Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Categorizations by decades and genres

Lugnuts and I have are having conflicting views on the categorization of films by decade and genre (like Category:2010s horror films). I believe that this category should only be added when the film is released, and then add the correct decade cat. Lugnuts believes that the category should be added even if the film is unreleased according to its approximate release date. What do others think? BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the logic of the film will be released in x year (via a reliable source) and it is of y genre. We agree that if a film is released tomorrow, it can go into a genre decade category, but where do you draw the line? Next week? Next month? Next year? Lugnuts (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a small correction, Lugnuts. I don't believe that tomorrow's films should have the cats, but am willing to compromise there. BOVINEBOY2008 19:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think if there is a definite release date (as opposed to approximate) then it is acceptable to add a year category. Not many films get pulled from their release dates once the screen are booked. As for the genres, where does this information usually come from? It's hard to see how a genre can be assigned if no-one has seen the film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a possible way to draw the line on when to add the decade cat: the film must have a page on IMDB with a decent amount of actual content (i.e. trailer, plot summary, links to official site and press releases, definite release date, and so forth). But I think it makes sense to wait on adding genre until the film has been released, because promotional material can be incomplete or even deliberately misleading. Six_bricks (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons tricky question

I uploaded a Creative Commons image of Tobin Bell at Comic Con at Commons and now I'm thinking that since it shows the Saw 3D poster in the background, is the picture itself still a 'free' image?  :-S If not, can I just crop the background poster out? Sorry if this is a retarded question or if I'm just being paranoid. Mike Allen 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it infringes copyright. It probably won't prohibit you using it but you will have to provide a fair use rationale. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I could see the image challenged because of the poster. I would recommend uploading a cropped version of the image excluding the poster. (The poster will be seen in the film article anyway.) For example, File:Alex Tse (cropped).jpg is a cropped version of File:Alex Tse.jpg, though not to avoid any copyright issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I crop it, I still keep the original image at Commons? Is this cropped enough? Thanks! Mike Allen 03:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, someone is going to sue your pants off for letting a little eyeball show! :P I think it works better now. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks Erik. Mike Allen 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice job getting another image of Bell. I would recommend putting the original up for deletion, as it likely would be requested in the future anyway. Or, you could re-upload a new version over the original file after blurring or altering the background to remove the poster. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It may not be that obvious of a violation. commons:De minimis explains the situation: "... if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster. (...) If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided (...) A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out." (Do read the whole text and not just my hand-picked quotes)

The crop is definitely not in violation, the original may or may not be in violation. decltype (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nehrams, I got one of Kevin Greutert (also for the Saw VI article) too. The uploader's last name was also Greutert. But she was more than happy for me to use those images on Wikipedia. Apparently when you upload on Flickr, it automatically sets the image to "All Rights Reserved". I'm sure if more people understood what CC was they would change it that setting in the beginning.

@Decltype, I'm probably going to CSD the original image, all of the fair use and stuff confuse me. There's no clear legal definition of "fair use" and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not allowed to upload "fair use" media on the site in the future. I think that de minimis would apply to that image, but why fight it if it's likely to be challenged, when by simply cropping it you eliminate the problem. Thanks for posting that. Interesting. Mike Allen 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The poster is located prominently in the original so I don't think de minimis applies in that case (it definitely would for the crop though). Commons does not allow for any fair use images, so if you have a question in the future on a particular image, it may be best to upload here first and then move it to Commons later. It would be great if more and more people automatically used the Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike, but I'm assuming the majority of Flickr users don't know what the different licenses entail. Another issue is the users who upload copyrighted images and then tag them as CC, making it harder to search through free images of celebrities. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What would be the best way to request for deletion on the original image? I've already uploaded the cropped version here. Thanks. Mike Allen 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag it with {{speedydelete|reason}} stating that there is a cropped version available and that it features a non-free poster. That should be sufficient in getting it deleted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox discussion notification

There is an ongoing discussion about the film infobox's "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters. Editors are invited to comment. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Notifications of requests to move

• A Kiss Before Dying → A Kiss Before Dying (1991 film) (discussion)
• Howl (2010 film) → Howl (film) (discussion)
• Dead of Night (2010 film) → Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (discussion)
• Austin Powers (film series) → Austin Powers / Austin Powers → Austin Powers (character) (discussion)
• Kids in America (film) → Kids in America (2005 film) (discussion)
• Sgt. Bilko (film) → Sgt. Bilko (discussion)

Above are currently requested moves of film-related articles; editors are invited to participate in the discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fictional films about prehistoric life

Hello, there is a category of Category talk:Prehistoric fantasy films but I am looking for movies with less fantasy, like Quest for fire. It is for the German page de:Liste der geschichtsbezogenen Filme und Serien. Seemingly, there are hardly any serious movies (not documentaries) about prehistory? --Ziko (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Allmovie's similar works for Quest for Fire and The Clan of the Cave Bear, there are a couple of candidates: Atanarjuat (2001) and Rapa Nui (1994). Admittedly, there are not a lot of serious-minded films about prehistory. This may be a good reference to check out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee thanks; those other films I will put in to the categories they belong to. The list is rather about eras than about life forms. --Ziko (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of awards discussion

There is currently a discussion at WT:ACTOR#Awards pertaining to film and awards organization within articles.  Chickenmonkey  20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A Serbian Film

An anon editor keeps removing large segments of the plot on the article A Serbian Film with the rationale "UK distributors AND filmmakers would rather not have full details of plot spoiling the film for those who have not seen it". Please add thoughts and comments on the talkpage. And a pre-warning - sensitive types might not want to read the plot... Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist so I'll help keep an eye on it (dropped a quick comment on the talk page as well). I had been meaning to look that movie up as I'd read about it a while ago so thanks for reminding me. Millahnna (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I have nominated Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

I have nominated Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR was removed due to limit of one FAR per editor. All editors are invited to comment on the FAR for The Empire Strikes Back above. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Betrayal (1929 film)

Betrayal (1929 film), now a redlink, has 29 incoming links. Seems like an article is wanted there. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably someone should check all incoming links to Betrayal; I just repaired a link to Betrayal that intended to link to Betrayal (1929 film). 64.105.65.28 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's one of several redlinks from the director's template. Recomend you register an account, be bold and create it! Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre of Harry Potter books & films

At List of films based on sports books we have the Harry Potter books classified as "sports books", and therefore Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) classified as a "film based on a sports book". There is some disagreement about whether or not this classification is correct so any opinions would be appreciated at Talk:List of films based on sports books#Harry Potter. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Film Aggregator

Hi there, I am not sure where to exactly propose this but I have an idea for creating our own Wiki aggregator for movies like Rottentomatoes and Metacritic. Using a template, it could be included in the Wikiproject Films template and then editors can vote on it and aggregates can be used for the reception section. The idea of aggregator movie reviews would fit in perfectly with Wikipedia. Any thoughts? --Theo10011 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to include our opinions, even aggregated, in film articles, unfortunately. We're supposed to defer to reliable sources about a film's reception. Even with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we use the main ratings and not the user ratings. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC) (posting for Nehrams2020; helps to have a floating notification here)

Genre of Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li

There's a debate at Talk:Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li over the genre of the film. Some users are claiming that it is a crime film, while others (including myself) don't think the film belongs in the genre. Any additional input on the article's talk page would be appreciated. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist

Is the documentary Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist of any note? The article, which strikes me as being written to reflect well on the achievements of its subject/star, claims that the documentary has been shown [wait for it] once, and then only privately. I'd never heard of it, or of its subject/star, till I saw both written up within the article on Shuntarō Tanikawa. (Despite my very recent addition of two FACT tags to the wretched article about him, Tanikawa genuinely is eminent.) A fair number of links go to this "Ink Music" article and I start to wonder whether WP is being used to drum up publicity for this film. The "official website" of the film is a Flash (or similar) nightmare (I lacked the patience to wait for it to load), but the IMDB entry for it again suggests that it, uh, doesn't actually exist yet. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed spam for this film from two articles;this was the more amusing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) ...... PS I've now removed it from plenty more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was written by User:Bkce23 (contributions). File:Inkmusicposter.jpg tells us that Bkce23 holds the copyright to the film poster. Well well. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theater 3000 films category up for deletion

