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and completely changed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Collaboration so that it now looks like most of the other projects collaboration pages. We do need a template still. I'll see if I can learn how to do that too.--Supernumerary 16:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eek! I did mess it up. We already have a page under Wikipedia:Cinema_Collaboration_of_the_Week and the other page that I changed was just some random left over one. Perhaps we should change the name of the collaboroation page to reflect the project's name?--Supernumerary 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created a redirect at the page you revamped to Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week but left all the text so you can view it in edit mode. Cbrown1023 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly swept out the cobwebs and opened the shop. So go vote. TheMadBaron 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that this project needs to redefine its scope, and that discussion is coming. However, for the moment I think we could all agree that this project does not include "film directors, cinematographers, other filmmaking collaborators (writer, editor, producer, etc.), and film critics and reviewers" which is quoted from the Collaboration page. Also "technical film terms, or a technical aspects of filmmaking" would seem to fall under WikiProject Filmmaking. Is it all right if I remove these from the list of qualifying topics? --Supernumerary 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left that text in place because I wasn't sure whether the collaboration was to be considered a joint venture shared between the projects. It did strike me as odd, and I am inclined to agree with Supernumerary. I think the collaboration will be more successful if limited to the scope of the films project, and if most (if not all) of the nominated articles are about films. TheMadBaron 05:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the criteria as discussed.--Supernumerary 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning "It is permissible to renominate an article that was pruned after several months have passed." Ooh, harsh! Would anybody object if I changed this requirement? If the collaboration wotsit takes off, I think people should be allowed to nominate an article again within a few weeks - a specified number thereof. TheMadBaron 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Mad Baron. Cbrown1023 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly changed, though with no number of weeks specified yet. TheMadBaron 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add some fields to the template based on {{WPBiography}} to reflect your new endeavor. Right now, we just have a few bugs... how fitting that I asked Bugs5382 to help. Cbrown1023 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of films and of red films

Shouldn't Lists of films try to move to subcategory of Films? Maybe after some peer suggestions and improvements it might find its rightful place. I am sure a lot of contributing users could use directive information. The List of films by (number and) letters is the most promising to become an all-inclusive film article list. The list by years is the most promising in terms of displayed content and offer of usefull links. The latest years are presented somewhat differently but some decisions might be taken further on. What is technically the best about it is that a lot of people care to update it. And by the way, the List by letters needs to be split in 20 pages. This is not only my opinion, but also Nehrams2020, who is working hard for it. In User:Hoverfish/Notebook, I have a table with links to the 20 suggested pages. I am sure there are templates doing this much better, but am not good in templates. Do we need to request this from an administrator, apart from discussing it here?

