Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Haneke quote

Cinema being 24 lies a second is generally attributed to Brian De Palma who said it much earlier. [1]

The documentary A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies can be cited as a source for the De Palma quote, although he probably said it in other occasions.

Hi All.

I am a huge movie buff and I love looking up artciles on movies after I watch them. Anyways, I am always watching most Batman Related Movies.

Pages worked on: The_Karate_Kid to The_Karate_Kid (film)

Groundhog Day (film) - Removed Rating that was placed on page; Added WikiProjectFilms in Description.
The Day After Tomorrow (film) - Moved the page to (film); Added WikiProjectFilms in Description; Dave (film) - Lots of changes.

--^BuGs^ 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you change The Karate Kid to The Karate Kid (film)? MechBrowman 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was the standered being used for films. Tell me if I am wrong. --^BuGs^ 16:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). We only use (film) if there is another article that would have the same name. Since there is no other article named The_Karate_Kid, there is no need to put (film) on the end. Thanks for your contributions, though -- perhaps you could also help renaming the remaining (movie) articles to (film)? The JPS 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger on that. Now I understand... ok. I will look for (movies) and change them to (film) --^BuGs^ 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Style - Article body

Wouldn't it make more sense to move the Plot section to the end of the main article body? As it stands, the plot becomes the cast section. Wouldn't someone interested in the movie but not having seen it be a little annoyed at having to try to get past the plot section, which we've helpfully marked with a spoiler warning, to find out who was in the movie? (Example: Rush (1991 film)) I would think that all of the information that doesn't give the movie away should be before the plot, which does. You can call me Al 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No matter how you style it, the plot will always show. If I goto the end of the page, to see related links, I am going to go right by it. If people were looking up the movie on a "Encyclopedia" they want to know information about it. --^BuGs^ 07:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Day After

I'm currently working on the article to The Day After, which has potential to eventually be a featured article. Any comments, criticism, and contributions are greatly appreciated. You can discuss on the talk page/edit it or leave comments on the page's Peer Review page. Thanks. Volatile 03:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It certainly desrves featured status, eventually. That is a brilliant, thought provoking movie. The Wookieepedian 12:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't (film) have to be added? --^BuGs^ 02:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the bracketted (film) extension on the titles of articles about films, but its a useful navigational aid. In this case, the title does probably does not need a disambiguation page, so a redirect page The Day After (film) would be fine.--ChrisJMoor 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

er...can't think of a headline, sorry

um...ooops, i didn't really read the bit about 'wikiproject' before I edit the film Constantine, but seriously, it really needs an update so I just kind of wrote a film summary. am I suppose to? *confuse*

No what you did was fine, but you can say how the film says ends. Don't forget to add a {{spoiler}} tag. It was nice that the synopsis wasn't too detailed. Sometimes people go over board in that section. MechBrowman 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Me again

um...I'm a huge 'random movies that no one ever heard of' fan and I only just realise that heaps of movie aren't in wikipedia. For example, 'a return to Salem's Lot', sequel to 'Salem's Lot' by Stephen King. I mean, it's really quite a famous movie (although old), so yea. Oh! and wikipedia is seriously lack of foreign film (thing i'm best at cuz no one ever understand them) so yea, I think you guys should really kind of check out the movies...

I'm not a pro (in fact, I suck) at writing articles but is that alright if I just occasionally edit some movies? thanks

Ps. just to let you guys know, curry pie tastes so much more better without tomato sauce

AC 07:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of notable films

Think all the interesting movies have been covered? Think that they all have infoboxes? You might be surprised what films are missing. I have created a list of notable films (critically acclaimed or large box office) that may not be covered in wikipedia as part of the Missing Encyclopedic Article wikiproject. The goal ultimately is to reduce the list to nothing, creating articles or redirects for redlinked movies and removing valid blue links (movie is covered, has an infobox) for other movies in the lists. For a comparison, you may want to see the companion list, list of notable albums. Any area where you can help would be awesome. Thanks!!! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to give you an update on the progress of this subproject. Almost all of the lists have been pruned and the remaining articles have been sorted according to whether it needs an article to be created or an infobox added to make it "complete". The good news is that ~15% of the films on the list were missing, but about 50% need an infobox. It's been good work so far, thanks for everyone's contributions. Special thanks to Bobet and User:Steve Eifert for helping prune the list.

Hello

I joined yesterday and would like to alert all project members to two articles that need improvement: Rumor Has It and Victim.--HistoricalPisces 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Film crew

I started a temporary page to help merge/improve the quality of film crew and filming production roles in October and after working on it solo for a while, took a month break from the project. In the meantime, no one has really contributed to the effort, despite some support for it on the Talk:Film crew page. Anyone wanting to help out, please do! It would be much appreciated. On an unrelated note, it might be time to archive this page, no? -Parallel or Together? 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is done. Please feel free to still check out and help at the improved film crew page, though. -Parallel or Together ? 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will fix all the film crew stuff tomarrow --Kylehamilton 09:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions about what is and isn't a spoiler?

Although I think identifying spoilers in films are easier to do than for some other forms of entertainment, project members might consider contributing their insights to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Screenshots allowed for films?

I have not seen people post many screenshots for films, is it alright to put a few screenshots for particular films in say a particular section? A bit like the sections that are done for computer games and consoles (E.G. [Wikipedia N64 Screenshots])

Lummie 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You can if you have to, but you must follow Fair Use guidelines and use them sparingly. MechBrowman 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a situation where free use images are rarely available. Wikipedia:Image description page gives info about, for example, setting out a fair use rationale. As a general rule they should not be used purely for decorative purposes, and as MechBrowman said, should be used sparingly. The images used should illustrate points made in the text (ie they should be relevant) and the relationship between image and text can be explained in the fair use rationale. Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) was recently a featured article of the day, and it includes a few screenshots, if you want to look at the images as examples. Rossrs 08:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, publicity photos taken on the set are copyright, but open to use in conjunction with publicity and reference (which this falls into). Thephotoplayer 05:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a “no cover” pic for our film articles?

That’s the question. When we don’t have an album cover, we put the following image: image:Nocover.gif. But what happens when we don’t have an image for our articles about films? I have written a small article about Brennu-Njálssaga and even though I tried to find the image cover for centuries, I couldn’t. I had to put my own version of a no cover pic: image:Missing_image.png. Is this OK? I have another article to publish with no image and I don’t know what to do. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its better to use nothing than to have image that says there is no imgae available. The image you created is also problematic, unlike Nocover.gif which says no image available, Missing_image.png makes it look like an error message. Missing_image.png sounds like it can't load the image or it can't find the image in the database. MechBrowman 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I will work on it again. Unfortunately, the Nocover.gif used in music albums has a CD case on it and that makes it not suitable for films. Luis María Benítez 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the time that could be spent adding the file to the articles? Couldn't this time be more productively spent finding and uploading proper images? The JPS 08:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes in the infobox

The infobox code was recently changed, so some of the field descriptions would need to be included on the project page here. Template talk:Infobox Movie/Syntax Guide already covers their use, so maybe just linking to it would suffice? Having this information in two different places is counterproductive, so I'd appreciate suggestions for merging them. - Bobet 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awards

I added an awards section to The Last Seduction, using the wikitable format. Looks good? Bad? Improvements? Troy34 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would look better if you seperated the table by which awards were won, and which it was just nominated for. I think it's awkward having the result column. I like the way Blade Runner organizes it, a minimal use of a table. MechBrowman 20:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe The Last Seduction was a bad example. I've made an awards list for the Godfather, but put it on my page so it wouldn't bog down this page or it's movie page. Any suggestions? Troy34 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should concentrate on the clearly major awards, especially in the case of a film like Godfather. Adding huge lists of awards on a page isn't really useful, since very few people would want to read through them all. The general appearance of the table is a question of personal preference. I'd like it more if there were no lines between cells, and the headers were lighter, making it more discreet. - Bobet 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the personal preference of the look on the table, i am open to ideas to change it to something everyone will use as we're going for consistany on all pages. I disagree on only putting in major awards. We're building an encyclopedia and, in my humble opinion, there should be as much information as possible on every page. Should we leave out some of the lesser known elements of the periodic table because most people wont read through them all? Troy34 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to put all the awards on such a large table, you could just have the major awards in the table and keep the rest as text. My personal preference is also to for the headers to be lighter. MechBrowman 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I lightened up the headers. Looks better. More? Troy34 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks a great deal better, a real difference. MechBrowman 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

plot

Quite a few film articles have long plot sections, is it a good idea to break up those that do into subheadings? I've also noticed that there are some plot sections which are written in film-review style where they dont include spoilers, or try to only give an introduction to the plot, rather than providing details. Is it alright to include the entire plot because there is the {{spoiler}} template?---- Astrokey44|talk 12:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is alright and generally prefered to include the entire plot. But subheadings should not be used in Plot summaries, and plot summaries should be kept short and sweet. It shouldn't be a detailed outline of every plot point and detail. MechBrowman 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think more significant films should have longer plot summaries though ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Trailers on Commons

Please, add some screenshots from american trailer's movies released before 1964 on Commons, il you have some. licence. Thanks a lot. Petrusbarbygere 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The first quote was cool. The second quote was cute. This most recent quote addition is tedious. I think everyone knows that film is important. There doesn't need to be self congratulatory quotes about how important this project is. If there is no objection, I will remove all/some of the quotes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would just keep the first one. Gflores ^Talk 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I say spread 'em. NuclearFunk 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Spreading them might be a good idea, actually... there is a lot of blank space next to the TOC? The JPS 09:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Endings

