Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Documentary films task force

Scope

Could the scope possibly be expanded to include documentary television series and web documentaries? It would be similar to what the Animation task force does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Animated film task force, I do not see where it covers anything other than films. {{WikiProject Animation}} is a completely separate project, and while it may cover animation in several different forms, this task force is a film task force, and therefore should only cover documentary films. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed referring to {{WikiProject Animation}} Guess that'll have to wait for a separate wikiproject. I was concerned that, say, a Ken Burns doc film will be included here, while a Ken Burns doc series will not -- but I see his TV series are in many cases (mis)categorized also as doc films. There's also the matter of some doc filmmakers who are increasingly doing interactive docs. But I get the logic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand where you're coming from too, but that could be one of the goals of this task force: to make sure that all the articles categorized as documentary films, are in fact films, otherwise they should be re-categorized properly. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortdj33, are you in agreement that the contents of Category:Documentary film can be included -- except for the doc filmmakers categories and bio articles -- so that doc film awards, organizations, festivals and the like can be included? Lugnuts was in agreement with this at a discussion at Magioladitis' user talk page, but you weren't pinged and may not have seen it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, but I was waiting for Magioladitis to finish his edits before making any other suggestions. Yes, I agree that this project should include any articles about awards, organizations, festivals, etc., as long as they pertain to documentary films. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun removing TV series articles that I see tagged here. mistakenly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary awards, festivals, orgs, etc, should all be inscope of this project. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we are all in agreement on that one. Includes documentary film genes/techniques, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical sorting

I think we need to implement alphabetical sorting for the talk page categories. Compare Category:FA-Class Documentary films articles to Category:GA-Class comic book films articles. Any idea how we can do that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually that is done by adding the |listas= parameter to the wikiproject banner. That's why the talk page for The Power of Nightmares shows up in the "P" section, but otherwise articles starting with "The" default to the first word in the article, and show up in the "T" section alphabetically. Maybe a bot can be used to check all articles starting with "A" or "The", and add the parameter if it is missing? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, very well, I see that it is on a case-by-case basis. I was hoping that there was a way to crib the defaultsort detail from the article itself to do this kind of alphabetical sorting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wither mockumentaries?

As I state here on Magioladitis' talk page, I believe that Category:Mockumentaries should not be a subcategory of Category:Documentary films by genre. They could instead be linked via related category "catrel" templates if needed. A mockumentary is a fictional work that simply mimics the documentary form. Or to quote the lead of the main article, "mockumentary (a portmanteau of the words mock and documentary) is a type of film or television show in which fictional events are presented in documentary style to create a parody." It is no more or less a documentary film than all the contents of Category:Found footage films, which fortunately is not categorized as a documentary subgenre. Docufiction and even docudramas do have non-fictional content and so belong somewhere in our tree, not so for mockus, I believe. Thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Magioladitis is busy tagging right now I'nm going to go ahead and make this change, to avoid any unnecessary bot tagging that may have to be undone later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Docudramas, too

As I slowly go through all the task force articles now, I'm finding articles categorized as docudrama that I don't believe belong here. As the main article explains, it comes down to the amount of dramatic licence, the degree to which actual events have simply served as a basis for a drama. In fact, as I look through the list of films that are offered as key examples -- The Longest Day, Tora! Tora! Tora! and All the President's Men (film), to name but three -- I'm now thinking that docudramas should not even be part of this task force at all. And I further note even though they're offered as examples in the main article, none are actually categorized as docudramas, which suggests there may not be consensus on what docudrama is. I think this is part of the mess that is the films based on actual events grouping (now the subject of a Cfd, too) and I'd like us to steer as clear as possible. I'm sorry I didn't raise this before, but I've never paid much attention to this category. I think I assumed I would find more films that are combinations of dramatic reenactments and documentary than is the case. I believe this may be yet another category that should be linked to documentary films through a catrel, with an explanation that these are dramatic films merely based on actual events. I wouldn't be hasty about this, but continue to do so on a case-by-case basis at the article level, before even considering removing the category. Thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while its emphasis is obviously TV, this little essay from Chicago's Museum of Broadcast Communications has an excellent discussion, I think, of the challenges around dramatic license and historical accuracy and value in docudrama. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't know if it's worth changing their place in the category tree, but I would agree that docudramas probably shouldn't fall under the scope of this task force. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. And fortunately, there aren't too many articles in docudramas -- I think because of the confusion over what does or doesn't represent an example of the genre -- so it'll be easy for me to remove the task force tags from articles that don't belong here (I do expect to find some docudramas that fit here). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary film