The list by years is still full of red links, which I intend to gather in a "red list", giving even aka names in red links, and then remove all red links from each Year in film. This list may serve 1) as a monitor for films started, 2) as an adoption list, where users can pick or reserve films to develop into articles, or can just copy a film to "requested film articles" if think that a film has some particular importance and it should have an article, 3) as a place where other red links in film titles can be added, while their link is removed from a list. Some lists could link to it as a See also. It would have nothing to do in categories, but I am trying to develop a simple way of marking red links, so as to suggest some general category. Anybody who thinks it's either useful or useless, could look in User:Hoverfish/Sandbox and maybe discuss on it. There is lots to improve, so any suggestion is welcome. Hoverfish 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether red links should be removed from the existing lists of years in film (though this would bring them in line with other film lists), but maintaining a seperate list of red links strikes me as a good idea, as it would help us to prioritise the creation of new articles.... film articles to be split from existing novel/play articles could also be included, in the form of their future title. See also Missing articles/List of notable films. TheMadBaron 05:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this link MadBaron. I had been looking for it all over. Is there also some list of mixed subject/film articles with suggested or unsuggested split? If not, it's good to create one. There are lots of blue misguiding links, some just pointing to a dab page. Hoverfish 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some members thought they had read somewhere that red links weren't supposed to be in lists, but we couldn't find the alleged quote. If red links are allowed, they are still visually helpful in the year by film lists. The only thing is that before someone clicks on a red title and starts creating an article, it would be good to come to a page where some lines are suggested and the possibility of contributing some category (abbrev.text) to films is offered. Admitedly, if someone starts playing around in such a page, it could get confusing. But I will gladly let them red in lists if it's ok with the rules of the game. Hoverfish 08:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional possibility that may be of help, is if in the most all inclusive list, we keep track of the assessment class an article happens to belong to. Can this be done to track changes by placing some simple template (Template:Trackclass) after each title? Hoverfish 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question "Is there also some list of mixed subject/film articles with suggested or unsuggested split?", a list of films that are also novels is supposedly maintained by the Films based on books project, though I'm not sure where that list actually is.... there are also articles in the film project which are actually about a play, of course (eg Mourning Becomes Electra, wasn't even tagged by the theatre project until I did it just now) and articles about films which should be about novels (eg Whistle Down the Wind, unclaimed by novel and film projects I tagged it yesterday).
If you would like to start such a list, I will be glad to contribute both to the expansion of the list and the task of disambiguating the links once the articles are split. In fact, I'm going to go dab Green for Danger right now.... TheMadBaron 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, we have a Category:Needed film articles I created it a bit back with the pages on "requested articles. Articles are added to it by placing {{Film|class=Needed}} on their talk page. Cbrown1023 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Expect me to be placing a lot of those tags. TheMadBaron 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I cannot send all red links to this category, because I have no idea if an article is really needed on each and every "red" film I find. So this might be the right place to send all films deemed as needing an article from my suggested "red list". Till now there is a poor list in Talk:Lists of films trying to do this. Maybe we should mention this category there too. Actually I will do this next. Hoverfish 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Lion Films

I'd do this myself, but I don't have time right now, and I'm not sure if I'd be breaching some convention.... There should, I think, be a Category:British Lion films, as a subcategory of Category:Films by studio. There are about a dozen film articles for this category, and more likely to turn up as infoboxes get completed. [3] Anyone up for it? TheMadBaron 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll let someone else breach conventions, but since I created the article, I undertake to mark all British Lion Films for which I find existing articles. Hoverfish 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Hoverfish.... the category has now been created by User:Orbicle, and I've populated it with all articles so marked. TheMadBaron 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE

Results

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

VOTING CLOSES 2 NOVEMBER 2006, 0:00 UTC

Please vote here on whether you would like to keep a link to IMDb in the infobox and/or AMG. It is a lot like RfA's a support means yes, you want it, and an oppose means, no you don't. To vote just put #~~~~. Comments are any new comments, not repeated information posted in the lengthy discussion here and at Template talk:Infobox Film. Please also put the number of votes in the heading after you vote. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMG

Support (7)

  1. Hoverfish 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Girolamo Savonarola 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alan Smithee 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andrzejbanas 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RichMac 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. UKPhoenix79 09:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chris 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (10)