I'm a little unsure if it's OK to put endings in the movie pages, for example The Ring, The Sixth Sense, and other thriller movies. I'm guessing it's a no, from what I've seen, but I'm not entirely certain. Gflores ^Talk 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is alright to mention the ending, just include the {{spoilers}} tag. MechBrowman 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I think one thing that can separate Wikipedia film articles from IMDB (and the jillions of movie review sites) is that opinion is replaced with production facts and plot synopses, including details about the ending. The most culturally significant thing about many films is the ending. There are lots of other places readers can go to decide if they want to see the movie. --Tysto 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Are there any ideas/guidelines about what external links should be included in articles about films, and how many external links are too many? I'm of the view that random news articles/commentaries from regional newspapers aren't notable enough to be included, and that links to yahoo chat groups and otehr random discussion lists don't belong either. Wikipedia:External links suggests that fan sites might be okay, but I'm inclined to think that it would have to be an official and/or notable fansite, and not some random board that somebody created. There have been numerous reverts at Brokeback Mountain over that past few days with annonymous users putting up (arguably not notable) external links that keep getting taken down. What is the best way to deal with this? Should we create a guideline for external links on movie sites? -- Adz 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

With there being a link to each film's IMDb page in the infobox, does there really need to be repetition in the External Links area of each film? Lady Aleena | Talk 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Lady Aleena on the IMDB page under external links. Many film pages that have an infobox have just the one external link to the IMDB page. But there doesn't seem to be any point. I think it should be deleted if there is an infobox for the page. Lummie 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Film/source - separate articles?

Greetings all - I see that in many cases, a film based on a book or event has its own article (Rebecca (novel)/Rebecca (film)), while in (seemingly) just as many others, the source and the film are combined into one article (Clear and Present Danger). In some cases, the film and source title differ (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?/Blade Runner); in some they are the same (see Rebecca). Is there a standard or preference? This is the kind of thing I could happily sink my teeth into. Has it been discussed already elsewhere? Cheers, Her Pegship 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My own thought is that they should be separated into two articles because many of the details are quite different, especially if you start working with infoboxes. A film is an entirely different beast than it's source and it's easier to read when the two are apart. I think in most cases where they are covered together is simply for convenience rather than any convention stated here. As the article expands though, separate articles are usually created. A rule of thumb might be, split unless it makes the source and the film into stubs.

If you are looking for potential articles to disambiguate check out the notable film list where some of the article that primarily cover the source material and not the film are specified, though certainly not all of them. Hope that helps! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have undertaken this satisfyingly meticulous task. Cheers again - Her Pegship 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for foreign films

My apologies if this has been dealt with earlier, but is there a convention for naming foreign films? I've seen both where the title is the original release name in the country of origin (L'homme du train), and where it is the English release title (Manon of the Springs). Most articles are good in that they provide redirects for the English release title and the foreign title but it is strange to see a title (Le Salaire de la Peur) with an release poster in English. There needs to be some consistency either way, though I personally favor the English release title. See Category:Films by country for examples of both, though French films seems to have the most movies with original release name. If there isn't a policy then a straw poll should be done to see which is prefered. Whatever is decided should also go into the naming conventions policy. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest, but am I going to get any response on this?! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd vote for using English for the article's title, with a redirect from the original-language title. And if there's no image of the original-language poster available, I think the English poster should be used only if the film has been translated and re-released in English. Don't know if this makes sense, but it's my $.02. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the English section of Wikipedia, I say stick with the English title. Same goes for the other languages, use the language to decide which title to use. Lady Aleena | Talk 23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, but there are many cases where a film is known mainly by its untranslated title in the English-speaking world. Hence Ikiru, not To Live. Don't go overboard in translating article titles into English. --dm ^(talk) 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

{{Infobox_Film_rating |

 width = 26em |
 Ratings        = Australia:M / Canada:13+ (Quebec) / Canada:18A (Alberta) (re-rating) (1999) / Canada:18 (Nova Scotia) / Canada:R (Manitoba/Ontario) /  Ireland:18 / UK:15 (re-rating) / UK:18 (1984-2000) / USA:R |
 for            = strong sci-fi violence and action, and for language and brief nudity. Steven McCrary 13:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)|

}} {{Infobox_Film_rating |

 width = 16em |
 Ratings        = . . . |
 for            = . . . 

Steven McCrary 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)| }}

How about creating an "Ratings" template? That way it does not have to be integral with the Template:Infobox Movie. Steven McCrary 21:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How about the rating template at right. It is at Template:Infobox Movie rating I have implemented it on Groundhog Day (film). Comments? Steven McCrary 13:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose for mentioning the film's rating? MechBrowman 14:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Information, that's all (not trying to be coy). For some people, ratings are controversial, for others not. For some people, ratings are very important; for others not. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If the rating was contorversial than it should be mentioned within the article, and if you really want to put in ratings than why not mention them somewhere in the content of the article? I do not understand why you feel a template is needed for information that can be very arbitrary and even changes over time (and if different from country to country). MechBrowman 17:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

see comment below The JPS. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ratings should be implemented in the main infobox_movie because having more than one template one above the other may not look so good when they don't have the same width. you see, after I've removed the (thumb) from the movie poster on groundhog day's article, the infobox became wider than the your template.. btw: see my suggestion about having the movie sequels in the infobox at the bottom of this article. --Amr Hassan 14:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I see you've fixed the width of the template to be as the infobox .. but how do you know that it's gonna fit all the other infoboxes on the other movie articles ?? and btw. I think that the 300px movie poster width is the most popular here .. --Amr Hassan 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

True enough, and that could be a problem. I like your suggestion about implementation as found in albums. Until the Infobox Movie is updated, I plan on using this one. Until then, I am resolved to keep all images to 210px. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added another parameter to Infobox_Movie_rating that allows the user to vary the width on the article page. The examples at the right show the feature. Steven McCrary 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MechBrowman that inclusion is superfluous. The template provides a link to the IMDB for a reason. For films where the ratings are controversial, they should be discussed properly, within context, in the article. The JPS 17:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting the rating(s) in a template provides a standard location for that information. To me, not providing a rating summary is a significant piece of missing information that helps to summarize the movie's content. Following the IMDB logic to extreme would mean elimination of most (if not all) of the information in the Infobox_Movie template. Which eventually leads to why put any information here that is on IMDb (or any other movie web site), a discussion already occuring elsewhere on this page. The controversies and changes in ratings can still be brought up in the article. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of actors, writers, producers and directors enables wikilinks to (potential) articles about those individuals, something which the IMDB cannot provide. Ratings do not summarize a movie's content. Why did they obtain that rating? Strong violence or graphic sex scenes, or both, or something else...? Comlpeting Infobox_Movie can be tedious enough without having to add superfluous info. The JPS 18:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

1. I see the benefit of actors, writers, ..., etc. Good point. But what about the duplicity (with what is on IMDb) of information regarding budget of a film? run time? Should they should be moved to the article?
2. Do not understand the comment, "ratings do not summarize a movie's content." It certainly suggests the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content, etc. Aren't those summaries? I believe it is important information about the movie, and is important to Wikipedia's audience.

Steven McCrary 19:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of budgets and run times being included either. (Running times have far too many variants anyway). If a film's budget is relevant, then it should be discussed in context (i.e. the most expensive film since x until y in 19zz). It's a field I usually leave blank when I'm adding this template to film articles, unless it can be found very easily.

Ratings are too reductive to be useful for an encyclopedia. They may be useful for parents, etc, trying to decide if a film is suitable (wikipedia is not a video guide) for family consumption. For an encyclopedia, however, the range of elements which could inflict a high rating means that on their own they are pretty much useless. They may "suggest the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content", but not accurately report it, within context. A film does dot need to be explicit in all areas to receive a 18, or R, or whatever... sex, violence, drug use... which is it? They tell us very little. The JPS 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I use Wikipedia over IMDb as a movie guide. Lady Aleena | Talk 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, well stated! I agree they are reductive, and without the reasoning they mean nothing (note I did include the "for" parameter in the Infobox_Movies_rating), and agreed that Wikipedia is not a video guide. Thanks for the perspective.

The best example that comes to my mind is the rating given to the movie A Clockwork Orange. The movie originally appeared in 1971 with an "X" rating. I was a child then (12), but still remember the hooplah associated with that rating. In college, I read the book, as you know, a masterpiece of literature, nevertheless a brutal tale. Only recently did I rent and watch the video, now with an "R" rating. The point is that those ratings communicated content of that movie. I am not sure that words could adequately describe the brutality of that movie (or of those individuals). But a rating does, in my view, along with the reason. I think people understand thresholds of values and a rating systems communicates those thresholds in a manner words do not.

Anyway, I am not trying to convince you of my viewpoint, only communicate it.