The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Film date

A discussion about the use of {{Film date}} in {{Infobox film}} has been opened here. Please feel free to comment. BOVINEBOY2008 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

There are currently quite a few film related articles listed at WP:RM. If anyone has the time, these discussions would benefit from the input of more editors. Thanks. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Film series categories at CfD

Interested parties can find the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw VI has been nominated for FA

Please leave any comments you may have here. Thanks. :) Mike Allen 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

False company information in film articles

Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) is a just-blocked prolific editor who adds false company information to film articles. For example, he did this and this where there is no evidence whatsoever of the relationship. The editor typically adds company information to film articles indiscriminately, like here, making Unstoppable seem like a Spanish production. I reported the editor at WP:ANI as seen here (permalink), and the editor has been blocked for one week. Regardless, I ask other editors to keep an eye out for sockpuppets that edit in this pattern. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought this was ridiculous. But I didn't catch it until a couple of days later and didn't even bother looking at their contributions. I'll be on the lookout for socks. Thanks. Mike Allen 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this Pricer again? Looks like the same kind of info. I just reverted on Unstoppable (2010 Film) but I'm kind of not sure where to go from there. Sockpuppet investigations? Block evasion ARV report? Help? Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's him. Same edit as before. I'll notify the person who blocked his user account. Thanks for the heads-up! We kick butt. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up some of it but on some pages the edits were different than the Pricer edits. And on some pages Pricer had never edited at all. For that matter while I was looking on some of the Films of year pages, it looked like we maybe didn't get all of the Pricer edits cleaned up. Then my eyes glazed over and I went back to researching stuff for a TV project. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So the IP possible sock has made another round of edits and, frankly, I'm way out of my depth in checking what needs fixing. Personally, and I know this sounds overwhelming and stupid, I'm of a mind that every page this IP or Pricer has touched should be double checked. I'm just not comfortable confirming the country and production company info on these. The Oxford Murders is one that sticks in my memory as being recently confusing for me (it wasn't the only one just the one I can remember); there were companies listed that I'm not positive of that had nothing to do with either Pricer edits or those of the IP, and it's currently called a France/UK/Spain co-production. Even with the advise in the earlier thread about this sort of thing, I really would feel better if someone else checked it all out. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ANI discussion that led to Pricer1980 being blocked (seen here) strongly advised undoing all the editor's contributions. I've done that so far. The person who blocked his user account has not responded yet, so I started a new ANI discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

IP is blocked for a week, but I suspect that the WP:ANI discussion will lead to a longer-term preventative block. Hard to fathom any helpful contributions from this editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor is now indefinitely blocked. Keep an eye out for the editor's pattern under other user accounts or IP addresses on Wikipedia's film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) continues vandalizing under the following IP addresses that I've found so far:

• 86.186.36.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 92.40.231.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Currently requesting for these IP addresses to be blocked. I ask for other editors to monitor for similar vandalism in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Some suspicious edits by *86.45.136.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); is this the same culprit? Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Seems too sloppy to be the same person. Only a handful of contributions there, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

Ben-Bopper (talk · contribs) is making a lot of company-related edits on film articles and without using edit summaries. A sample of his contributions seem mostly okay, though this was incorrect. There does not seem to be a relationship between the sequel and Mandeville Films, though there is one between the first film and that production company. I think the editor is Donald McKinney (talk · contribs), who tended to add [[Samuel Hadida|Davis Films]] to infoboxes. Ben does that here. Donald has a history of making company-related edits prolifically and without edit summaries, though I cannot recall a problem with his edits. I've suspected that Pricer1980 was a sockpuppet of Donald McKinney, possibly one to see how far one could get with false/abusive edits. They appear related in making edits to Pathé-related articles, especially with this article's history. I'll keep an eye on the current pattern, and I ask others to look out for similar patterns of company-related edits. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• 86.135.172.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Lugnuts (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reported, thanks. I also reported a couple of IPs yesterday. We'll play Whack-a-Mole here, looks like. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomato ratings

Hi. User:RottenPotato is adding Rotten Tomato ratings to film articles, which is fione, but in the couple that I checked, he or she has been putting them at the bginnning of "reception" sections, rather than at the end of them. Since individual reviews and responses are more important than aggregator ratings, I've asked them to change their editing. I'm going to go through their edits and make adjustments, but I could use a hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we tend to put the Tomato ratings first. We put in all of the statistical data that we can find on reception, and then we put in paraphrased reviews on films. I don't think I've ever seen Rotten Tomatoes' ratings listed at the end of the reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's certainly not the way it used to be, and certainly not the way it should be. Aggregators are simply statistical snapshot which tell you absolutely nothing important about critical reception, that comes from quotes from individual reviews from significant media outlets. We are, after all, writing encyclopedia articles and not fact sheets, we give stats when necessary, but we're primarily interested in text. A "critical reception" section which opens with "This films rate s a 9.5 on the Whoopie scale, is not presenting to the reader what they need to know -- how did critics respond to the film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why "shouldn't" it be that way? It makes no sense to start summarizing random reviews and then at the end provide a statistical summarize of the consensus of all critics. The rating is a statistic which gives you a general idea of how many critical liked the film. It doesn't provide context, but that isn't its purpose. To me, it's poor writing style to put a statistic after a summary of prose in that regard. If I was writing a research paper, I wouldn't tell you everyone's opinion before I told you the basic data on how they voted. In lamens terms, you give me data and then you explain to me how that translates into real world perspective - you don't give me random thoughts and then try to create a correlation with data. I don't know how far you are going back in the "used to be that way" category, but I've been on Wiki for....going on 6 years now, and for as long as I can remember Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic scores have typically always come first in a critical reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Ken has only been editing from November last year, I think he may have just confused it with something else. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bignole. I will continue putting RT ratings at the top unless there is consensus here otherwise. Ken I am going to ask you to stop following me. Thank you. RottenPotato (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't following you around I was fixing what I thought was a problem, and making multiplke other changes to articles while I was there. I'll certainly stop doing that now, since the project seems to have opted for an incredibly poor choice of bad writing style as their preference. I'll continue to change it when I come across it by happenstance - because that's what I do, make articles better, not just edit for the sake of it - but I won't use your contribution list as a guide for the articles you've "improved". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, User:Rotten Potato, how is it you know so much about the project's policies, when your account was only created yesterday? Yeah, I know, you've been around a long time as an IP and you just decided to make an account, blah blah blah.