  1. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prolog 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hondo 16:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TheMadBaron 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nehrams2020 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AdamSmithee 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Supernumerary 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bobet 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shane (talk/contrib) 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mallanox 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I believe that the AMG site complements the IMDb site well in each site's strengths and weaknesses. It functions similarly to its sister site, the All Music Guide, which has excellent scope and depth. The discussions of the films are something which have no equivalent in IMDb, but tend to be less personally subjective as one would find in a smaller site. Their linking system between related films is also superior to IMDb, IMHO. Linking to a site which is almost as extensive as IMDb, but more editor-content based instead of IMDb's user-content based model, provides a more stable resource. Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As several users have pointed out, the AMG site is different from IMDb and offers some advantages such as a more in-depth film summary/synposis and links to related movies. I find it rare for IMDb to offer a film summary of more than 2 to 3 sentences (written by a user) where the AMG synopsis is a full paragraph or more (written by a professional editor.) I know IMDb usually offers links to external reviews which is a good feature, but not as convenient. If the intent of NPOV is not endorsing any one point of view other another, then it seems to me that by eliminating AMG and keeping IMDB as the only source of information, this directly violates the spirit of NPOV. To paraphrase George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life, "This town needs this measly, one-horse institution if only to have someplace where people can come without crawling to IMDb." Alan Smithee 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think AMG is notable enough to warrant a place in an infobox. Alexa traffic ranks: IMDb.com: 34, Allmovie.com: 13,034. Either way, the infobox shouldn't be a link repository, regardless of whether the links are useful or not. The External links is for these. I wouldn't mind getting rid of both IMDb and AMG. Now that Cbrown1023 added the official website to the infobox, the external link count is at three (!), which is just duplicating the whole External links section. Prolog 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically the Official Site was is the only one that should definately be there. IMDb is also there because, as Prolog pointed out, is one of the most trafficked (?) sites. AMG brings it up to 3 which is definately too high. AMG definately belongs in the external links section, the same as Box Office Mojo and others.
    • The point of removing the amg link from the infobox is that there's nothing about the site that makes it more useful to add to the infobox than any other film site. In the case of imdb, you have the whole 'most popular film site on the internet' thing, but that's not the case here. There are plenty of other random film sites around, which might be more useful for certain films. If an editor feels it's useful to include a link, he can put it in the external links section (and if someone else disagrees, he can remove it). By putting it in the infobox you're saying 'this site is beyond reproach and should always be included', which isn't the case. And to the people who say amg is useful because it has reviews: add a link to rottentomatoes or metacritic, or link straight to a reputable critic in the external links. I really don't think the amg reviews are always the best ones available. - Bobet 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is something about amg that makes it more useful, and that's good overviews, good reviews, good images, no need to log in to find all you need, plus nicely ordered information. However, the issue here is not on which one is better or most visited, but if it stays in the infobox or not. Hoverfish 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AMG can be useful when trying to find some information not on IMDb like "Box office gross", "Flags" (content some might find offensive), etc. Since this is an option for people it gives one the choice to use it or not. People talk about not having a bias one way or another towards links in infoboxes and this is a good way to remove the bias. By having no other choice it naturally creates one. Although I would agree that IMDb is almost a must when it comes to movies, it is better to have another resource of information that expands beyond the scope of IMDb and has more information for curtain movies especially for older ones. -- UKPhoenix79 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but you are not explaining the fundamental question: Why AMG and not other sites? Also, that is what the rating is for (finding what is not offensive) and finding box office information is the whole point of Box Office Mojo so why can't it be in the infobox as well? The answer is because that is what the external links is for. Cbrown1023 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

Support (15)

  1. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supernumerary 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hondo 16:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nehrams2020 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elizabennet 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hoverfish 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alan Smithee 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AdamSmithee 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Andrzejbanas 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. RichMac 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. UKPhoenix79 09:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Chris 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Shane (talk/contrib) 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mallanox 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (0)

Comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

How to disambig this?

I'd like to start an article on David Boyd http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0101741/ but there's already a disambig page for him, so do I name the article David R. Boyd (since sometimes he's credited that way) or David Boyd (cinematographer)? --plange 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Boyd (cinematographer), unless he's better known under David R. Boyd (I'm assuming this isn't the case though, or you probably wouldn't be asking). - Bobet 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, yep, I've never seen him mentioned with the R. (except the note at IMDB) --plange 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment completion

Congratulations! I have to admit I was amazed at how quickly you guys managed to make it through that gigantic pile of articles. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bugs5382/monobook.js/film.js must have helped. :-) Shane (talk/contrib) 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone else feel a sigh of relief and a little pride when you looked at the statistics and so no field for Unassessed articles? Cbrown1023 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I most certainly did.--Supernumerary 07:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grading those did take forever, and I jumped in to help much later then I should have. However, seeing all of the various classes of assessed films is great. But we should continue to watch the assessment page, since new articles are always added daily. I recently have begun going through the list of films by year, and I find on average 3-5 articles or more a day that do not have the film banner but have been in existence for quite some time. Also, eventually, we will have to go through a lot of the start/stub classes and see if they should be upgraded to another class. But again, for right now, let's enjoy the main completion of all of the known films we have assessed. --Nehrams2020 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabled data