Hi. Just a reminder, for AWB editors, that most of the contents of Category:Documentary film have still not been tagged. I've started on the awards articles manually, but it is very time-consuming. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, thank you for your help with this project, especially in removing articles that are dramas or TV series, and not in the scope of documentary films. As I stated on Magioladitis' talk page, the bot may have done the bulk of tagging relevant article, but there's no way it could possibly catch everything. Personally, I am focusing on stub articles at the moment, but I will be happy to help double check the contents of Category:Documentary film when I have a chance. In the meantime, keep up the good work! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fortdj33. If I recall correctly, the absence of Category:Documentary film content wasn't by mistake -- it had been specifically omitted from the first rounds Bot tagging, at the time. I don't want to pester Magioladitis, especially over the holidays, but I'm wondering if we should raise this again at some point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category:Documentary film awards. At least that's one down. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done applicable files and categories in Category:Documentary templates. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category:Documentary film magazines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category:Documentary film organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resigning

I'm resigning from this project. All I did was I ask Fortdj33 for the courtesy of discussing something before reverting my work, and was told I was exhibiting WP:OWNership behaviour. Fuck it and him. I'm sorry I put as much work in as I did. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I hope you won't resign. I am looking at the exchange, and I agree that it does not seem clear why the classification had to be changed. Film magazines fall under the purview of WikiProject Film. Fortdj33, I don't think Shawn was unreasonable in contesting your edit, which did not explain why the template did not belong. We're all well-meaning editors contributing to this encyclopedia, I think WP:OWN was a very premature claim to make and out of line with WP:AGF. We need to focus on content until the dispute really necessitates an assessment of an editor's conduct. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth Shawn, no one is asking for you to resign from the project. You obviously have a lot of knowledge about documentary films, and have a lot to contribute in maintaining articles about them. But as I stated on my talk page, my edit was nothing personal against you. However, instead of trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page, or on the project's discussion page, you personally told me not to undo your work, both on my talk page and in the edit summary. That is showing possessiveness, and that is why I was trying to warn you that it borders on ownership. So again with all due respect, please try not to take things so personally, and like Erik said, assume good faith. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've been though this before with you, on your decision that you had the right to unilaterally delete others' work here. You're not in charge. And if you are, I don't wanna work for you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake Shawn, grow up. My edit on that redirect had absolutely nothing to do with you! I'm sorry that you are still taking things personally, but I never claimed to be "in charge". However, it's difficult to come to a consensus, when you start by going to my talk page, and accusing me of deliberately undoing your work, which was simply not the case. I still believe that you have a lot to contribute to this project, but if you are going to throw a fit every time someone disagrees with you, then we are better off without you... Fortdj33 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You have a track record of dickish, I don't-like-it behaviour when it comes to this tagging stuff, and I want no part of it, or you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortdj33, it was not assuming good faith to say that Shawn was engaging in ownership. Maybe he could have worded his inquiry better, like just asking why you replaced the template instead of adding to it, but I think this escalated unnecessarily. We all have experience and make our edits with purpose, so if these edits are to be reverted, it helps to explain clearly why. Let's just do our own thing for a few days and let this animosity hopefully dissipate, and I hope you'll stick around as a result, Shawn. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, you've always been a pleasure to work with but I want to no part of this guy. I encourage you (and everyone) to take a look at the above archived discussion -- before he re-archives it again. That he had the gall to accuse me of "ownership" is WP:BOOMERANG material par excellence. There no one that I am aware of on this project who exerts more of an ownership vibe than this guy, when it comes to this article stub tagging and assessment stuff. God knows why. Well, it's his fiefdom -- let him have it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I apologize for accusing Shawn of ownership. I think that that both of us overreacted, to what was a simple disagreement about whether a redirect fell within the scope of this project or not. It was never anything personal for me, until Shawn started making accusations on my talk page. But just because Shawn and I have disagreed before, does not give either of us the right to make personal attacks. Again, I'm sorry for my part in this misunderstanding, and I hope that we can just move on and get back to improving the coverage of documentary films on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Meld

The article about the documentary film Mind Meld has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TIFF Docs