Right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well with all that out of the way... welcome to Wikipedia Rotten Potato. :) Mike Allen 05:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you MikeAllen. This really hurt my feelings. All I am trying to do is add Rotten Tomatoes to independent films that don't have it listed yet or have it wrong. I thought this would be helpful but please let me know if it is unwanted. I do not know what I did to make that guy so angry. He told me I was editing wrong and that I should read this WikiProject Films page. I did, and then he attacked me for "how is it you know so much about the project's policies?" Uh, I didn't know anything about the project's policies . . . I didn't even know it existed until he told me to come here and read it! So I asked him (I thought nicely) to please stop posting on my talk page. But now that things didn't go his way here I guess he's really pissed so he just went to my talk page and posted that I am adding stupid drivel to articles. If this is how new editors are greeted I don't know how anyone can stay around very long. So if there is something I am doing wrong please just point it out so I can fix it. If my edits are unwanted please tell me that too. Bignole thank you for the suggestion about using "approval rating" rather than "TomatoMeter". RottenPotato (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, you seem to be utterly clueless. All good prose should start with a brief summary, and aggregator ratings are a simple way of doing that. They provide a statistical snapshot which tells you exactly what's most important about critical reception and what the readers need to know: how much did critics enjoy the film, i.e. what was their consensus of the film's overall quality. Aggregator ratings were probably added to the end of Reception sections because individual reviews were already there and many editors are afraid (or too lazy) to add things anywhere except at the end of the relevant section. Adding things at the beginning of a section requires knowing how important things are relative to each other, and some editors just aren't sure about that kind of thing. Aggregrator ratings obviously belong at the beginning of the critical-reception section. —Codrdan (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that movie aggregator scores should go at the beginning of the article, it should be followed by samples of critics' reviews. It's a challenge to capture the reception of a film in many cases because for many films, there are not publications that detail critics' consensus. Anyway, I do take issue with the one-track proliferation of Rotten Tomatoes; any well-rounded editor of film articles should be multi-faceted in the use of references. Otherwise spreading one website with a new account, especially a handle remarkably similar to the website, appears suspect. In addition, just because Rotten Tomatoes can be used for a film doesn't mean it should. RT works best with contemporary films that garner reasonably-sized attention. It has limitations, however (as seen at WP:RTMC) where is it falsely representative of the critics' consensus for a film. For example, for the 1979 film Wise Blood (film), this is the RT page with only 9 reviews, and not many of them come from that time. It's misleading in terms of statistical sampling and contemporary relevance. I'll be cleaning up these particular instances and ask others to help me. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said to Erik on my talk page I respectfully disagree that any editors of Wikipedia should decide that certain RT scores are helpful and certain aren't. That sounds like original research, doesn't it? I do understand Erik's points in his WP:RTMC essay, but IMO I suggest that it's not for a Wikipedia editor to decide that the RT score for Wise Blood (film) is somehow "wrong" because he disagrees with it or personally believes it isn't helpful. It's our job to report statistics found on external verified sources and allow the readers to decide. But of course I will go with whatever consensus is reached here, and if I'm wrong Im wrong. RottenPotato (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research is analysis or synthesis advancing a position not advanced by the source. Like we decide whether or not to use a certain review, we decide whether or not to use Rotten Tomatoes. It's editorial discretion. Sometimes it has to do with presentation (like a review may be mostly plot details and not really a reason why the critic liked or disliked the film). Sometimes it has to do with the circumstances under which a score is calculated. For example, Rotten Tomatoes applies well with current films because many reviews are available online for assessment. In contrast, Wise Blood came out in 1979, and so not all reviews will be available, as evidenced by the limited number. That leads to a poor representation of critics' consensus for that film. It is better to find other publications that report the consensus in retrospect. Where Rotten Tomatoes can be appropriately used, though, I would recommend using Metacritic as well. Why limit it to just Rotten Tomatoes? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For example, with Wise Blood, Rotten Tomatoes would be better replaced by this reference. John Huston is a well-known director, so it is very likely that details of the response to Wise Blood will be available in additional publications. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bringing the discussion on my talk page over here, because I think it's important to get some consensus from the group. To summarize I agree with Erik that older films may have unhelpful or unrepresentative RT ratings (because there was no critic certification back then). I disagree that newer films have "unhelpful" scores just because the film wasn't widely reviewed. RT has a cutoff of 5. If there are 5 or more certified critics who review a film, it gets an RT score. Many popular film sites include this score (Flixster (even before they bought RT), iTunes Store and Apple TV come to mind). The "TomatoMeter" rating is widely demanded and recognized by consumers, so to omit it for certain films but not others strikes me as a subjective and non-neutral choice. In particular, indie films tend to be not widely reviewed. Many (if not most) have ten or less reviews. These are exactly the type of films where readers would like to know the RT score (which is why I am concentrating mainly on independents at this point). These are the articles that, without listing the RT score, tend to be most susceptible to bias, because they are not widely patrolled. In my few days doing this, I've seen a number of articles for independent films (that had no RT score listed) in which the Reception section was grossly biased (usually positively, but sometimes negatively) compared to what the critical reception for the film actually was. RottenPotato (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

American action drama category up for deletion

The discussion can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Film projects

There is an emergence of nonstandard articles that are supposedly "exceptions" to the notability guidelines for future films. They are "film project" articles about the plans to make films. The trend started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film), where a lack of outcome led to the article being moved to The Avengers film project. Since the argument was that the article was more about history than about a film (since there is no film and no guarantee of one), the structure excludes elements normally found in a film article, such as the main infobox and the film-related categories. I expressed concern that the "exception" of The Avengers would encourage additional "exceptions", and sure enough, X-Men: First Class (film project) was created and is currently posted at WP:AFD here. I also came across Marvin the Martian (film project) recently.

The general notability guidelines defer to subject-specific guidelines, and we have notability guidelines for future films. These guidelines explicitly say not to create a film article until filming is verified to have started. After all, it is misleading to have an article for a film when there is no certainty of one. A so-called "film project" article circumvents this compliance by making the real topic the so-called "history" of the plans. To me, the clearest "exceptions" to be had are planned films that are covered retrospectively. However, this is rarely the case with the spontaneity of editing on Wikipedia. WP:NFF was mainly applied to where film articles were created based on announcements and incomplete attempts at production. In the film industry, the presence of a director and a cast is still not a guarantee of a film. Nor is an announced release date. Even so, articles have typically been created in anticipatory fashion, as if the film will happen. Extensive coverage of plans for a film are largely due to underlying elements of preexisting notability. For example, superhero films and other comic book films are especially acknowledged because of the source material. Plans are covered because of the source material, which is why we have encouraged having details of such plan fall under the appropriate umbrella article. Plans are also covered because of well-known directors. For example, Neil Marshall has announced multiple projects, but there are no guaranteed films. The argument for a "film project" article is that it is a sub-article from the umbrella article on account of size. A strong example may be The Hobbit film project, for which there have been multiple events.

The problem with "film project" articles is what constitutes history and details of that history. If we are dealing with recent projects, what is the criteria to determine enduring notability and not just news reports? We can report coverage of plans for a film in the right context, but when can such plans truly stand on its own legs in its own article, regardless of an actual film? If size is the criteria as it was with The Hobbit film project and The Avengers film project, where they were spun off as sub-articles, what makes up the so-called size of plans coverage? Despite merging efforts, sections will still be written in a forward-looking tense as if a film will be had. How much of the coverage matters when a film is not realized? To compare, actors and filmmakers will be attached to countless projects in their careers, but only a few of them will be realized. Of these, only high-profile involvements may be covered in their articles. What's obviously covered are the relationships with the films they did make. I'm not sure yet of a solution, but the problem to me with "film project" articles is that if they are about recent plans and that the criteria for a separate article is size, then umbrella articles' "planned film" sections can be easily exploded with detail that only matters when there is an actual film. That seems the case with X-Men: First Class (film project), which was originally part of the film series article due to obvious recognition as the next possible X-Men film. A final troubling point about all this: plans for a film can last for years (hence the infamous term development hell), where people constantly express the intent to make it and make little progress. If they repeatedly report their intent to the media, then there is the constant sense of premature anticipation, making the tense of "film project" articles difficult to work with. What do others think about the best approach to reporting the so-called buildup to a possible film? How much detail to be had? What is the "retrospective" cutoff? Could Wikipedia:Article Incubator be used to keep all details from which umbrella articles' "planned film" sections draw to provide relevant highlights that matter even if there is never a film? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you should be making film references, people might not get them here. Oh wait, I'm at the wrong WikiProject talk page... Anyway, it looks like you've put quite a bit of thought into this. I was initially supportive of the film project pages, although I had only mainly stumbled across the Avengers one, which has a strong indication it will be filmed. However, articles such as the Marvin the Martian one are definitely troubling. I've seen similar developments of new classification of articles within the project after one starts and new ones sprout up. The only way to prevent that if it goes against the project's and Wikipedia's guidelines is to take it on early. For the majority of these new film projects I'm assuming they could be combined with a source material article, but that may not always be the case. Of course creating something like that would still have new editors re-creating the article for the film as they may be unfamiliar with a incubator page and I don't think we can redirect to that page (is that possible when they're searching for an encyclopedia article to direct them to a Wikipedia project page?). Although I'd welcome an incubator page for each of these film projects, I'm assuming most would rather keep it in the article space. I would not have too much of a problem with the pages if we knew that the films were going to be made and had a set schedule. But since we don't, a new preparation area that still collects sources that may be difficult to grab later while still leading to a developed article could definitely be helpful. I would welcome a setup similar to WP:AI, maybe one housed within our project (even coupled with the future films department). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I put together an essay here: User:Erik/Planned films. It is a more direct explanation for how we approach coverage of planned films, though I will need to cover the steps of merging or incubating. It would help to identify examples of different types of planned films, most especially the kind that have been developed for a while but are still in development, like a lot of lesser-known superheroes. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard articles? If any topic meets the instruction of policy, is "worthy of note", exceeds the requirements set by notability criteria, and is presented in an encyclopedic manner and style as instructed by WP:MOS, what is non-standard? What IS non-standard is that some in Project Film wish to set WP:NFF above policy, as the three little paragraphs at WP:NFF are "non-standard" when intentionally over-rule policy and guideline.