Since we are all around base lately voting on infobox issues, could we also take a decision (or are there somewhere clear guidelines?) of what one should do when one finds casts, awards and other issues neatly arranged in tables within a film article? Do we go ahead with dissapointing the table-makers and make lists instead or do we leave the table enthusiasts at it? Hoverfish 08:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just leave them there because most of the time they look better than the list and show them clearly. But if something looks really bad (and a table would look better), definately take it down. Cbrown1023 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorised films

Could someone please add the template to this category again? An admin deleted it without discussing or putting it up for deletion, and I've just recreated it but I'm not a project member and don't know where the template is. Also, if you find this category useful, please note that on the talk page of the category to prevent a recurrance. Aelfthrytha 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template, {{Film|class=Cat}}. Seems like a useful category. Prolog 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that useful to me. People going through Category:Category needed can easily add categories for movies as well. Why does the uncategorised films category need to exist? As a side note: I've never seen the category with much in it, so it doesn't serve much of a purpose, except to just move it from Category needed, to another category. Pretty pointless and a waste of time, in my opinion. RobJ1981 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is very useful. People going through Category:Category needed CAN easily add categories for movies but they seldom do it as thoroughly as a more specialised Wikipedian does. You've not seen much in the category as users such as myself keep an eye on it and make sure things are kept moving. The number of articles being quickly and accurately categorised must surely have increased since its creation. I have no figures, but that's my opinion. Mallanox 14:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the point? Category:Films has done the same thing this far, and it's always been kept nearly empty. Adding a new category that less people know about doesn't sound helpful. - Bobet 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, speed and accuracy. Also, the subcat of uncategorised films appears at the top of the uncategorised articles page so I can't really see that there should be a lack of knowledge of its presence. Keeping the articles in the realm of uncategorised means that those whose interest is categorisation do them, and probably more accurately than some random visitor to Category:Films.
Previous section by Mallanox. I posted an opinion in the Talk page of Category:Uncategorised films. If it doesn't sum up well enough the above comments, I can move it here. Hoverfish 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videos

Ok, hoping this isn't a can of worms. On my categorisation travels, I came across Love You Till Tuesday. Essentially a music video but it got me thinking. Music videos share many commonalities with feature films. Many directors such as Martin Scorsese have dabbled in both. They require timing, design and mise-en-scene. Should music videos come under the remit of our project, or at least, should music videos be considered a film genre and categorised as such? Mallanox 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. By the argument that they share much in common, all television would come under our banner. Love You Till Tuesday, however, is certainly more a film than a music video, and several other promotional pieces from the 60s and 70s might qualify. TheMadBaron 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the lists by year I found some performances and MTV collections on video and added notes, as I'm not sure what to do with them. Hoverfish 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Only certain music videoes, if any, should be included. Cbrown1023 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. Although there are many, especially short, films that are close to being music videos (this comes to mind), if a music video is mostly dubbed as a music video, then it really belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Video. If not elsewhere, the difference usually shows in credits and possible plays on film festivals. Prolog 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween everyone... Let's all stay up and watch some scary movies! (and then go onto Wikipedia and improve the articles on them, of course :)) Cbrown1023 23:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Proposed new project banner