Steven McCrary 21:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with a ratings template is that that are likely to be presented with American ratings only. They won't relate to readers in other countries that use different ratings, based on different criteria. Having them in the article where they can be explained is a great idea, but just having a rating in the infobox serves little purpose, I think. Rossrs 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be in the main movie template, it's easier to find if you wanted to know that info. --Revolución (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why movie ratings have to be kept separate from the main {{Infobox Movie}} template. this template is where the reader goes to get a quick rundown of the film's basic facts, such as starring cast members, runtime, budget, etc. Why should film ratings get their own template? — EagleOne\^Talk 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, the ratings discussion was deleted. I do not remember that being a resolved issue. I am reverting it. Steven McCrary 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No wonder why I did not see it.... In response to reading the discussion I agree. having the ratings in is not a good idea. Overtime the ratings change and they don't mean the same thing as they once did. the MPAA does this based only on the context of socity. If there is a vote, I am a strong no even in the current template. --^BuGs^ 00:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Bugs on this one I belive that we should add rateings to the Wiki pages, a films rateing can reflect a socitys view on a topic for its time. The Wiki should have as much infomation as possable on this subject. I am a Yes for adding the movie rateings and I and a Yes for adding budget infomation and what have you on film pages. --Kylehamilton 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a straw poll of the ratings issue:

PRO-6 Steven McCrary Amr Hassan Revolución EagleOne Kylehamilton MikeBriggs

CON-4 MechBrowman The JPS Rossrs Bugs

Logo/Image for Project

I created this image right before I head to bed... File:Wiki films.png Could use this on the WikiProject Film pages and I could create a Userbox template if I ever get a change at it! (Can't seem to figure it out, but I am going to ask the userbox group once you guys think of this logo. (ok bed time for me. up for 36 hours now...) --^BuGs^ 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Text is way too small to be usable, though I like the idea. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)

Hi all. I was wondering, if some of you aren't too busy, I've got a film page up for nomination and I need some fresh eyes to give it a once-over. Not for research, (although any advice would be most appreciated) but for grammar, spelling, structure, and that other nitty gritty stuff. Thanks! Palm_Dogg 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability Requirements

I think it would be helpful to have guidelines for which films not to include. A new page for the film Different For Girls was recently added, but I didn't think it seemed particularly notable. I've been searching through the project pages for guidelines on film notability requirements. I was thinking that perhaps films not listed in the List of notable films should be excluded, but anyone could add their favorite film to that list. I would personally appreciate some guidance on this, and I think the page would benefit from some sort of guideline. Thanks! --JeremyStein 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone cares enough about a movie to put it in (excluding self-promotion and other stuff like that which clearly should not be on WP), maybe someone else will care enough to search for it. So, if the article is any good, my vote is to keep it, notable or not. AdamSmithee 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of notable films is something you definitely should not be using as a guideline on which films to include. It's specifically used just to find articles of films whose articles are lacking and every film that has a decent article with an infobox is removed from the list. (The word 'notable' in the title of that project has nothing to do with the Wikipedia guidelines.)

It's true that there currently aren't any guidelines, but as far as I know, pretty much every film that has been released theatrically qualifies for an article, as long as there's something to say about it. I don't think I've ever seen a non-student film on afd. - Bobet 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Different For Girls is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles, which is why I added a page for it. It is notable because it covers a transgender theme, and there aren't many films that cover this theme in a positve light. Anyone researching transgender and looking for films that deal with the subject should be able to find this film listed.--Athena2006 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AdamSmithee on the subject of adding films to the wiki we should add any film that isnt blantent self promotion --Kylehamilton 08:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Taglines

I wondered what the Film project recommended regarding "tagline" notes on film articles. On the Syriana article, I removed the line with the tagline for several reasons: 1) it's just thrown into the article near the beginning, without any regard to structure; 2) it doesn't seem encyclopedic. I think that the taglines are often placed in film articles because IMDb does the same thing, but to me, they often seem out of place and not important enough to note (it's just a marketing motto). I think they should only be included if they are somehow relevant to the article. I checked this WikiProject's talk archives to see if there were any guidelines regarding taglines; all I found was a note here, but there wasn't much discussion, so I thought I'd pose the question here: Should, in your opinions, taglines be included in articles or not? – Mipadi 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts? – Mipadi 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, almost all taglines are unencyclopedic. Only a few are worth mentioning. An example of a tagline worth mentioning is "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water." for Jaws 2. That tagline was extremely succesful and still reconigzed today. In the cases with notable taglines they still should only placed within text as prose. MechBrowman 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Most film articles have a Trivia/Notes/Miscallenous section. If you think that the tagline for a film is not particularly relevant you could move it to the Trivia section. Otherwise, I'm for keeping taglines AdamSmithee 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the way taglines are being used in leads. For example Tagline:Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water. I think so far it works well, it may not be that relevent in all cases, but its interesting. Forever young 07:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But that's out of place—it's basically just thrown into the article. Many articles have a block of text, and then just a line like Tagline: Tagline here. The article loses flow when it's thrown in. – Mipadi 08:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

External links to reviews

A couple of questions:

1. Is there a general guideline for externally linking reviews in film articles?
2. What would be the reaction if a professional film reviewer was found to be linking his own reviews in a large number of film articles? (I can guess, but I just want to verify my assumption.)

Thanks. android79 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No no NO! I have reverted the "addition" of at least one of these reviewers trying to draw attention to themselves. Feel free to revert them or you can also leave me a message with the user as it will be much easier for me to revert their changes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

By "large number", I mean two dozen or so. It won't be terribly hard to revert these. The user in question is Thereeldeal (talk · contribs); I asked him if he was the reviewer he was linking to and he admitted it openly, so I don't think there is any bad faith involved. I've already told him that what he's doing is probably not a good thing; he appears to have stopped, and I am awaiting further response. If I don't get one in the next day or so, I'll revert all his links. You are welcome to do so without my approval, of course. android79 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes...Mr Sells. This would be the second time that I have reverted his edits. The first time was not a couple films it was every film he had reviewed [2]. I try my best to AGF, but this was a spamming of wikipedia and I think should be treated as such. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thanks for your work at AFD. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he continued as an anon for a bit after I warned his registered account. Thanks for tipping me off to the anon. android79 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Film related featured articles?

just to inform you you can vote to support Horror film as a featured article by voting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horror film/archive1 - i dont think i've ever seen a film-related featured article, at least not one that isnt just a specific film, and specific film info is better served at imdb anyway. these kinds of genre articles are much more informative but never get much editing attention. Niz 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Synopis guidelines

Are there any more guidelines for writing a synopsis than the Plot section? I've been tempted to add subheadings to indicate act structure, for example, and decided that that's not very valuable. At Jaws (film), I expanded the synopsis significantly, broke it up with subheads (without attempting to match act structure), and added in-line quotes. I felt it was getting a bit long, but others added some production detail that I've since moved. I also made a plea for people to be judicious about what belongs in a "synopsis," but pointing to guidelines would be a help to all (level of detail, where to put the spoiler tag, how much to reveal about "twist ending" movies, etc.). --Tysto 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis' need to be short and too the point, if you think sub-headings are needed, than there is too much detail. There is no offical guidelines, but the film featured articles are perfect examples on how to write a synopsis. MechBrowman 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This was already touched upon in an archived discussion, but the short poll didn't get much input and there are no real guidelines at the moment. As usual, the featured articles are good for comparisons, since they're supposed to be deemed good in every way by disinterested parties, see Sunset Blvd. and November (film) for examples of how the plot section is implemented. Twist endings should always be revealed if they're significant to the movie, The Sixth Sense is currently an example on how it should not be done. We're not trying to sell the film, just provide information on it. - Bobet 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My vision of a synopsis (with subheads) is influenced by long hours of study years ago with Microsoft Cinemania. This changes my thinking, so I'll trim the Jaws (film) synopsis. But I hate "...and hilarity ensues" synopsises (and Latin plurals), so I'm happy to find that the general consensus is that a complete description is preferred. --Tysto 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

American centric

Distributed by: the film's original theatrical distributor. In the case of there being different distributors for different countries, list only the film's U.S. distributor (and its distributor in its home nation first if the film was not produced in America). You can clarify this in parentheses at the end, e.g. "Orion Pictures Corporation (USA)" if Orion only released The Terminator in the U.S.

This has to change. By all means prioritise the distributor in the home nation, but why should the US distributor always be listed, even for non-US films? Suggestion:

Distributed by: the film's original theatrical distributor. In the case of there being different distributors for different countries, list only the distributor in the country where the film was produced. You can clarify this in parentheses at the end, e.g. "Orion Pictures Corporation (USA)" if Orion only released The Terminator in the U.S.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Stevage 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much how it's done already, at least, that's what I've put in as the distributor. The wording is a bit problematic though, since "the country where the film was produced" isn't always the most relevant criteria, eg. in The Last Samurai, which I think was aimed at mainly American audiences (in that case, the distributor is the same in Japan and USA so it wouldn't make a difference, but that was the best example I could come up with). - Bobet 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I've updated the wording. There are obviously still limitations, as noted. Stevage 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Film production

It's probably outside the scope of this project, but "principal photography" and other articles under "film production" need a lot of work. I only mention it here where film-loving Wikipedians dwell because, in my heart of hearts, I imagine that Martin Scorsese is a Wikipedian. --Tysto 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Long island project

User:ericnorcross created the page Long island project about a short film he seems to have produced (if that is his real name). I don't really know what to make of this, so I thought I'd come over here to see if anyone can verify this, thinks we should delete it, can improve upon it, etc. Cheers! Semiconscious · talk 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted as vanity. MechBrowman 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

MGM musicals

I only just found out about this WikiProject. Just FYI I've just created several articles about different MGM musicals if anyone wants to check them next to the standards being established. In the last few days I've done Ship Ahoy, I Dood It, Thousands Cheer, Till the Clouds Roll By, and Born to Dance. Except for Clouds, the other films all have Eleanor Powell in common as I'm working to fill out the redlinks in her filmography. 23skidoo 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Delinquents

It has been suggested that we "clean up" the article on Robert Altman's feature directorial debut, the 1957 film "The Delinquents" starring Tom Laughlin and Richard Bakalyan. Any suggestions for improving the article? I don't really see what's wrong with it, although it seems to read more like a review than an encyclopedia article (which is also a problem with the "Girl Can't Help It" film article, which amazingly hasn't been tagged for a clean-up yet!).