The very first sentence at WP:WikiProject Films states "WikiProject Films is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films." It time to rewrite that sentence, as building comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films, is not what is being spoken of here. What is being spoken of is to specifically NOT create comprehensive and detailed articles on certain topics related to films.

And I don't know what the big deal is about and the wringing of fingers and gnashing of teeth over the "discovery" that some new editor has writen Marvin the Martian (film project), as the "title" of any topic has far less bearing on a topic being kept than does the topic itself meeting WP:GNG. Marvin does not... and no matter how the Marvin article is titled, its NOT meeting notability inclusion criteria has sealed its fate. If the topic is notable, it merits inclusion. If the topic is not notable, it does not. And if one disagrees with how a notable topic is titled... well then, let's find a better way to title it. Any bluster about how people will use the words "film project" in a title as a back door to circumvent NFF is a non-argument, for as with ANY topic, notability must be asserted and sourced. If the GNG is not met, the GNG is not met. There are hundreds of articles created daily on non-notable topics that have even less sourcing than the ridiculous Marvin article, and procedures exist to deal with such, no matter what the topic might be. So how one titles a topic is non-issue. Sorry Erik, but writing the GNG "defers" to subject-specific guidelines is a mis-statement, as the parent guide does not "defer", but instead encourages other means in which to determine notability if or when the GNG is not met. One does not "defer" to the other, they are supposed to work with common sense to be mutually supportive, not mutually exclusionary.

I support the creation of WP:WikiProject Future Films to set guidelines and instructions on how to handle notable topics that have not yet become films, as Project Film apparently does not wish to deal favorable with that particular series of topics, notable or not. I propose the creation of a non-film template for use in such articles, so they do not become confused with completed films. If the topic becomes a failed project, the article can then be passed over to Project Film to be judged for notability under it exclusionary NFF. If the project enters principle filming, the topic then falls under the auspices of Project Film for implementation of proper film templates. WikiProject Future Films will work in concert with WikiProject Films, but one will not judge or be judged by the other. If dealing with the articles encouraged by policy is so difficult for a project that does not wish to deal with any sort of speculation, let's create the WikiProject that will deal with ensuring that any such speculation must meet or exceed notability requirements for topics, else be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And to note... yes... I feel like an idiot. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films exists. It just needs a few new brooms to sweep out the cobwebs. Yargh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I'm asking other editors for their opinions. We've had enough back-and-forth between us. See User:Erik/Planned films for a thorough explanation that is still being developed. A news report writing about the progress of development for a film is directed for the film itself. It does not become about itself when there is a permanent absence of the film. We still need to work out the criteria for using retrospective coverage and the time frame to identify if there is an enduring topic to be had. This is not about keeping and deleting articles; this is about the size and perception of development-related coverage. Let's save our breaths and let others weigh in. Feel free to tell me on my talk page your thoughts of the essay in works. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A "topic" supported by one news report, or a even dozen news reports (if quite recent or over a very short period of time), is already handled by policy WP:NOTNEWS... just as Policy already anticipates that persistant and enduring coverage of a topic, no matter what the topic is, may allow its inclusion. As a purposely limiting guideline, set to put the brakes of common sense on rampant expansion of non-notable topics, NFF mandates that if a topic is found notable per guideline, and if it is about an anticipated event, it is best to seek someplace else for the article's information. But guideline does not suggest parring an article down to only a few pertinent details in order to make it easier to merge... and guideline does indeed allow that some topics may merit independent articles, outside of a parent article. And, in its encouraging that topics otherwise meeting inclusion criteria be merged someplace else, NFF does not address that "someplace else" might not exist... and by this it encorages that such information be either deleted or put somplace it may not belong. Look at the top of this project page: It begins "WikiProject Films is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films." I have a very difficult time understanding how reducing an article to its barest of basics in order to effect a merge anywhere else can be considered as either comprehensive or detailed. To do such runs contrary to the very goals which Project Film announces on its home page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let others weigh in. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough. We do have enough spoken of here for consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not really think the film projects are a bad thing. I do think Erik is on the right track when it comes to needing to create a guideline or an essay about them. Becuase there should be limits to what you can or cannot do. It's got to be sourced as Schhmidt said. And the source has got to prove it's notability. Comparitive that if the film never happens it's still a notable topic to talk about such as the Star Wars sequel trilogy. It can't be a stub like the Marvian the Martian one. Information like that can easily be merged and redirected somewhere else. If the film projects are to be a new thing. There should be a how to and when to write one essay. I think Schmidt would be really good at that as he showed me how it works. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope Erik will not be offended if I also work on an essay to deal with such much as I did with WP:TOOSOON and WP:NEWBIEGUIDE. I'd set it up cleanly and simply, avoiding opinion and having cross references to existing policy and guidelines to try to underscore just what might make an anticipatory event notable per existing policy and guideline, and to further underscore how easily anticipated events might fail per policy and guideline... keeping the essay objective and not subjective, much like I did at TOOSOON. He makes some decent points in his own essay that are worth incorporating and clarifying. Erik? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what would work better are articles retrospectively covering projects that were in development. Resources like this and this would help show the kinds of incomplete projects that gained retrospective fame. Using contemporary references writing about the film as it was developed is less effective. The challenge here, though, is that development never really dies. Some of the films mentioned in these resources were eventually made after all. We don't have a way to treat a project possibly in development as a past topic, a present topic, or a future topic. Especially worth noting, there are a lot of developments that taper off, and nobody follows up on why nothing resulted. I feel like trying to determine the enduring notability of a project in development is too nuanced. Three separate news reports across three years enough? Maybe if something was said every year for the past decade. What if it was once every three years, then nothing? Not everybody will know these trends, and even those that know them can be unsure of a status. I think what's worth noting is that for the past few years, projects in development have either been produced or not produced, and we haven't needed project articles whose tone (past, present, or future) is muddled. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence immediately above recognizes and encourages regular editing to address concerns, and has my support. Yes, I'll attempt clarity and not muddy the waters, and will avoid anything that might be considered subjective in nature.. and I'll not let WP:NTEMP, or forgetting it, take too strong a hold on the clarity of simple presentation. No need to complicate the plumbing as it usualy makes it easier to stop up the pipes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the project page does state that we do cover all film-related projects. Our project's assorted departments ensures that the various types of articles are properly formatted and that members with the same interests can keep the project's goals running smoothly. The future films department, started three years ago, has helped to reinforce policy and guidelines on upcoming films that would otherwise be inundated with unreliable sources and rumors leading up to the film's release. Since it's done a good job with many upcoming films in the past, and with the continued interest in upcoming films, it would be best to keep these potential films (currently listed as projects) stored and maintained on a project page until ready. Working with films is definitely different from other projects. When a historical event occurs, there's no waiting for it in case it may happen down the line, it just happens. For films, there's two paths: getting made or sitting in development hell for an extended period. It's not that difficult to move them into article space when filming begins. This would help us to avoid the continuous AfDs and continue to properly prepare these articles with developed content and collected sources. However, to do something like this, we would have to indicate what types of projects would be incubated, and how to properly merge existing articles into other articles or setup redirects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

War adventure films category up for deletion

The discussion can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Battleship (film)

Has this movie been filmed yet. If not I would guess it's not ready per WP:NFF. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's filming. See this. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. Then that source needs to be updated then. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Rihanna a director of this film? Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actress, her debut. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

• AFD is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources

Tenebrae (talk) in good faith recently removed all content from Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger citing information from comicbookmovie.com stating that the site is actually a forum. It is my opinion that the site utilizies citizen journalism (which is also used by some mainstream media outlets such as CNN) and should not be discounted because its contributers are not paid professionals. It should be noted that in each of the site's articles a disclaimer is posted stating

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal of copyrighted material, contact us HERE.

to which Tenebrae veiws as evidence of it being a forum. The site's code of conduct states

Journalistic Ethics and Standards on the Internet:

Your fansite is formatted to be a news site. OK, so you're not a REAL journalist. Neither are we. We're passionate fans first! Still, that doesn't mean we don't want to do our best to follow established guidelines and ethical practices. So, here they are:

1.Don't plagiarize. Stealing is bad. When aggregating news content from other sites, only take a portion of someone elses work--a paragraph or two is acceptable. If you find you are taking too much you might just want to rewrite it and call it your own.