Now that the line-up for the TIFF Docs section at the Toronto Film Festival has been announced, maybe this could be used as a mini-project area for this task force? I've started to create a few stubs. Feel free to get stuck in and create/expand new content. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landfill Harmonic

For anyone interested, Draft:Landfill Harmonic needs a bit of work before being moved to article space, it was rejected by a reviewer because it relied too heavily on the film's own web site instead of reliable sources. It won an audience award at SXSW [1] (I think in the music-documentary category) and has won other awards at environmental-film festivals as well as being programmed at several mainstream festivals [2]. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism

I expressed my views of this being an unequivocal promotional piece in the talk pages of the article itself. I'm unsure who authored it, but the director of the film is a film critic, the film is about film critics, and the page is essentially a marquee of rave reviews quoted from film critics who were largely interviewed for the documentary itself. The director also has a biography page that is self-referential and sounds suspiciously self-penned or ghost-written. I question whether either this film or its director are significant enough to merit their own pages, but both are bald-faced advertisements; you can't even take issue with the citations, because they're all from film critics, written in quotation marks, for a documentary that is a valentine to film critics to begin with--the whole thing is a house of mirrors.

Subjectively, the film itself was sloppily pieced together and is essentially a reverential piece towards Bosley Crowther (!), Andrew Sarris, and Molly Haskell--particularly the latter two, both of whom were alive and extensively interviewed for the project. The film savages and grossly underemphasizes the contributions of Pauline Kael, who was not. These criticisms have been discussed online and can be referenced. I'm going to devote time to research this article to try to bring it into an appropriate level of objectivity if possible; if not, I believe it warrants deletion. Alanrobts (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussion for Beyond Words (1997 film)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Words (1997 film) (2nd nomination) - Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to join a discussion

I have recently started a a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Tags_and_other_matters) on Boris Malagurski regarding the recent edits on the article and the overall state of the article (I guess the two are connected). I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aroused peer review

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untamed Romania

Some additional insight on the article about the documentary Untamed Romania would be appreciated, particularly if someone is versed in Romanian. While Radu1995 has provided useful content and sources, they have continuously reintroduced edits that contravene the Manual of Style. For example, they repeatedly remove proper formatting, content (year of release, languages, etc.), and wikilinks from the lead, contravening WP:FILMLEAD. I've also indicated to them that the tone of many of their edits (including in the lead) is also questionable; for example, "international distribution of the film has also been spurred by its three high-quality official subtitles" sounds like needlessly verbose PR fluff, and there are other such examples throughout the article. I've attempted to clean up the article and discuss this with them both via edit summaries and their talk page, but they are unresponsive. As I have other on-wiki tasks I am working on, I feel that bringing this to the attention of this WikiProject and particularly this task force will help improve its quality. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Student Assignment

Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of a stub article. I am writing on the 2017 Elvis Presley documentary 'The King'. I would really appreciate your advice and feedback over the coming weeks as our edits and contributions will make up our final grades for the subject. Thank you so much!Husseyp — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A problem

At the talk page for the documentary Ukraine on Fire I am finding some very problematic stuff, including that the film is pushing a "fringe" POV and as such, "The whole synopsis is based on the film itself (as a primary source), and should be removed as pro-fringe." This editor wants the whole Synopsis section removedbecause they don't like what it says. Is that okay? Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: It is good practice to tell the other participants in a discussion if you take that discussion to another place. It is necessary to present the thoughts of other editors neutrally and correctly. I explained why I'm sure that the film is supporting a fringe theory according to consensus both among editors and among RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400:, okay, I should have told you (I now learn) but have I misrepresented your stance? Carptrash (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Because they don't like what it says" is hardly a correct representation of the reasons I gave. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) ````[reply]

It sure looks to me as if you find this fringe because you don't like or agree with what it says. It's a pretty standard ploy used in all sorts of situations. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to the members of this Task Force can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Urmia

Is there a chance to review the deletion and rescue Lady Urmia documentary film?

https://en.irandocfilm.org/movie/lady-urmia/

Thank you in advance! In fact 13:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the "year" of a film

Not sure if this is discussed anywhere, but if a film premieres in 1982, but isn't released into theaters until 1983, is it considered a "1982 film" or a "1983 film"? Specifically, I'm referring to Koyaanisqatsi. IMDb lists it as a 1982 film [3] but other sources consider it a 1983 film: Criterion BFI AFI. I don't know what the standards are so I would appreciate some input. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]