Awards line in infobox

Can someone tell me what the awards line in the infobox is for or how to use it? I tried writing in it just to test it but nothing came up. Is there any use for it? Or there is and I just haven't seen it? Thanks, Lummie 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

There's been talk about that before, at least in Template talk:Infobox Film. The template currently doesn't have a field for awards (some film infoboxes have the field, but it's not displayed), since most people seem to feel that including them in prose in the article text is better than cramming a lot of awards in the infobox. - Bobet 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't think there was a need for it but just wanted to confirm. Ta Lummie 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Supervolcano (documentary)

Just a quick heads up. I removed the infobox from Supervolcano (documentary) as for some reason it was causing a PHP error (in IE if it's browser specific) on the page. Someone with a bit more knowledge can prob fix it, it's still in the page history. exolon 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignore previous, box is back and not causing a problem now. exolon 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! We don't have a userbox

What's up with that? We don't have a category under Category:Participants in WikiProjects either. You can use the generic "participant in WikiProject" box:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Films.

but I think we deserve better. :) Does anyone know how to create a userbox? Her Pegship 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This user participates in
WikiProject Film.

Noted and acted upon. Palm_Dogg 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Thanks, Mr./Ms. Dogg. Her Pegship 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's "Mr." Dogg, and you're welcome. :) Palm_Dogg 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Century of Cinema

I just added a new list of films, The Century of Films from The Guardian magazine. If anyone is bored and looking for something to do on the project, I think WP's coverage of foreign films and foreign directors is lacking. This list is a good place to start writing new articles and expanding existing ones in this area. Volatile 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I added redirect pages at some of the redlinks (the list contains the UK version of the titles in many cases) and fixed spelling on a couple of titles on the list, where missing dots made them into redlinks. I'll take a look at the rest after the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films are done with (not in a while) unless someone else gets to them first. - Bobet 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Images/Actor photos

Hey all. I've been checking out [3]. Seems like, from what I read in his user agreement page, that we could use some of these excellent stills for Wiki pages. Many classic film actors are missing photos, and some photos in Wiki have questionable copywrite status, so I think this page would be helpful. Anyone agree? Steve-O 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. What he's put on his page is basically a disclaimer saying that he understands the images are copyrighted and if anyone feels their rights as copyright holder have been infringed, they should let him know. That disclaimer does not automatically carry through to Wikipedia. Also, he has made no effort whatsoever to identify or acknowledge any copyright holder. Our own policies say that we should be stating who the copyright holder is but this site provides no useful information in this regard. I think some of the photographs are brilliant, but they are no freer than a multitude of dubious images currently being used on Wikipedia. I think correctly tagging them, and providing source/copyright/fair use rationales as per Wikipedia:Image description page are still as important as ever. Rossrs 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

New sub-category

Greetings all! I have been following the request to merge Category:Films based on novels with Category:Films based on books (see discussion here). As a result, I created a sub-category Category:Films based on non-fiction works. I am wondering whether Category:Films based on novels should be renamed Category:Films based on fiction works, as there are obviously films based on children's books and other forms of fiction, currently categorized under the broader Category:Films based on books. (Yes, I'm volunteering to sub-cat the articles therein.) What are your thoughts? Her Pegship 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Filmes Based on Books Taken Further

by: Lady Aleena | Talk 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the tree for this could be...

• Category:Films based on books - All films based on a book would have this category.
  • Category:Films based on fiction books - All films based on a work of fiction would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on fantasy books - All films based on fantasy novels would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on horror books - All films based on horror novels would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on mystery books - All films based on mystery novels would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on science fiction books - All films based on science fiction novels would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on romance books - All films based on romance novels would have this category.
  • Category:Films based on non-fiction books - All films based on a work of non-fiction would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on the Bible - All films based on the Bible would have this category.
    • Category:Films based on biographies - All films based on biographies would have this category.
  • Category:Films based on children's books - All films based on a children's book would have this category. Some, like Harry Potter, would cross over to the above listed categories.

So, this would place Along Came A Spider in Category:Films based on mystery books. This would be a huge crawl, but I am willing to help with this.

This looks great. My only request would be that we drop the capital on the descriptor - e.g. mystery rather than Mystery. Caps are reserved for proper names, place names, and titles. And I can help with the crawl. :) Her Pegship 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pegship,

The capitalization is proper in this case since the capitalized word, example Mystery, is the proper name of the genre. Also, I would seriously disagree with using the lowercase on the Bible. This is one issue that I have with the catagories here. They are not properly capitalized. Actually, they should be...

This list removed as it was a near copy of the one above.

According to A Writer's Reference (Second Edition) by Diana Hacker...

"Capitalize the first, last, and all major words in titles and subtitles of works such as books, articles, and songs." - page 180

This tells me that most articles with lowercased major words are in error. This part of the page should read Films Based on Books Taken Further (and it was renamed as such). Catagory names should follow the same rules.

Lady Aleena | Talk 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My lady - Yes, I would definitely capitalize Bible if it references THE Bible. Mea culpa. Also, I should have clarified that it's the Wikipedia naming convention to use lower case except for proper names and words that are "otherwise almost always capitalized". This is not the case in The Outside World, but it seems to work here. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pegship - Do you think that anyone would have a problem with me creating a sign up page for this part of the overall project so that we don't step on each other's toes and know who is doing what? Maybe put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books project and adding this sub-project to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films page? Lady Aleena | Talk 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea for a Wikiproject (see this link for how to go about it). I'll sign up as soon as it's proposed. Her Pegship 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone started this already, so I joined in. Most of the categories are made per the naming conventions. See above for the categories that are already created. Category:Films based on novels needs to be cleaned out first, IMO. Lady Aleena | Talk 02:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. I proposed to make this project a sub-project of WikiProject Films not a project on its own. -LA-

PPS. I have a sign-up sheet at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books. If this is approved by others in the main project, I will create an official page for it. -LA-

Films based on books sub-project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books

Please sign up to help!

Lady Aleena

Infobox film fields (trailer/ratings)

Some people have again been adding more fields to the template without talking about it so I reverted and figured I'd ask here to get consensus about it (no one seems to read the template talk). The (certificate) ratings field has already been talked about several times and while some people think having ratings in the film articles would be useful (per talk on this page), no one's even suggested that they should be in the infobox. Plus the field was only meant for MPAA ratings, adding to systemic bias.

The other added field was for film trailers. I have no idea why that should be in an infobox, or how it belongs to an encyclopedia, please tell if you think it's a good idea to have it. - Bobet 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly against inclusion on both fields. Ratings have been discussed, and links to trailers can be put somewhere in the article, if someone feels the need to (although these are meant to be encyclopedia articles, not commercials) AdamSmithee 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a film guide. There are too many ratings to put in an infobox. Trailers should definitely not be put there. MechBrowman 17:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have said in another post on this page, I use WikiPedia as a film guide. Lady Aleena | Talk 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Against inclusion on both as previously noted. Her Pegship 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong No. This is a not a film respository. ^BuGs^ 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also against inclusion of ratings --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support for Ratings - The condition is that the ratings in the article cover all the nations where the language of the page is spoken. This would be a good measure of how various nations censors handled the film. Some nations may be more lax than others. Ratings would show the readers the attitudes of the nations. Lady Aleena | Talk 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• No - we've been through this. Ratings are too reductive and can merely implicitly reflect varying cultures' attitudes, allowing incorrect assumptions to be made. The JPS 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Humor in the infobox

Four Word Film Review is a site which provides film reviews in four words or less by various users. The site covers a lot of films and could easily be added to the infobox as the films on that site have numerical ids. The reviews are humorous, but do we have to be completely serious all of the time? Lady Aleena 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have to AdamSmithee 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, it was just a thought. Lady Aleena 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AMG in the infobox

What about adding AMG to the infobox? The pages on films there are more concise than IMDb, but everything is on one page "at a glance." It would be helpful for when people are editting the pages just like IMDb.

All Movie Guide

Lady Aleena 08:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Films tasks

So I've noticed that the guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, of which I am a part-time member, have been really raking in the Featured Articles as of late. I'm guessing that, in addition to being really smart and well-motivated, it's also due to their task bar. I noticed that the Portal:Film site wasn't really using theirs and since the Featured Portal:War shares theirs with their respective WikiProject, I figured WP Films could do the same. I put in as much info as I could find, but if you guys like it, feel free to expand it. If not, my apologies, but I really though the project could use some sort of central coordinating template. Palm_Dogg 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indian cinema

As we already have a WikiProject Indian cinema, I don't think it makes sense to add the template of this project to films that have to do with Indian cinema per se. It may be better to continue this discussion at that project's talkpage for better response. --Gurubrahma 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sundance

Just wanted to let the members of this project know that I've created a list of films that have been shown at Sundance Film Festival. It can be found at List of Sundance Film Festival selections. It has about all of the information needed for the 2006 festival thanks to the handy festival film guide that I picked up. I'm going to hit up some people I know to get copies of guides from previous years so hopefully the other years will be as complete as the 2006 section is. I've also been working on getting all of the films shown at the festival tagged with Category:XXXX Sundance Film Festival where XXXX is the year that the movie was shown. I've seen some that are both a year before and a year after the other mentions of years in the article and on imdb, so please check the year before you tag all of your favotire films. And finaly the category of Category:Sundance Film Festival award winners has been created for all of the award winners. This year there were 27 awards given out, so there should be quite a few films in both categories. —A 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Awards revisited

Over at Talk:Brokeback Mountain there has been much discussion on the subject of Awards and I was surprised that there was no guidance, actually no mention of Awards in the article structure currently endorsed by this project. There is obviously a wide range of ways the subject is handled depending on the film/article so this is probably something that should be addressed. Key questions:

1. Should awards be mentioned in the lead? Which are notable enough for that prominence? (just Oscars? Golden Globes?)
2. Should Awards be a top level section? Or a section within Reception? Should it include nominations (as a subsection?) or just awards won?
3. Should listed awards be limited or complete? What criteria should be used to limit? Notability? Quantified how? Only those awarding organizations with WP articles?