2.Always credit your source. Make sure when you use content from another site or news source that you give them credit with a link back to their site. Your newsloading tool has that ability, so use it.

3.Don't use copyrighted images. There is a lot that is free on the web, but some of it is not. Sometimes stuff you shouldn't take will tell you that it is copyrighted. If we are contacted by the copyright holder we will need to remove it.

4.Exclusive content is GREAT! Do a lot of that. It will get your fansite noticed

and safe harbor refers to the site being protected from liability non-purposeful copyright infringement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if CNN uses citizen journalism, I doubt it is an aspect of their coverage that would be considered reliably sourced. I agree with Tenebrae of the assessment of the website. Per WP:RS, either the publisher or the contributor need to be reliable. We've established that the contributors are not authoritative, and I don't find the publisher reputable enough. Would a possible alternative approach to be to use other sources, ones considered reliable, when they report on something from comicbookmovie.com? Was not sure if that would indicate an independent review of the site's report, thereby trusting its reliability. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the source is deemed to be unreliable then other reports citing that source are a fruit of the poisonous tree and should not be used. However it does enhance the reputation of the site as reliable source if other reputable sources continue to use it as a source of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I guess that means we need to be more careful when citing any site related to comics and ensure that (a) we do not use any site that has copied the information directly from them, or (b) for the ones that include additional information, that any citation we use is only used for other information. I too find the nature of some of the writing for comicbookmovie.com to fit outside of the guidelines of WP:RS - which (if consensus agrees on the nature of the site) leaves only a couple scenarios I can think of: (1) only reliably attributed articles on cbm should be cited, or (2) none should be. And in the case of #1, if a better (ie: original) source is available, it should be used instead. I read a lot of their articles, and though many are spot on, some are not - so while I enjoy using their site, I suspect it still (either as a whole, or in regards to the articles "contributed" with no editorial review) it does not meet sourcing guidelines. It would kinda be akin to me editing the Star Trek related articles with all sorts of new information - and though I can guarantee the information would be accurate, including personal conversations with the likes of David Gerrold, Doug Drexler, Andy Probert, DC Fontana and others; I'd be hard pressed to be able to prove the veracity of it, and nor would by personal website (or in many cases, even the Star Trek Phase 2 website) be considered a reliable source. I think the same applies here. But that's just my opinion. Best, RobertMfromLI ^Talk/_Contribs 23:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to draw a distinction between CNN, which ultimately takes responsibility for anything it broadcasts under its aegis, and comicbookmovie.com, which doesn't. Also, CNN and other major outlets limit the use of such material stringently, as in war zone footage, hurricane footage, etc., and in my experience always make it clear that what we're seeing may contain biases, incomplete context etc.

Finally, there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between using non-traditional resources for breaking news — which by definition is being delivered as it's happening, with the expectation of full, detailed reported later with professional journalistic standards — and an encyclopedia, which has the luxury and the responsibility to use the most accurate, reliable and unimpeachable sources possibles. If journalism is the first draft of history, an encyclopedia is the final, polished product.

As a side issue, the article citizen journalism is tagged for tone, and does seem to have some problems. It reads more like an argument for citizen journalism than it does an encyclopedia article. And on a final, only half-joking note, I'm not sure why we should expect a citizen journalist to be as reliable as, say, a citizen surgeon or a citizen lawyer. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: One area I think we can all agree on is, if a comicbookmovie.com posting cites news from an RS site, we should go to the RS site and use that instead.

P.P.S.: I wonder if we shouldn't have this discussion at Talk:RS? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that CBM is denying responsibilty for by my interpretation of it's disclaimer is copyright infringement. Other than that it just states that its contributers have agreed to it's code of conduct. Also what if there is no later professional report? For example an interview with actress Jaimie Alexander was removed from the Thor article, I doubt she will be asked the same questions again and give the same responses. One of the benefits of citizen journalism is getting first hand accounts that our often missed or ignored from professional reports. And in response to your post script, I think it is best to use the original source for citations whenever possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since plain typed words can't really convey vocal tone, let me say upfront that I mean this seriously and not sarcastically or any other bad way: There's a reason people say ironically, "Well, I read it on the Internet, so it must be true." In actual fact, we don't know that the reader who posted the Jaimie Alexander interview really spoke with her, or that he transcribed her words correctly, or that he didn't massage quotes. Heaven knows Wikipedia has had false material put up by both pranksters and well-meaning incompetents — no site is immune. But a site where anybody can post anything is particularly vulnerable, and a voluntary code of conduct is no substitute for editorial oversight, meaning: responsible editing by professionals trained in fact-checking, confirming sources, grammar (since common errors can change the entire meaning of a sentence), and libel and other legal issues, and who assume ultimate responsibility. Without all that — things we take for granted with a professional site — we can't really trust something that somebody just puts up on the Internet. Not with something that wants to hold itself as an encyclopedia.

The ironic thing is, I would love to use a site like that, which burrows in obsessively to cover a subject I love and take very seriously. But because of all those things that I note above, I realize that whatever material is posted there isn't completely trustworthy. And I would be extremely wary of using quotes from purported interviews, unless posted as videos, which would be extremely difficult to fake. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that CBM is denying responsibilty for by my interpretation of it's disclaimer is copyright infringement. by claiming safehabour, they are explictly stating that they have no editorial oversight on context, that's the whole point of SH - on that basis alone, it's disqualified as a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Safe Harbor refers to protection from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it does not protect the website from potentially slanderous or libel material. Also the code of conduct does state that there is some editorial control;

We, the owners of ComicBookMovie.com, reserve the right to edit and/or delete users contributions and fansites at any time, and for any reason. Now of course, we hope to never have to do that, but we also have no idea what one of you naughty little buggers might do in the future, so we require total control over all elements of the site. Furthermore, as a contributor to CBM you are agreeing to shared ownership of all content created under the ComicBookMovie.com url. We pledge to be fair masters, and you may contact us with member concerns, questions or disputes HERE.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing what I am say - if you get involved in the editorial control of content, you can't claim safe habour because you then become the publisher rather than a provider of space to publish. All that link says is that they can remove or change anything they like (which they need to be about to do as the provider of space), it's say nothing about editoral control in the way we define it. It's not a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And, too, "reserving the right to edit" and actually editing, fact-checking and vetting material as a professional publication does are two different things.

On an unrelated note, any presumably for-profit site that demands part ownership of work being contributed for free violates every tenet of fair treatment of freelancers. Working for free is slavery, and the unintentional irony of the phrase "fair masters" cannot go unremarked upon. Aside from any RS concerns, we should not be promoting any site that exploits those who are providing the content without which it cannot survive.

That said, since anybody can contribute postings, regardless of credentials, expertise or past behavior, I just don't see how, under Wikipedia policies, this can be considered a reliable-source newsgathering operation. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Green hornet deletion nomination

Anybody interested should go to The Green Hornet (2006 film) as I have nominated the green hornet for nominaton for deletion. So cast your votes to keep or delete as you wish. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Hornet (2006 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Blockbuster", "flop", etc.