I am going to update our template {{film}}. This adds a NEW option to article grading. "Importance". Once I finsh updating the template, I will post up a new javascript code so it will be faster to "orginizae". That is all.. --Shane (talk/contrib) 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any discussion about the usefulness of the importance parameter? Many, or probably most, WikiProjects don't assess articles by importance because it is highly subjective. And I completely agree with that. Assessment should be POV-free. Prolog 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! Don't get POV-fundamentalist. Anyway, article content can not be POV, but some talk page template used for inner organisatoric work can be POV (just discussing, because I don't think importance is POV). Moreover, if we go all fundamentalist, the notability requirement is as POV as importance, so does it mean they should close WP down for lack of internal consistency? Anyway, it would really be usefull, as we currently have almost 10000 film stubs and 5000+ start articles and no way to sort through them other than importance. Go, Shane! AdamSmithee 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the importance parameter's applicability has a lot to do with the subject matter of the WikiProject. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics would rate algebra as a top importance article, but conformal field theory would be low importance. This is because the subject is in itself hierarchical. On the other hand, WikiProjects with an isolated focus, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF, can easily prioritize articles by main subject (the band), high-level subjects (their main albums), and less important articles which focus on miscellaneous other work. Unfortunately, the Films project has the problem that it is neither focused on an isolated and coherent group, nor does the topic have much of a hierarchy of "fundamental" concepts or works. There's nothing wrong with that - it's simply something characteristic in particular of a broad arts project. In theory, you could make a list of "top importance" works based on somebody else's list, but that still will reflect the bias of that list. Should we base it on popularity? Box office gross? Critical acclaim? Awards? Etc.
My opinion of the class parameter is that it is particularly useful for identifying articles that need a lot of work (stubs) and articles which need very little (GA or A). You can quickly isolate your articles which are close to FAC, as well as bring the particularly poor articles up to at least a standard under the style guidelines. I would also assume that perhaps there would be a sporadic re-assessment of all the articles on a set schedule (12-18 months?) But the class parameter is a good one for a project to use for getting an idea for where the whole stands. The importance parameter is interesting, but ultimately does not say much about the project at large, because you can't determine anything out of it. The editors will still usually work on the articles they want to work on. And we do have a newly resurrected collaboration group. Girolamo Savonarola 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance as an issue of priority for stub articles' development should be given in such subcategories, as would help, for example, the art oriented contributions find their films in a list unmixed with articles needing development as per popularity. Each type of user finds his work area easier so. Importance, as a general factor? It would be a very unstable category, I think. Hoverfish 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way. I knew Shane was working on it and it was being discussed but never got into the discussion (it was a while ago). Importance could be very helpful but we should have a small selection of editors who assess the articles as importance that are voted on and those are the only ones who assess it. This will help to keep the assessments consistent. When we first assess them all, of course, we will do what we did for quality: A free-for-all, any one's help is greatly appreciated. Cbrown1023 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to take a look at {{Project FBI}}, my other project, I updated it's header to what the {{Film}} will look like. I have to do some extra coding with the {{Film}} template because of the lowercase "class". But that's about it. Shane (talk/contrib) 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting with bated breath for your update. Cbrown1023 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is updated. It added lots of jobs to the queue. So it will take a while. I made a mistake in the first round, but it should not display the "Usage" stuff in the end. Shane (talk/contrib) 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again: the importance parameter will not appear in the article, so it doesn't matter that much if it is POV. It is only usefull to those who chose to use it, the others can ignore it. It doesn't have to be an exact science; and again, it is generally preatty clear how important various films are. However, it should be made clear that one's personal favourite is not necessary important for everyone. Now, a constructive proposal: if anyone knows how to recover the original 1,914 films list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films, maybe those should all be assessed as High importance (maybe even by some bot) AdamSmithee 09:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound too difficult - I express no opinion as to whether you should do this, but if you were so inclined, I suppose you might copy them from the earliest edit, paste them to a user page intended specifically for the purpose, add "Talk:" to the article names, enter the name of the user page in AWB, list the pages that link to it, set options to change the tag, and launch.... TheMadBaron 09:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things

Two things:

  1. A shameless plug: Right now, Kroger Babb, an exploitation filmmaker, is up for featured article status. As it's within this purview and people here might have opinions and input, I figured I'd point it out.
  2. Speaking of Babb, I'm working on his filmography. The issue is that he often renamed films many times over the course of a time period. What's the standard that's used here - do you use the best-known title, or stick to the original one? I want to keep it consistent.

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding an article is featured if it is writen good enough as an article, as per Wikipedia guidelines, not about what its topic may be. As for a new film's title it is left up to one to decide, but it is more convenient if it is given as it is in one of the major film databases, like IMDb. Hoverfish 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the first, right. It may be of interest, in any case. On the latter, they're all in the IMDb, but there doesn't appear to be any consistency regarding the title, which is why I was wondering if there was any specific guideline people here use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the normal naming conventions: use the best known name in an English language context. If the correct name in that sense isn't apparent, just put it one name, create redirects from the others and don't worry about it after that. And if there's something interesting to say about the name changes, remember to include a mention in the articles themselves. - Bobet 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films without article