Discuss. :-) AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 07:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of disaster movies

Has anyone checked the list of disaster movies?, because its almos completeted. Storm05 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why have a list and a cat? Isn't a cat enough?? imo, lists should be for chronological occurrences etc. and cats are much better in terms of organising. --Gurubrahma 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

creation of a template for Jean-Luc Godard

in order to make a film portal that is easier and quicker to use, i move that we need to create a template such as the on used for the films of Federico Fellini, except for Jean-Luc Goddard

to keep it simple, i would suggest that it be the same format, just with information for godard in place of fellini.--zachjones4 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Knights (film)

Could you lot either find sources for this article or put it up for AfD please? Thanks in advance, --Jamdav86 11:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on afd now. - Bobet 12:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion...

Which group should I address regarding my thoughts on Kurosawa's "Rhapsody in August"? I would like to discuss with someone regarding some edits I would like to make to the entry. Thanks in advance! Vnv lain 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article's talk page (at Talk:Rhapsody in August) is usually the best place for this. Sometimes it can take a while to get answers there, but you'll usually get an audience that's interested on the particular subject. If no one answers, or if you feel like it, you can always be bold and just edit the page and see if it sticks. Since you probably got here through a link on the talk page you probably looked there already. The template at the top of talk pages is just used to inform people of this wikiproject and as far as I know this talk page is used for more general topics about film-related articles. - Bobet 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help in Films based on books

Our project can always use more input. Stop by any time. Her Pegship 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct stub category?

Which is the preferred category for film genre stubs, Category:Film genre stub categories or Category:Film Genre stubs? Thanks - Her Pegship 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Film Genre stubs, since Category:Film genre stub categories only contains 2 subcategories. They'll get categorized correctly when you tag them with {{film-genre-stub}} anyway, there's no need to worry about stub categories. - Bobet 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing some stub sorting, so I just wondered why there are two sub-cats that sound so similar. Thanks. Her Pegship 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking job titles?

In a film article is it the norm to link the roles of the various crew mentioned? I thought it was standard practice to link for example [[Actor]], [[Film director|director]], [[Screen writer|writer]], [[Film producer|producer]], [[Costume design|Costume designer]] etc However, I've seen people unlinking these with the justification that they are common enough terms for the average reader to understand without requiring links and that such linking is "overwikification". Alternatively, couldn't these terms be linked by default within the infoboxes? Gram 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Adendum: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Personnel the guideline is to link the personnel's roles, so I would have thought this would also be standard for films??? Gram 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to link job titles in films or not?? Gram 16:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no standard on this. My personal preference is to link, but... do what you consider best AdamSmithee 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

16 Blocks....

....based on Elmore Leonard's "Last Train to Yuma" at all? Story sure sounds similar.

New stub type?

I see that {{drama-film-stub}} is taking on a life of its own and will soon be moving out on its own and contributing to Wikipedia *g* ...Drama is such a broad genre it becomes a catch-all. Would it be appropriate (as I see with {{HK-film-stub}} and {{Japan-film-stub}}) to create more "country" film stubs to siphon off some of these? Maybe the top film-producing countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, Australia, South America? This would be a sub-cat of {{film-stub}}. I will post a proposal at the stub sorting project for discussion. Her Pegship 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion concerning this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. - Bobet 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox and category

Hi everyone, I've changed {{User WikiProject Films}} to include a category link to Category:Participants in WikiProject Films. This category seemed to only have this talk page as a member. Now, anyone using the WikiProject Films userbox will be sorted into this category as well. Yorick 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

I've removed the fair use image from the infobox; per Wikipedia fair use policy #9, use of fair use images should be avoided outside the article namespace. Feel free to revert if this edit was in error. --Muchness 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Wikipedia:Article assessment is currently accepting submissions for "1980s comedy films". Next week all the submissions will be assessed. Please consider adding a submission and helping with the assessments next week. violet/riga (t) 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub and Category List

Is it possible to get a concise list of appropriate stubs and categories to use in articles on the main project page, so occasional editors don't have to search through the huge talk page to try and find some? Thanks - Nekura 22:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of stubs at the beginning of Category:Film stubs and at Wikipedia stub types, and you can browse Category:Film for sub-cats. Her Pegship 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Best Picture Project?

How about a Best Picture Project? I just went through and added the {{Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture}} template to each article and on the way I noticed that some of those articles are no more than stubs and some of them could become featured with a little extra work. I would like to start a project with the goals (1) Standardize those articles (to a reasonable degree) (2) Make sure that all of them have critical information on Plot/Production/Response, etc. (3) Add Images (4) Link to Wikiquote, etc. Let me know if anyone else is interested or if anyone has some ideas as to more project goals. I won't start this until we have a handful of people who are at least tenuously committed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that template and is there any way to make that more asthetically pleasing? It just looks like a big block of text. Besides isn't that template redundant with the Template:Succession boxes and Academy Award for Best Picture? -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that, if you are interested to standardise and contribute to important films, there is already a more general subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. AdamSmithee 08:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the template's appearance is OK although there is room for improvement. I was thinking of removing the succession boxes because they give much less information than the template, but sometimes its also nice to be able to find the ones immediately before and after easier. But the template certainly is not repetitive with the sucession boxes because it gives much more information. Imagine trying to get from Sunrise to Million Dollar Baby! savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Film industry

This was asked at Portal talk:Film, but I doubt many people read that so I'm asking the same thing here (the question being: would anyone object if I reverted the Film industry article?):

Film industry seems to have been mostly a duplicate of film which was expanded to the point of breaking. It heavily duplicates history of film and film crew (both of which I've added merge tags for, since there is some information that should be moved over). I did some cleanup, but much more is needed. Your help is appreciated. -Harmil 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone made a complete mess of the page with this edit, pretty much overwriting it with the article on Film and then cutting and pasting more things from the pages pointed to by the {{mainarticle}} template (the Film history, Film theory etc. pages). Would anyone object if I just revert it to this version, that's actually about film industry? - Bobet 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'Cinema Collaboration of the week'?

The "Cinema Collaboration of the week" is now six weeks old. ("The next winner will be selected on Saturday, January 28, 2006.") Perhaps it should be removed if it's not going to be updated. --Jeremy Butler 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Joining!!!!!!!!!

I want to be part of this group. I sometimes help expand stubs.

Policy guidance on adding to Lists of films

On the article page it is stated:

"If you find, create, or contribute to a film article, please paste {{FilmsWikiProject}} onto the article's talk page and add a Wikilink to the page on Lists of films." (emphasis supplied).

However, no policy guidance is given on which list in the List of films one should list a film. I recently wrote the article on Vampire's Kiss and found this project today. I posted the notice on the talk page and then went to the lists and found that this movie would fit in multiple lists--1985 in film, List of films: S-Z, List of United States comedy films, List of comedy-drama films and List of films set in New York City (actually the most appropriate list is missing and maybe should be made: List of dark comedies).

Is it desirable to list a film in every category list it fits into, despite the duplication this creates? Is it recommended that only one list be chosen? Is listing in certain lists better for film ranking? Is there no policy on these matters; or is it thought not to matter? Some guidance would be helpful. A paragraph on policy might be placed either right after the instruction to "add a Wikilink to the page on Lists of films," or probably more appropriately, at the top of the Lists of films article. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The film subsubsubstubs

This "article" was a joke? Such "articles" are speedy deleted in the de:Wikipedia.
For example: The last new film article of me here: de:Der Dummschwätzer. --AN 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

infobox reform: include cinematographer/DP

I'm surprised this info isn't in the box, the DP being one of the biggest contributers to the final product. Certainly if we have a line for "music by" we can include the DP. yes/no? --24.131.209.132 07:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The infobox DOES have an entry for cinematography AdamSmithee 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true, upon further inspection, although it would appear that the field is sorrily underused. I did a quick browsing of movie articles (famous movies at that) and found that most don't include the cinematography attribution. So let's start using it whenever possible. The technical aspects of the infobox code are beyond me (probably why I didn't see that it was there in the first place), but I'll start adding some now; we should be able to find them all at the imdb.com link directly below. --24.131.209.132 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I fill in all spaces on the infobox whenever the information is available. But for a lot of the films I'm adding or planning to add, sadly the details aren't there, in English anyway. Wisekwai 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After editing just 20 or so of my favorite flicks for cinematographer and editor, I can just tell this is a big issue. I encourage everyone with any spare wikipedia time to add as many as possible, almost any article there is needs the additions. -- (the unnamed IP above) B. Phillips 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One reason why many films don't have this info is that the field has been introduced in the infobox relatively recently, so older infoboxes do not have it. However, it is also true that some people do not consider this info significant :-( AdamSmithee 08:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Body

Lead Section

Shouldn't a non-spoiler premise of the movie also be here? – Isogolem 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A one sentence premise seems like a good idea AdamSmithee 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tagline

We need to address this in the 'article body'. Describe when taglines should and should not be included. There's discussion of this above. I suggest the following text:

Taglines are verbal hooks, often printed on movie posters, but also used in TV ads and previews. Some movies have no tagline, some have several. Most taglines are pretty generic, of little interest, and should not be included. For more interesting ones, including them in the Trivia section make sense, but keep the number down. If a tagline (or a set of taglines) was a significant part of the cultural infulence of the film, create a section for it and discuss the effects. For example, none of the more that five taglines for Wes Craven's New Nightmare deserve mention. On the other hand, discussing Jaws 2 without mentioning "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." would be a glaring omission.