I've come across lots of articles about actors that have a chart of their films with a tag such as "blockbuster", "flop", "super hit" for each. Never cited. Same issue for articles with table-of-films for certain genres or "XX year in film" pages. I've started removing them on the basis of WP:OR (either WP:RS uncited or WP:SYNTHESIS if editors' conclusion based on box-office gross/etc). I've gotten mixed feedback (usually supportive comments but sometimes lots of no-comment reversion by IPs). Is there existing content or style guideline specifically for this type of material? If not, am is there consensus that it's bad/removeable? Would be great to have an easy link to that guideline (could just use WP:HITFLOP edit-summary like we use WP:SULF for the sulfur-vs-sulphur guideline). DMacks (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To show everyone, here are a couple of examples: 1 and 2. The "Rating" column is definitely original research. It's not realistic to boil down a film's reception to a word or two for that column. "dragging movie, but a hit"? Really? I endorse the removal of such columns. Lists of films are not the place for assessing individual films' box office performance/critical acclaim. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help with a poster

Hello to the members of the project. Today I cam across our article for the film Waking Ned. I noticed that the poster in the infobox is from the US release which was entitled Waking Ned Devine. I know that we prefer to have an original release poster in the infobox. I am not good at finding and uploading pictures so I am posting this here so that those of you who are proficient at this can replace this poster, if possible. If an original poster is not available I will leave it up to you if we want to stick with the one currently on the page. My thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 14:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This indicates the same design for English-language posters. This being the case, I don't mind the DVD cover being used. If someone wants to replace the cover image with a poster image, though, they are welcome to do so. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking that if either a poster or DVD cover with just the title "Waking Ned" was available that we should put that in the infobox in place of the one that is there currently. If one isn't available then the one that is there is probably okay. Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, I realized what you meant. I missed the title distinction. Let me research further. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a possibility, though I cannot find a direct image in Google Images Search. I also see other DVD covers that have the same background as the currently-used image but without "Devine". They're very low-quality, though. Not sure where else I can look, but I'm okay with the current image if an alternative cannot be easily found. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your research. Maybe this thread will lead to another editor coming up with something. If not, since this will eventually get archived, perhaps we could put a request on the talk page for the film on the off chance that someone will come across it and have a "Waking Ned" alternative. That poster with the lottery balls is pretty funky. I wonder if it was an ad campaign that came before or after the original film release. MarnetteD | Talk 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Book:Academy Award for Best Picture - Help needed

I recently created this book. I originally opted to go with years, but upon consideration, I'm wondering if it would be better to go with 1rst, 2nd, ... 82nd instead of 1928, 1929, .... 2009 ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also be great if people could create books on the other awards (Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, ...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use the ceremony number? I think the year may be confusing since Academy Awards are held the year after the year's films being awarded. Unless you can make this distinction in the book? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, I think the year suffices. It's apparent to me that the year refers to the film's release. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Book:Academy Awards, also recently created. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice, but why would anyone want to print/download a static version of a wiki that changes minute by minute? Lugnuts (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well for several reason. There's the obvious "people don't always have access to the internet", which is especially true in less industrialized nations. And some people just prefer to read from paper, rather than from a screen. Books also use WikiTrust, and this is appealing for schools, where you would rather have a fixed unvandalized version than expose kids to profanity and the like. There are quite a few projects dedicated to offline releases of Wikipedia, Wikipedia 1.0 being the most famous, but you have several others like Okawix and of course books like Book:Academy Awards (there's roughly 1200 of these books as of now). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and all the cleanup tags and navboxes are removed from the articles in these PDFs, so it is a more pleasant read all around too, as the versions are essentially clutter-free. At least IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

Help request - "The Seventh Seal"

Another editor has posted some material about a Cinema Insomnia supposed parody of Bergman's The Seventh Seal that I have reverted as irrelevant insofar as the description of the show by that editor DixieDellamorto involved only what seemed to me to be trivia. This editor has objected, which is understandable, but his/her responses on the Talk page have become querulous and borderline uncivil. I responded that if someone from WP:Film thought the material relevant then I would not object to its inclusion. I wonder if someone might take a look at the edit here [[1]] or suggest to me someone who could or would be interested. Our little discussion is going on under the "Parody Again" section here [2]. I'd actually like to revert the entire section as irrelevant, but it seems as if many film article have similar sections. Also, the point was raised on a CFD discussion here [3] that the above named editor may have a COI because he works for the show whose episode he is trying to insert as an example of parody, FWIW. Thanks - Sensei48 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New AfD

I have placed List of horror movie serial killers up for deletion. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror movie serial killers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Surreal films

RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) is mass-removing text and categories from films that state they are "surreal" and in many cases, they are clearly cited in the articles (Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, etc). Thoughts/comments on this? Lugnuts (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's third-party sourcing identifying the films as surrealist, it would seem appropriate to me to identify the films as such in text and/or categories. Doniago (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A film review which tosses around the words "surreal," "surrealistic," and/or "surrealism" does not mean that said film is Surrealist. Since we have a Surrealism article, that article should be our guide for what films are and are not Surrealist. Before I began working earlier today, that category had been overpopulated with dozens of articles that were not at all relevant. It's interesting that Lugnuts does not mention the numerous films I removed that did not belong, nor does he mention that he offered no reasoning in many of his reversions. I am willing to discuss the Surrealist influence on Lynch, but his films are not Surrealist in the sense of the movement, or in any meaningful sense whatsoever. The terms "surreal" and "surrealistic" have no meaningful definition, being essentially synonyms for "weird" or "strange," and, as we are building an encyclopedia, we should strive for meaningful, consistent definitions. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Allmovie, "Though the actual movement died out towards the end of the '20s, surrealism had a profound effect on all of cinema, basically because of film's dreamy use of images. The style remains alive today through the work of contemporary directors such as Peter Greenaway (Prospero's Books, A Zed & Two Noughts), Jan Svankmajer (Alice, Conspirators of Pleasure, the Coen Brothers (Barton Fink), and, especially, David Lynch (Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me)."source. So some of these that you have removed should remain I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A few moments with Google Books showed that Mulholland Drive (film) is discussed in Hopkins, David (2004). Dada and Surrealism: a very short introduction. Very short introductions. Vol. 105. Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0192802542., a book about Surrealism, as an example. I don't really see what more one could want. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of films that are made in the surrealist tradition and some of those (especially Eraserhead and Blue Velvet) are noteworthy examples. It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is "surrealist" based on our own criteria since that constitutes WP:OR; if it is notable and sourced then it is legitimate to include that in the article just like any other notable and sourced claim. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This comment, in the revision history of 200 Motels, typifies the problem: "If this is not surrealist, I don't know what is...". It is exactly this kind of completely subjective definition that we have to avoid. The Allmovie quote is interesting, but gets its facts wrong: Surrealism did not die out in the '20s. But, Allmovie is not a reliable source on the definition of Surrealism. It is telling that Lugnuts titled this discussion "Surreal films" rather than "Surrealist films," which is the title of the category. As long as this is the title of the category, we have to use reliable sources on Surrealism. The two sources Lugnuts recently added to Week End do not meet any such criteria. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Allmovie may be wrong about the art history factor (it's obviously not an art history site), but as a film style, I think it should still be considered notable when they apply it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear, as I was not in my previous post: I am not arguing that Allmovie should be ignored, it is a notable and reliable source for film. That said, I believe additional sources are needed if a film is going to be described or defined as Surrealist. Given the number of films listed in that category which were wholly inappropriate (Top Secret, Poultrygeist, Jacob's Ladder, etc.), clearly no standard had been set for inclusion. That is not acceptable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those films are inappropriately categorized. But I suggest that you actually do look for a source first before removing these items. You don't have to be extensive, but even a quick google books search on allmovie. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support these removals. There are other problem categories like this too, like Category:Avant-garde and experimental films, but at least here it should be easy to distinguish that films which simply are influenced by the surrealism not automatically are surrealistic works. And especially not if they're just surreal in general, since such traits existed long before the art movement, even in cinema. Smetanahue (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion here on the Categories for Discussion page, as to a possible solution to this Surrealist films category problem. Please contribute and let's try to solve this, please. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Category: Fims produced by x

A current discussion at CfD can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about application of Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Most_Hated_Family_in_America. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Twister (1996 film)

I was wondering if anyone could take a look at this article and trim down the plot summary a bit, as it seems a bit overly long and detailed. IP editors have just been lengthening it despite the {{Plot}} tag on it. I think I'm the only one who keeps a regular watch on the article, and I'm not very good at telling what is and what isn't important to any given plot summary (plus I've seen the movie so many times I probably couldn't write a less detailed plot summary if I tried), so any assistance that could be provided would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Film articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Film articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity free license images