Well, there it is: List of films without article. I hope it serves us well. Hoverfish 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean the list to be in the main namespace, or created it there by mistake? It should be moved to user or project space. Prolog 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Count this as mistake by ignorance. Where do I move it to project space? Hoverfish 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article would work? Good work anyway. Prolog 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can anyone tell me how I can track if a red link shows because there is nothing in the article page, but in the Talk page there is the {{Film|class=Needed}}. I know I could check every red link against the contents of Category:Needed film articles, but is there a more practical way? And are there any other templates that could have been placed in such reserved/empty pages? Hoverfish 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you're asking. If there's no article page, there should be no talk page. TheMadBaron 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a film article, I want to know the proper format for using the 'Year in Film' link.

When I create a film article, I write it in the following manner which just shows the year and if you click on the year it takes you to the Year in Film page for that year: 

    Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue.

However, some of my films have been edited by others changing the year link to just the year and then adding a {see 2006 in film) to the end: 

    Movie Title is a 2006 film starring John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in film).

I would like to get a ruling as to which is the proper format. I think the way I do it is, as it is cleaner and there is less "clutter" in the article, but if the other method is correct I will start using it.

Thanks! Donaldd23 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited hundreds of introductory sentences for films, and I tend to follow the first approach that you listed, since that was what I saw as most common for other films. I just think having a "see 2006 in film" detracts from the introductory paragraph when it can just be included within a wikilink. Also, the title of the film should have both italics and bold around it such as Movie Title to also remain uniform with the thousands of other films on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work with your film contributions. --Nehrams2020 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nehrams. Cbrown1023 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the list by year point of view is that it offers the possibility to place this film in relation with other films of the same year or period. So, if there is a place in the article where this link can be given, the code is [[1968 in film|1968]], which gives 1968. Hoverfish 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also I personally don't like to come in articles where everything is linked to something. I could ignore the link, but it gets the eye for sure. Hoverfish 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WikiProject Music specifically deprecates the use of "piped links" of that form. That is, you should only link to [[1968 in film]] without any piping whatsoever. This is compliant with the WP:MOS guidelines about linking text. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "proper format". There's no clear WP-wide consensus on this (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates), so policy for film pages is pretty much whatever we say it is.... and fortunately, we do seem to agree on this.
I'm not too keen on the counter-intuitive [[2006 in film|2006]] links, but I strongly dislike the "see 2006 in film" approach, which clutters the text, and I see no value in a link to just the year. One possibility would be not to include a link to the year at all, except that somebody would probably add one.
TheMadBaron 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The format preferred by WikiProject Music (at WP:MUSTARD#Internal_links), which is probably influencing the use of the "year in X" form, is instead:
    Album is a 2006 record by John Smith and Peggy Sue (see 2006 in music).
First of all, the manual of style deprecates standalone years except where they are particularly significant, so those may be removed from any article as you edit (I wouldn't bother unless making other changes as well). Second, the idea is that with music articles, having bunches and bunches of year links right next to each other is clutter and only the most significant dates should be linked, for example, if the item itself is placed on the "year in music" page. This is so you don't get an article full of "In 2006, Britney Clarkson released her 203rd album, I'm Boring (see 2006 in music), which contained the singles "So Are You" (see 2006 in music) and "I Forgot Your Mom" (see 2006 in music). I don't know that this concern applies to film articles. In any case, mentioning it once in the lead doesn't bother me in the least, especially if the movie article is already included in the year in film article linked.
I'm not saying we must be compliant with the other WikiProject, but I would prefer that the two projects not have completely opposite standards. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Results

I know they are above but I need to add to it...