– Isogolem 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. It's good that you made this point, as it seems to be highly controversial (at least to me) AdamSmithee 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No other comments, I' adding a section to the style guide. - Isogolem 06:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reception

This should be directly under the Lead section. It gets the "review-like" aspects of out of the way. I think most movie searches are be people looking for a movie they haven't seen and wanting to know "Was it any good?" or "How were the reviews?". Putting this section earlier in the article satisfies those people, but will be useful for someone doing deeper research. – Isogolem 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot

I've seen several articles that retell the entire movie in this section in great detail. I'm an offender here, though not the worst by far. Some stronger guidance would help here. Maybe spliting this into Synopsis and Analysis sub sections? Specifically, by calling the section "Plot" and not having better guidance as to the consensus of what should and should not being included in this, you make it easier for people to miss the mark, and then argue about it. – Isogolem 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer short plot sections, with the essential, without all the little details AdamSmithee 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cast and Crew

It would be a good idea to standarize the layout of the cast and crew list. Is there some template for this somewhere? – Isogolem 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions? Paradise (1982) and Paradise (1991)

There are two movies named Paradise, one with Phoebe Cates from 1982 (for which there is already an entry) and one from 1991 with Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith. How should I name the newer "Paradise (film)" without creating too much confusion? I am sure there is precedent for this, I just can't find it. H0n0r 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) for the relevant guidelines. The recommended way to distinguish these articles is to name them "Paradise (1982 film)" and "Paradise (1991 film)". --Muchness 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created the new article and a disambig page. The new artilce needs developing though. The JPS 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up commentary in plot summaries

I noticed at Schindler's List some commentary in the plot summary. I'm not sure how to deal with this as a policy/guideline. Should commentary be moved to a separate section? Certainly it needs to be sourced if it stays in the article. I believe, as far as the plot summary goes, the film is an implicit source and anything objective that can be determined from watching the film is okay to put in without a separate source. However statements such as "Göth is the focus of the film's depiction of Nazi sadism and inhumanity, not only taking pleasure in murder and torture, but considering it an integral part of his job, a matter of duty," are commentary on the intent of the devices used in the plot, and cannot be objectively deduced from the plot. How should situations like this be dealt with? Should a separate "commentary" section be created? My personal feeling is that Wikipedia is not the place for Cliff's Notes-like commentary on the meaning of every little bit of the film, however in certain obviously important cases (e.g. the girl in the red coat in Schindler's List) things should be spelled out. If you're curious what I consider commentary, see here (though some of these edits were to fix incorrect chronology). – flamurai (t) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with this now-almost-month-old comment. Independent of this comment I've recently split commentary from plot summmaries a couple of times, in Minority Report and Vanilla Sky in particular. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other places where such cleanup is required. I tend to contribute without logging in, which prevents me from participating as a full-fledged member of a wikiproject, but if a regular community member cares to propose some conventions for cleaning up such articles I'd follow them. For example, I've grown fond of m:Cite/Cite.php style references; perhaps the project should consider promoting a particular style of citing sources. The community should also consider creating and promoting through example the use of film-specific templates to use instead of template:OriginalResearch, template:unsourced, and template:fact. 66.167.138.237 11:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

Proposals

Based on the cleanup I've been doing so far today I have the following prosals to add to/augment the current style guidelines:

• Section titles: Should be standardized to consice and descriptive terms (e.g. "Plot" instead of "Story", "The Movie", "Summary of Plot", "Synopsis"; "Production" instead of "The making of the movie", "Production facts"). There should be further discussion on these, but I think it is important that they are standardized and a list of common section titles be presently clearly on the Project page.
• Awards should be divided into wins and nominations (subsections). Only awards which are notable enough to have a wikipedia article (e.g. Oscars, SAG) should be included.
• Quotes should be included only if there is encyclopedic content associated with them (e.g. "Here's looking at you, kid" was voted the most memorable line in a movie. In early scripts, blah blah blah"). Otherwise, they should be moved to wikiquote, which should be linked in the External links section only.
• Analysis and Themes should only be included if they can be sourced (e.g. to film reviews in reputable sources, either in print or from extremely notable websites like RottenTomatoes) as per WP:NOR.
• Infobox information should not be repeated wholesale in the article unless it is used to give context to significant new information. For example, "Ang Lee directed this film" is repetitive with the infobox, but "Ang Lee agreed to direct this film only when they agreed to buy him a house" is not repetitive.

Sorry, if these are repetitive with the current guidelines, but these are problems that I see all to often. Would anyone object to me augmenting the guidlines? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Film grossing/box office totals

Are there any rules or guidelines as to posting box office totals or total gross figures? Somebody did that for She's the Man today. It looks weird to me, but on the other hand there is no real entry on the normal infobox for this type of information. Thanks. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Descendant WikiProject: actors and actresses

What happened to that WikiProject? It's red-linked. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

There is inadequate information on the silent film at present. I have added mention of the original scores composed by William Axt and David Mendoza, as this information was missing from the original entry. Furthermore, someone should edit an entry that Thames Television commissioned a new score from Carl Davis when the original Axt and Mendoza scores were available for hire. I can attest to this as I sighted the manuscripts at the Library of Congress in 1991. The Carl Davis score, in my personal opinion, does not lend itself to the filmed images.

Jeremy Sefton-Parke kinopanorama@msn.com--58.166.242.14 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's Vanity?

I assumed that the disfigured model's suicide represents vanity, not pride, as presented in the article.

Unless I mis-counted, this aricle only lists six of the Deadly Sins, and not Se7en. Where's vanity?

Erm, you miscounted. See seven deadly sins. Vanity is a kind of pride. - Isogolem 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Plotnote

Following a discussion on the talkpage of Indian cinema project where we found new editors adding lot of plot details, we came up with a template {{plotnote}} which is visible only in the edit mode (and only if subst'ed) - it appeals to people to stop adding all the details and not give away the twists in the storyline and the ending. The template may find some use in this project as well - hence this heads-up. --Gurubrahma 11:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

hi, just to inform you that the article Hong Kong action cinema is about to be pushed for featured article status. Please feel free to comment at the current peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema/archive1 on anything that you feel could prevent it from becoming featured, or join in editing. thx Zzzzz 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 11:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wild

Ok i finished editing this page, can i remove it from the list??? --Killswitch Engage 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Killswitch Engage

Plot

For the plots of newly released films, should we wait about a month or something before putting a complete plot summary up?- JustPhil 12:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar template

I've been using this template on film pages, for films that have either been nominated, or won at least one oscar

This is the example for Hamlet

Award	Person
Best Actor in a Leading Role	Laurence Olivier
Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White	Roger K. Furse Carmen Dillon
Best Costume Design, Black-and-White	Roger K. Furse
Best Picture	Laurence Olivier
Nominated:
Best Actress in a Supporting Role	Jean Simmons
Best Score	William Walton
Best Director	Laurence Olivier

Godzilla movie article modifacation

I just proposed a sizable change in the Godzilla movie page Talk:Godzilla. I want to know before we begin is if there is anything we need to know before we start such a change to a movie article. On the Godzilla talk page I was directed to this project so I just want to make sure we conform to any standards or the like when doing so. I don’t plan on doing anything for a few days until we get more feed back from the rest of the community. I’m bothering to ask because if there is anything we are unaware of that would prevent me from fallowing these plans we would like know.

Enter the Dragon

Is Enter The Dragon a blaxpoitation movie?? Thought it was a kung fu movie

Fair use

I know little about fair use rules. I saw an article on a DVD that consisted of the text from the back of the DVD package. I didn't think it was a very good article, but more importantly, is this allowed? Does it fall under fair use guidelines? Freekee 02:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this would be a copyright infringement and I can't imagine any way we could argue fair use. Fair use should only be used if there is no alternative or if the quoted text is itself the subject of discussion, and even then selected quotes would be limit acceptable. What you describe sounds like a lazy cut and paste. To put it simply we should be able to rewrite the text into our own words to convey a similar meaning rather than just steal someone else's copyrighted work. Because we can do this, I think we must do this. Rossrs 13:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another stub proposal

I'm finding lots of film orgs stubs (institutes, festivals, archives, etc.) and film companies (distributors, special effects, etc.) that don't really fit anywhere and have been filed under {{film-stub}}. So far I've been tucking them into {{filming-stub}}, but it's starting to bother some folks. Shall I propose {{film-org-stub}} (to go under {{org-stub}}), or perhaps {{film-company-stub}} (to go under {{leisure-company-stub}})? Or both? Cheers, Her Pegship 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there are 84 stubs that could go into either {{film-studio-stub}} or the proposed {{film-company-stub}}, and about 106 that could go into {{film-org-stub}} as described above. Any ideas? Her Pegship 15:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Four actress articles with upside-down filmographies

could somebody please change the order of the filmographies on these 4 featured articles, that have their filmographies latest-to-earliest instead of the wikipolicy earliest-to-latest? this should be the standard for all filmographies, discographies and other lists of works across wikipedia. its important to change them asap as editors will be looking to these FAs to see how to do filmographies. the four articles (the only ones i could identify that go against the grain) are:

• KaDee Strickland
• Katie Holmes
• Julia Stiles
• Uma Thurman

the policy guidelines that confirm it should be earliest-to-latest are here:

• Wikipedia:Filmographies
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)

Animated Films/Animation

What about a slightly modified type of infobox specifically for animated films? The current film infobox does not take the animator into account, who is often the most important person in animated films, especially in short films. It could also have a category for the animation technique used (puppet, clay, cgi, cut-outs, shadow, sand, cell, pinscreen, and so on). This infobox could be especially usefull for creating a cataloque of all short animated films (the ones that appear in film festivals). I got the idea from the Russian Wikipedia, which already has an infobox like this (here's an example: [4]). Anyway, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this. It might be nice to start an "animated film" project on wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Any tips? Esn 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I sure like the idea of a custom infobox. Her Pegship 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Saw III Trouble

User:81.99.182.121 is claiming to be from a studio and posting false plot information for Saw III. He has NO SOURCES to back up his claims. Even if this is true, this falls under the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy.--CyberGhostface 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic Instinct Help

Hi, I created the article for Catherine Tramell but I am having trouble updating/adding research, please can someone help me! - SGCommand

Mmm, is it really worth a separate article? If you come to a dead end after only one line, then I suggest not... The JPS 09:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it's wrong to describe her as a villain. This is one interpretation. In the first Basic Instinct she was deliberately ambiguous. I understand that the sequel may be more explicit, but calling her a "villain" is over simplifying it. I can only echo User:The JPS - if you're stuck before you've actually said anything, maybe there is not much to be said. Rossrs 11:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• What I was trying to say was that the article could do with some background info from Basic Instinct, her involvement in the first film and her involvement in the second film, but I can't do it by myself. Please help - SGCommand

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't know enough about the character to be able to contribute. I've seen Basic Instinct but not recently, and although I have a fairly good impression of the character, so much time has passed that I can't remember specific details that might be helpful. I suggest doing a Google search and just see what comes up. There may be info out there that can be gleaned from, for example, film reviews, that will enable you to come up with something. Rossrs 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE: added some info but need some help - SGCommand

well will you write down any info you find out/know about her please? UPDATE: added some info but need some help - SGCommand

I've already told you I don't know any more about her, and I've only suggested how you might research the subject. I don't intend researching it myself, so I'm not expecting find info or to contribute. If I accidentally stumble across any info, yes I'll write it down. Rossrs 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone else please help - SGCommand

HELP: Casablanca!

Casablanca, one of the few film featured articles is excellently written, but lacks sufficient in-line citations (it has only 6). If anyone at this Wikiproject has the wherewithall to add appropriate citations to the article please let me know (preferably on my talk page) soon, so I don't have to take the article to WP:FARC. I would much prefer that the article be improved behind the scenes. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture Project

Hello. User:GWP has a 'References in Popular Culture Project' going on, which seems to be a solo effort. I think I know what (s)he means, but I'm not sure it quite works. I think GWP might need a little help defining the aims of his project, or shaping it. There has already been some discussion at As Time Goes By (yes, I know it's not a film). There are others (see list on GWP's user page, and [5]). I thought it would be best to reach some sort of consensus in a project like this, rather than having lots of discussions going on on many talk pages. The JPS 09:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a huge difference between a legitimate pop-culture reference and a vague mention of the person's name. I agree that Laurence Olivier just being mentioned in As Time Goes By (see Talk:As Time Goes By) is not a reference that we need to record. It's meaningless. It seems to me that every celebrity gets mentioned in film and television scripts and if it's just in passing we should avoid it. I suggested to User:GWP that this might be opening a floodgate and encouraging an outpouring of fangush and trivia, and it hasn't take nearly as long to happen as I expected. Rock Hudson is another case in point. What the hell is Clone High? Is this in any way significant? If you go to the Clone High article, Hudson is not even mentioned which further demonstrates how insignificant this reference is. It's especially galling when Hudson's life and career are given very scant attention. He is just one example. To be completely candid, it bugs the hell out of me that so many contributors are delving into this kind of mindless trivia when there is so much genuine work needed to get these biographies up to scratch.

If we're going to record every mention of a celebrity's name we're in trouble. Will and Grace alone mentions about 50 celebrities per episode. Just kidding, but it's probably a good program to use as an example, as they make numerous pop culture references. So do many current and past sitcoms. Think Friends, The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama, Frasier, even go back a way to Murphy Brown, The Golden Girls, Gilligan's Island and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Celebrities are part of the language and they are an easy reference to make in these programs - that's why there are so many of them. In Will and Grace, Cher is mentioned numerous times, as the object of Jack's obsession, he prays to her, listens to her music, has dinner with a Cher doll, meets her and thinks she's a drag queen, wants to be her, and is "visited" by her when he is knocked unconscious. Numerous references over many episodes - is this a pop culture reference? Probably. I think so. Sometimes when Grace is acting crazy (ie every second episode), Will calls her "Frances". Obviously a reference to Frances Farmer. It occurred several times in the early seasons and appeared almost to be a running joke. Is this a pop-culture reference? Probably. Not as strong as Cher, but it's kind of valid.

In another episode Will is watching American Idol and mentions Paula Abdul. It has no significance to the plot, Paula has never been mentioned before as far as I know, and has not been mentioned since. It's the scriptwriters name-dropping for the sake of a one-liner and means nothing. Will quickly moves on to discuss something else. Should we care that he mentioned Paula? Yes, it was quite funny if you like that sort of thing, but is that reason enough to record it in a Wikipedia article about Paula Abdul? No way... and I'm glad nobody has added it ;-) .... yet. But it is exactly this type of nonsense that is being recorded all over the place and unless you've sat down and watched all the programs and films being discussed it's impossible to distinguish between the genuine references and the clutching-at-straws references. I think that it's going to be impossible to manage and is not really what Wikipedia is or should be about. If we have a consensus or a policy on this it's still going to be very difficult to determine on individual cases what is legitimate and what is not. It will come down to POV, I think - and I'm concerned that this will cause problems. One person's valid reference will be another persons mindless trivia, and vice versa. Rossrs 11:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have read over all your points. However surely it is relevant who is mentioned where as it shows their impact upon popular culture. As for Cher being mentioned in Will and Grace - that would only be one mention on each page, hardly a floodgate. And for Paula Abdul, that it has no significance to the plot isn't the issue, the issue is that she was mentioned and therefore has entered the lexicon.

Perhaps it's easy to dismiss this project, take the high-ground; however who is mentioned where is a valid indicator of cultural significance and therefore relevant information. GWP 23:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted part of my comments. I actually cited Cher as a good example. Mentioning her, both on her on page and on Will and Grace would not be part of opening a flood gate. Mentioning Paula Abdul would be. I also disagree that just because someone gets mentioned somewhere and sometime, that we have to record it. They may have entered some kind of lexicon and I'm not disputing this. What I am disputing is whether we should be recording the numerous minor references that occur and whether the fact that someone's name has entered the lexicon is in itself something we should be concerned about. Every celebrity enters some level of lexicon - this is what celebrity is about. Encyclopedic articles should provide a good, thorough summary of a person's life and career and examination of their effect on popular culture is a very important part of this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for obsessively collecting snippets of trivia, it should not be about compiling excessive lists, and it should not be going into the kind of detail that would only appeal to either a die hard fan of the artist, or of trivia itself. Going back to Paula Abdul as a bad example - her article lists her accomplishments and chronicles her career. Even if we had never heard of her, reading her article tells us quite clearly that she is famous. It follows automatically that people have said her name, and possibly in all kinds of context, both on screen and off screen. Does mentioning that the fictional character, Will Truman, threw off a one-liner about Abdul in one episode of a popular sitcom, add to our knowledge and understanding of Paula Abdul? In my opinion, not one iota. Rossrs 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rossrs - AdamSmithee 07:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why The JPS has taken it upon his or herself to remove all sections pertaining to References in Popular Culture. It was not the consensus on this page, I refer you to above paragraphs. Have read the remarks here and there is too much hubris and emotional language - where is the place for 'bugs the hell out of me' when discussing submissions to an encyclopedia? The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, a person's impact on culture is valid information. Certain of you should question your motives for working on wikipedia. GWP 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you should question what is the aim of an encyclopedia, and specifically what is the aim of Wikipedia. You should then work within the framework of helping the project achieve its aim. I take exception to you questioning my motives, for no reason that I can see, other than that I have disagreed with you. My motives do not require your comment, as you have no idea what they are, and I certainly don't owe you any explanation of them.

I have commented on the issue at hand at length, here and on your talk page. If you feel that the remark about "bugs the hell out of me" was aimed at you personally and were offended by it, I apologise, as this was not my intent. I was thinking about a whole lot of articles where trivia is being added on an almost daily basis, while the biographies themselves are incomplete and poorly written. It makes me question the priorities of some contributors that they place more importance on this trivial information, but don't apparently care about the article itself. It looks to me like adding trivia for its own sake. I'm sorry if you felt my comment was directed at you personally, but it was in fact, directed at a nameless, faceless mass of editors and to the situation in general. However on a talk page, there is nothing inappropriate about expressing an opinion and I'll reserve the right to express it as I see fit. There is nothing inherently wrong in me saying something "bugs the hell out of me".