Since signing up for a temporary trial of IMDBPro last week, I've been able to get permission for images of Fred Willard and Katy Mixon after directly contacting their publicists. Before my trial runs out on the 28th, I'd like to send out as many requests as possible for images, so if you know of a article of an actor, director, writer, etc. that does not have an image (or has a poor one), please list it here. I'll try to send out requests in the next few days and hopefully secure permission to have an image under a free license. My goal is to see if IMDB will be willing to let me use a free membership for image searching purposes (and maybe include the project's coordinators, but we'll see how that goes). Anyway, please submit any articles soon so I can send the requests out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Mike Allen 06:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you email them? Is there anything specific? When I've asked for photos from the copyright holder on Flickr, I just tell them that I would like to use it on Wikipedia, but they have to release it under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. I've never emailed someone official (like CBS or a publicist) though. Mike Allen 06:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like for Flickr, I also ask them to release the image under the Creative Commons Attribution or the Attribution ShareAlike licenses. Instead of asking for a particular image (such as one I find on Flickr), I invite them to provide an image of their choice that the subject would prefer to have included in the article. I point out the amount of page views the article had last month to point out how many people are viewing the page with no/a poor image. So far, the success ratio isn't as high as Flickr, but I did get two high-quality images so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is awesome! Even if only a few images are provided it's worth it because it is a huge improvement over the images we usually get. Great idea. --Peppage^tlk 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Baffled

Today's frontpage featured article. I've started a discussion on the talkpage regarding the opening line, which can be found here! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New article - Recursive science fiction

• Recursive science fiction

Thought WikiProject members might be interested. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Neat! If you want to mention film in that article, this seems to indicate that the Time Machine films would be part of this sub-genre. Your call! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add it in. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Kind of did a bang-up job; feel free to revise. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Opinions

I've started a discussion at Talk: Wes Craven's New Nightmare#Title regarding the page name. Please come provide your opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Guardians

For Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole‎, there is a dispute about identifying the film as American or as Canadian-American. Discussion about the identification can be seen here. Editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film), the English-language remake, was created since filming started. I moved The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (film) to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) since neither film will ultimately transcend each other enormously. Can anyone fix all the ambiguous (film) links to point to the 2009 film, using a script? I did not want to adjust the disambiguation page or the hatnotes until this is done. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, more or less. The only article still linking to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (film) is Ingvar Hirdwall. The problem there is the templates used to format the filmography. Ideally the filmography should be reformatted and those templates probably killed, but I don't feel inclined to tackle it now. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, PC78. I created a disambiguation page at The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (disambiguation) since it gives more room to explain the film adaptations of the novel. The novel's Swedish title translates to "Men Who Hate Women", but Men Who Hate Women redirects to the 2009 film article. I assume that this is because the novel is popularly known under its English title, where the Swedish-produced film may be more recognized under the English translation of the Swedish title. Does anyone think this needs adjusting? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Some edits I made to articles on The Human Centipede and Splice were reverted previously from changing the release information in the lead. ("Splice is a 2009 film...etc.). When we state release dates for films in the lead, do we refer to it's year of the premiere date at a festival? Or it's wide-release? Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How about leaving the release year out of the lead sentence and detailing the circumstances of release later in the lead section? For example, The Hurt Locker is popularly seen as a 2009 film (landing itself on multiple top ten lists), though it had a minor release and several screenings in 2008. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest something along the same lines. But ultimately the article would need to be categorised as one year or the other, and the same problem applies there also. PC78 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That comes into play as well with the categories. I'm still personally leaning towards the earliest release. It's not incorrect and you can still state a film premiered in 2008 and received a wide-release in 2009. If the article is well written enough, I don't think this will confuse readers. I've done the same for the article on The Orphanage where it made "best of" lists for 2007 and 2008. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Language instead of nationality in lead sentence

I'm cleaning up edits by the banned user Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), who edited on the IP 86.186.39.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The editor is pretty sneaky with his edits, and it's tough to figure out the proper nationality for some film articles that were edited. I was wondering, this issue coupled with repeated discussions about the nationality in the lead sentence, would it be simpler to use the language instead in cases where there is not a definite nationality? For example, if a film is a British-American production, and we call it a British-American film in the lead sentence, it seems to simplistically indicate even collaboration. Most of the time, we can't really gauge who did what, so we're stuck with a simple and possibly misleading opener. A characteristic like "English-language" is easier to establish since most films will consistently have a dominant language, where nowadays, the productions tend to be multinational collaborations. It's just a thought I had since there's so much back-and-forth about nationalities in the lead sentence. We can avoid frequent arguments about countries appearing to claim credit for a film. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, as long as there really is only one primary language in the film. I would question more generally why production information is in the first sentence at all. The first sentence should define the core qualities of what the film is, and things like the director, producer, studio, and distribution company aren't really intrinsic properties of the film itself once it's produced. —Coder Dan (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Except in cases where production info or other extrinsic properties of the film are the only thing(s) that make the film notable. 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Coder Dan, the trend of film articles has been something of an auteur approach. We tend to identify directors, screenwriters, and stars in the opening lead sentences rather than faceless entities like production companies and distributors. (Sometimes we identify producers if they're highly involved, like Joel Silver would be.) Like genre and release year, they are key identifiers for the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

> directors, screenwriters, and stars ... are key identifiers for the film

The primary identifier of most films is the film itself. I would start with the genre and a very brief description of the film's plot or premise. Language is an intrinsic part of the film, so I would include that if it's notable. Nationality and key production staff can be notable if they imply some kind of distinct style, but in most cases I would consider them important but extrinsic features rather than core defining characteristics. Also, I would say the release year is an identifier rather than a property, so I would favor "Title (XXXX) is a ... film" over "Title is a XXXX ... film", where XXXX is the year. —Coder Dan (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about putting the year in parenthesis like that, as it becomes unclear what the year refers to. My preference would be for something like "Title is a fooian film released in XXXX". PC78 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

> "Title is a fooian film released in XXXX".

But that's not necessarily true of all films with that title. That's the whole point of the parens: The year is part of the film's identification, not a descriptive property. It is an extrinsic property, but that puts it at the same level as the director and writer. Also, the parens are nearly universal outside of WP. —Coder Dan (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not ideal; without any context or explanation, a plain year could just as easily refer to production as it could release. I don't agree that it's on the same level as director and writer. There is some discussion below regarding less straightforward cases. Essentialy, I think this is something else that deserves less prominence in the lead than what it currently has. PC78 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Core defining characteristics would have to be basically described when we look to the film as a primary source. For the most part, the genre is easy to identify, and the premise is easy to explain. If we talk about significance and themes, though, they are seen as part of the film but really are part of real-world coverage. No one disputes that the genre and the premise cannot be mentioned, but it's not typically the lead sentence. It's typically the second sentence or another part of the very first paragraph. MOS:BEGIN says in the first paragraph to supply "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". I think key cast and crew qualify especially for mainstream films. Switching sentences for certain films would work, though, such as explaining that so-and-so minor film was about this particular story, then say who directed it and who starred in it afterward. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

> the premise ... it's not typically the lead sentence

I think it should be. The first sentence of MOS:BEGIN says "define the topic", and only in the second sentence does it mention "circumstances or facts that surround it". All I'm suggesting is that we should follow MOS:BEGIN more closely.

> key cast and crew qualify

Not really. A film is a series of pictures, usually with audio, that usually tell a story and depict some set of characters, events, scenery, etc.. The starring actors are clearly visible in the film, but director, writer, and other production crew are mostly environmental entities that "surrounded" the film when it was being made. The only way a director or writer can be a "defining" property is if his or her style is so distinctive and consistent that a film made by that individual is more or less guaranteed to have certain stylistic properties that set that individual's works apart from those of other directors or writers. —Coder Dan (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Also see MOS:BEGIN#First sentence. 23:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The link does not specify using internal or external characteristics. The majority of first paragraphs will define a film in the ways we both agree; it's just the order that we're disagreeing over. In addition, MOS:BOLDTITLE shows under "Proper names and titles" similar external characterizing. The painting's not described "internally"; nor is the song. Most film articles' first sentences take this approach, and it's a status quo that I don't see as detrimental. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

> The link does not specify using internal or external characteristics.

MOS:BEGIN#First sentence says to describe "what (or who) is the subject". In the case of a film, the subject is a visual presentation of a story, and the director is not part of that. As for the examples in MOS:BOLDTITLE, I don't think they're entirely consistent with MOS:BEGIN#First sentence.