IMDb ------ Stays

AMG ------ No consensus

Does everyone agree with that interpretation (?) of the results of the poll. The only reason I ask is that some users are questiong the results (Hover and Phoenix know what I mean) and I'd like anyone who doesn't agree to add whatever they want here. Cbrown1023 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to take a poll on a poll??? ok thats just weird :)
There are many more quotes I can put up but I think that these ones are the most effective. I hope that helped -- UKPhoenix79 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt the results of the vote, but (and that's all new to me) there seems to be some argument on the application of the results of the vote as stated above. I am very democratic in nature, but I didn't make the rules of the game here. I am just learning more about them as this issue unfolds. Hoverfish 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear since you cannot add it to the template (since it has been included for some time now) the only question would be about removing it. Heck even the poll said it was whether you would like to keep a link to IMDb in the infobox and/or AMG. In wikipedia this tends to be a typical result, either the decision is clear or there is no concensus. -- UKPhoenix79 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment help

Flywheel (film) was given class B by the user who created the article. I just moved the template to the talk page, but I am not so sure it is more than class start. Can someone please take a look. Hoverfish 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a start class article and re-assessed it now. It might be best if one wouldn't assess his/her own article, unless it's obviously stub/start class. Prolog 12:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems my change was reverted. Maybe we need another opinion? Prolog 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note in its talk page. I have some way to go till I trust myself with assessing though. Hoverfish 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the list by letters

I mentioned it above, I mention it here again. If no one has any justified objection, I take it for a go ahead. The list of films by letters is about to be split´from 4 to 20 pages. Each of the lists is about 4 times the recommended data size and I may not be the only one getting delays with unresponsive script. I am as favorable for this list as I am for the year in film lists. It can easily be styled into a user friendly index and as easily into a member friendly tool.

To contribute in updating these 2 lists, I will start comparing them with some subjectively selected directors' filmographies. Any importance priority listed somewhere? Actually anyone can conrtibute here in case a certain director's (or actor's) filmography is found missing from the list, by checking if the rest from the filmography has been included. I am also gradually comparing the year in film lists with lists of any important film awards I happen to find. If anybody notices an important award missing from the Lists of films, please add it there, even without a link, if there is no list of films available. And by the way why isn't there a subcategory of films by Award in Category:Films? Hoverfish 11:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your plans for splitting those looooong lists. I'm not sure I understand your plans for Directors but I wholeheatedly agree that Films by Award is a worthwhile subcat of Films. Mallanox 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that these lists aren't complete enough to claim being a "film index" of wikipedia yet. So, instead of randomly searching for which films are not in, which would amount to very little, apart from having a nice time surfing, I thought I will look for all (my) "important" directors' filmographies and see what's missing from there. And the same for all "important" awards. I've already posted in TIFF awards the need for a list of winners and in several awards for better articles on winner films (and less "reds") -else their poor covering creates the impression that there is no interest or importance in such awards. I already fished several undetected film articles like this, some not even having a film project template. Hoverfish 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. What you could do is add an {{incomplete list}} tag. That way you might attract others to help you make it complete. Mallanox 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens and Predator question (concerning the template for movies and so on)

Here is the template:

Why exactly is Predator lumped in with Alien? They have had a bunch of crossover movies, games, etc... but not all are related. Wouldn't it be better to split them into two templates? Or possibly three? Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator. I don't see why they should be lumped together, when all of the things they've been aren't related (and don't feature both characters as well). RobJ1981 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

I'd like to get your feedback on the revamp of the page and the new sidebar (based on WPBio's and WPFilmmkaing's). If you like the sidebar, we should move it to all our related pages. Cbrown1023 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good to see someone else likes the template too! :) My only request would be that you change the colors so that it is a little different from WP Filmmaking's. Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I just have a few questions. Under "Infoboxes and Templates" you have the template for a film stub. Perhaps a link to all the film-related stubs would be better (for convience's sake it's here). The colors of the template do need to be changed to make it more aesthetically appealing. Also not specifically about the template, but on the assessment sub-page it links to "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review", which does not yet exist. Are you planning on creating that page because we could definitely use it. All in all I say good work! --Supernumerary 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all those links that are there should be created and/or expanded. I agree with you that it should like to more than one template, and feel free to add anything else that you feel needs to be there. Just try not to make it too long, I was going to add the {{WikiProject Films tasks}} but it was way too long. Cbrown1023 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review... Check it out. Cbrown1023 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Template Fields

I added the fields attention, past-collaboration, and collaboration-candidate to the template. Check it out and tell me what you think here. Cbrown1023 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does the attention field work?--Supernumerary 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=85965505"