Most of what I have said has been in detail and my aim was to be constructive, but I feel that you have dismissed everything I've said without even considering it, because I disagree with you. I have attempted to explain my opinion in detail and have given examples to illustrate my meaning. For the 4th time I will tell you : I agree with part of what you are attempting to do. I've said nothing here that is inconsistent with the replies I left on your talk page on 27 March. Of course it is important to mention how people impact upon popular culture but you must exercise some judgement between what is significant and what is not. Articles should be thorough and concise without delving into unnecessary detail. This is a standard Wikipedia philosophy. Have a look at WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". For the record, I don't think User:JPS has acted incorrectly. If you would like to raise any new points that have not been discussed, I would be happy to discuss this further, but unless there is anything new to add, I'm finished. Rossrs 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Because all of the sections I removed were inappropriate. They usually only contained one of two people, which borders on inaccuracy. In I Know What You Did Last Summer, for example, you only stated that Angela Lansbury was referenced. So what? What about everyone/thing else that was mentioned? If something is significant enough to be included in an article, then it should be in context. Williamson's scripts are peppered with references to popular culture -- including one of them is odd, and gives the POV impression that it is of more significance than it is.
Also, could you please refrain from personal attacks like the one you left here. That was completely uncalled for. The JPS 12:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Rossrs, I did not take offence at your comment. However emotional language belongs on userpages, not project pages. Popular culture is not trivia and references in popular culture provide an important indicator of permeation and infiltration.

this is not a project page. It's the talk page for a project page, and that's subtly different. Anybody can express an opinion here as long as it is on-topic. If some wording is seen as emotional, so be it. That is not inappropriate. I'm glad you didn't take offense but I assumed that because you'd made a point of mentioning it, that you had. I don't understand why you don't seem to see a difference between valid cultural references, where they have some meaning and some impact, and instances where a name is merely mentioned. The cultural references/impact/influence etc can be so very important but their importance and significance is diluted when they are hidden in a sea of meaningless references. That's where they cross the line into trivia, and that's what I'm against. Once again, you are acknowledging only a fraction of what I've said and misinterpreting the rest. I have not equated popular culture with trivia, I have said that some of the information is trivial if it delves into too obscure a reference or too much depth. On several occasions I have said that correctly identified it is a valid and important subject. Rossrs 16:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to The JPS, the point of starting a list is that others add to it - collaboration is the very cornerstone of Wikipedia. As regards my comment on your userpage, it was not uncalled for; the amount of personal information you have provided clearly indicates someone more interested in self-promotion than contributing valid information. Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to than your informing us that you like Friends and enjoy submitting to Wikipedia in the nude? When time permits, I shall undo your vandalism. GWP 16:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB ratings

Articles are popping up with an imdb rating in the info box. Is this really a good addition? I think it is a problem since the IMDB ratings can fluctuate so regularly and you will never have a true reflection of how many votes have been made unless it is kept updated almost hourly. --Cammoore 05:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. The information goes out of date very quickly. Furthermore the IMDB rating itself is probably subject to copyright - I'd be surprised if it wasn't - and we could never claim "fair use" for it. Rossrs 06:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

About those quotes again...

With the Haneke being quote attributable to others, including Errol Morris, its inclusion is as pointless as the Godard quote is pretentious. Consider replacing them with a quote that might prove more inspiring to the average contributor. Jonathan F 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Jonathan, I think you should definitely consider replacing them. When you've had a chance to consider it, if you feel like being polite, you can reply here with a list possible replacement quotes and ask for comments. For a more bold method, you could just replace the current quotes with new ones and see how people respond to your choice(s). In your considerations, please include, Davis (Steve Martin) from Grand Canyon: "That's part of your problem: you haven't seen enough movies. All of life's riddles are answered in the movies." Thanks! - Isogolem 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a rather thorough look through the Wikiquotes on film, and couldn't find one that seemed up for the task. This Steve Martin quote is starting to look really good! Jonathan F 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I came across an argument between Mel and Zora. Discussion pages are:

• User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Please_stop_removing_role_information_from_Bollywood_movies
• User_talk:Zora#Your_message

The issue is whether to keep 'ACTOR as CHARACTER' as denoted by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Cast. We should come to a general consensus on this so we don't waste time arguing.

I strongly believe that we might as well have it that way because... well, Wikipedia is a trivia site—just a high class one. However, what I think aside, the biggest issue is figuring it out so we don't argue about it. gren グレン 10:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My own preference is to do without "character" (which is usually meaningful only to someone who has seen the film). What I'm most conerned about, though, is the frequent use of simple cut-and-pasted lists from IMDb, in which their formatting (use of strings of dots) is retained. It's not only out of keeping with Wikipedia style in other lists, but raises copyright issues. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in including character names, but I agree with Mel that they should be formatted rather than a cut-and-paste job from the IMDb. I think we've already talked about how many characters/actors to include too: we should only include the main few, with the link to IMDb providing the full list. The JPS 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have thought of that same issue and, once again, agree. I think that IMDb should have to be cited... and since it usually is such a cut and paste kind of deal we should be able to integrate the citation rather seemlessly. (or so I hope). So, I want to completely agree on copyright and completely disagree on the need for character.

My frist argument is... if you list actors (which shouldn't be done in the infobox) having characters loses you nothing in space. Secondly, it is useful primarily to people who have seen the film... but then again so is anything that has a spoiler tag. I think of it as a level of expertise. We can appeal to both those who already know a lot about the subject and those who know nothing. What's the point of only appealing to people who haven't seen the film?

An importnat issue (I believe) will be... does copying IMDb en masse even when cited constitute a violation of copyright? gren グレン 16:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Country Specific Reviews

Does anyone know of a Metacritic-like site that will either a) only collect film reviews from or b) can seperate specific movie reviews by country? (Like the UK). There is a strong suggestion that the film reviews for V for Vendetta (film), were much more negative in the UK than in the US. I suppose another question would be, would making such a statement based on findings from Metacritic, etc... be considered original research? --P-Chan 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, a second question... who are the big film reviewers in the UK??? In American that would definetly be Roger Ebert.--P-Chan 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actors / Actresses

User:Sasanjan has created Category:Iranian actresses and been populating it out of Iranin actors. We haven't split up these categories by sex... should we start? I'd say no but if we do this for one group we need to do it for all... so this would be a big policy decision. gren グレン 11:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I knew that, but don't forget, this is English Wikipedia, some Iranians are male and some of them are female, this our LANGUAGE which's classify both as same but in English it's different, in German it's different too, in German we have Musculin, Femenine, Neutrom, every language have its own rules. Another issue is Iranian users who might not understand such classifications, it's not a real problem because they will search their favourite artist anyway. And this is not a big policy!, I think, because for example there's no need to classify engineers or scientists or film director etc. by genders in English.Sasanjan 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(Can you sign your posts using ~~~~). Well, it would change French actors, German actors, etc. and in English it's ambiguous and you can typically refer to actresses under the category of actors. So, English is ambiguous and we can user either properly... I think it was never split before because of concious decision... I may be wrong. I have put it up for CfR here (Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Iranian_actresses_to_Category:Iranian_actors) so everyone can vote as they wish. gren グレン 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, in English there's no ambiguous on this issue, a female can become actress and a male can become actor, just this.Sasanjan 18:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New stub types

Check out {{film-company-stub}}, for companies which don't make films but provide services to the film industry (special effects, talent agencies, licensing, etc.) and {{film-org-stub}}, for film archives, institutes, and other film organizations. Cheers, Her Pegship 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Separating film and book articles

Two new tasks await your superbly honed editing skills:

• Film/book articles to be split NEW - Articles containing entries on both a film and a book, which should be split into separate articles
• Film/book stub articles to be split NEW - Stub articles containing entries on both a film and a book, which should be split into separate articles

Pitch in any time. Thanks! Her Pegship 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nunsploitation and Peplum

Hi. Newbie. I've amended the nunsploitation and sword and sandal genre sections and included references to useful texts on subjects related to their genres. There's also a new reference to the seventies late nunsploitation flick Killer Nun that links from nunsploitation.

User Calibanu 14:35, 22 April 2006.

Adding a soundtrack section

Here's an idea - Why not add to most films a soundtrack section, describing a list of available soundtracks' titles/tracks/performers. I think this is as relevant to films as the cast, and besides, it can later be crossed linked with the performers, to get a list of their works used in the movie industry.

Manos 06:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

David Nessim Lawrence (composer)

If anybody is interested in movie composers, I just made a stub for David Nessim Lawrence (American Pie, etc). I'm not at all a movie buff, but I was working on David Lawrence (disambiguation) for an unrelated reason and thought I would try to kick-start one of the entries that didn't even have a stub.

I had a hard time finding any relevant online reference material other than the filmography list at IMDB, so if anyone has access to other resources, that might be best. -- JVinocur 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes in the Infobox

I think that the Rottentomato average would be a welcome addition to the Film Infobox, since it does not go out of date like the IMDb rating, and it is the average opinion of Professionsals. .... 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

...New thing for CAST

I'm trying to use the Gallery template on films to show an accesible and useful cast display...examples can be seen Spartacus (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Richard III (1955 film).... 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gervaise at the Collaboration of the Week

I have included Gervaise, the 1956 film by René Clément, which was the only BAFTA Award for Best Film which was a redlink. I would like to ask for your support and contributions to this candidate in the WP:COTW.--Francisco Valverde 07:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Quarterly Review of Film and Video bounty

See Wikipedia:Reward_board#Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video. — Matt Crypto 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Does anyone know how to start a new talk page and put this one in an archive? We already have one archived talk page, but I'm not sure how exactly to go about it myself. Estrose 05:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)