> external characterizing ... it's a status quo that I don't see as detrimental.

Well, I don't think it's ideal. Anyway, I noticed that it doesn't quite follow MOS:BEGIN#First sentence a hundred percent, so I thought I would mention it. —Coder Dan (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, and we can avoid placing undue emphasis on nationality. PC78 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think many Indian films already go by language, as that's how their film industry is structured. Flexibility is probably the best solution here. Smetanahue (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Smetanahue, good point about the Indian films! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this. The majority of articles/films here are English.. so isn't this redundant? Mike Allen 03:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the countries, and if there's conflict over the significance of a country's involvement in the film, that can be elaborated on within the lead or in the production section. For the vast majority of our film articles, there likely less than five different languages and I think readers would be more interested in determining the nationality of a film. The language coverage is probably sufficiently covered in the infobox. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the language identification was surer than nationality identification, especially with contemporary films. I tried it out at Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (see talk page discussion here) and it seems to fit okay. Maybe I'm used to having something similar to American/British/Spanish/etc in the opening words; skipping from release year to genre seems to miss out on definition. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New Cat

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I noticed the following new category "Category:Vigilante films" being added to film articles in the last couple of days. I don't know that we need to take this to a full CFD but I do think that, if we are going to keep it, there should be some criteria set for it. It was added to The Year of Living Dangerously and I can't remember anything from that film that fits this cat. Other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 22:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct link: Category:Vigilante films; it was created by Eekerz (talk · contribs). According to the "Find sources" templates I added above, the categorization is a valid one. I would prefer to limit it to "vigilante films" going forward, though, with no sub-categorizations. The category should be able to encompass urban vigilante films, teen vigilante films, etc (sub-categories I saw in some sources). For The Year of Living Dangerously specifically, though, I'm not seeing any particular source identify it as a vigilante film/movie. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The only subcategory that I see could be Category:Rape and revenge films but I'm not sure--revenge is a form of vigilantism. For now, I just put it as a "seealso" tag. As for why I categorized The Year of Living Dangerously as a vigilante film, I saw the part "military-led vigilante groups" when searching for films to add to the category but MarnetteD reverted it. I've never seen the film so that part of the lead paragraph may want to be reworded. —Eekerz ^(t) 04:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For Living Dangerously, it appears that "military-led vigilante groups" is part of the background. If Gibson or Weaver in the film were acting like vigilantes, the category would be warranted. We should update the category page to define "vigilante film" so films can be properly categorized in the future. I'm having a hard time finding a straightforward definition, though. This is one possible source, but most references assume that it's self-evident. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about that PDF but this article on Slate seems to define it sufficiently enough (and has many example films): "The hero's [or protagonist's] quest for personal justice"..."an individual [or group] at odds with "the system" does what that system cannot: take revenge on specific criminals or crime in general for the wrongs done to him (occasionally her), his family, his community". —Eekerz ^(t) 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article from the Los Angeles Times is pretty good too about making a case for the vigilante/revenge film genre. —Eekerz ^(t) 17:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for film series?

Just spotted this at WP:RT if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct title for Puerto Rican film

Hi. The film ...And God Created Them has raised a question on the PR project talk page (discussion here). Any help with this would be appreciated. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Identifying public domain films

I have been asked for my thoughts on a means of identifying films as public domain here, and I suggested Wikipedia:WikiProject Films might be a good place to do this. Has a task force looked at this already? -84user (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Internet Archive references the Public-Domain Movie Database at http://pdmdb.org. This full search of wikipedia for pdmdb only finds two uses. Has anyone evaulated the reliability of this database as a source for copyright status of films? -84user (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Catfish (film) under attack

Hello, the article for Catfish, which describes itself as a documentary, is under steady attack from two separate factions. One wishes to hide plot spoilers; the other denounces the film as a hoax without supporting evidence. Advice is appreciated. YLee (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 15 days (opens in 14 days), by then the rumours should be quelled. Skier Dude (talk 01:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. YLee (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the semi-protection's end the vandalism has resumed, with three incidents in the past 24 hours. It is likely related to a New York Times piece on Wikipedia's policy on spoilers, specifically citing this article, and consequent discussion at Slashfilm and elsewhere. Can the protection be resumed, at least for a few more days? YLee (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I have filed a request for comment with the BLP noticeboard regarding a potential issue with this article. Also, it's possible that given the filmmakers' reactions to the existence of the Wikipedia article that it may come under WP:SPOILERS-violating attack again. YLee (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for protection renewal

I again request that the protection on this article be renewed; since Skier Dude's initial one wore off as of the film's initial release, the seemingly endless attacks from both the "Wikipedia shouldn't spoil plots!" and "This isn't a real documentary!" sides have resumed. YLee (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cinema of templates

Hello there Project! Lugnuts have been having spatts about the use of {{Cinema of XXX}} on film articles (for example: {{Cinema of France}}. I believe that navigation boxes are completely generic and do not aid the reader in looking at an individual film which has only one aspect of nationality. Also including them breaks down the purpose of navigation aids, to navigate between articles, because they are not included in the box. I will let Lugnuts defend his position. Can we get a consensus for this? The documentation of {{Cinema of the United States}} already indicates not to include it in film or person articles, but there is no such consensus for the others. BOVINEBOY2008 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My rationale/reasoning for the templates:

1. The film country templates in the infobox no longer pipe to the cinema of articles, so nobody is going to stumble upon them via that route.
2. Some people believe we shouldn't pipe the cinema of bit into the intro - IE Dogtooth is a Greek film should simply be Dogtooth is a Greek film.
3. Therefore, there is nothing actually in the article linking to the bigger picture of the individual cinema of articles.
4. The Cinema of the USA template was deleted via a consensus made up of people whom the majority didn't even contribute to this project, and didn't have a clue what they were deleting it for. However, American cinema is a common term, but the complete opposite is true for world cinema.

Why link at all - to increase and aid navigation. Some of those templates are incredibly detailed and go into more detail than just the generic overview of Greek (or French, or Spanish, or Brazilian) cinema. Links to films by decade/year, directors, producers, etc, etc. Hopefully people will browse through, see something like French films of 1958 and work on existing articles, or complete red links. I bet half the people who visit a specific film article aren't even aware of the cinema of article. Holes that are missing from the film project will never be filled, unless users are pointed in the right direction.

Some editors have replaced the template with the "see also" section linking directly to the cinema of article. This is even more pointless in my eye, as it takes up more space and doesn't have as many links!

Hopefully this "user" will stop stalking me and making completly false reverts like these two [4] [5], destroying good information in a blind attack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I would greatly appreciate it if you just discussed the issue at hand. If you have a problem with my edits, it would be much easier to discuss them directly with me, or use ANI. Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for article deletion discussion, which this is not. BOVINEBOY2008 08:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If content is removed it's deleted. Your edit summaries often say "add template", but somehow this means subtract the ones you don't like. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my editing style, but this is not discussing the matter. I've also not used that edit summary to describe my edits since you pointed it out to me.

I agree with your second bullet, it should be said "Dogtooth is a Greek film", but should not go "Dogtooth is a Greek drama film" because there are too many links in one area. This doesn't aid going to the articles, in fact an entire line of blue links would deter clicking on the links. And I don't understand why you are oppose to a "See also" section. In them, we can actually tailor the links included to be relevant to the article in question. BOVINEBOY2008 08:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK says to provide "links that aid navigation and understanding". Basically, links that aid navigation and not understanding are excessive linking. Tony1 started some linking discussions at WT:FILM in the past, especially about linking to genres, and he made good points about smart linking. For example does a comedy film's article really need a link to comedy film? Does access to that article aid in understanding the topic, the individual film? When we open a film article with the lead sentence containing the year, the nationality (sometimes), and the genre, it is fair to assume that most of everyone understand the context from these definitions. At the same time, I do understand the desire for navigation. We have to remember that we cannot link to everything. The distinction to be made is the relationship of the topics. For example, an individual film about a dog playing sports would not need to link dog. On the other hand, if you have an article about dogs in film, a link is more likely. By the same extension here, we have so many films of different nationalities that do not have a strong relationship with the related cinema article. Does Orgazmo (to be truly random here) aid the reader in understanding the film with a link to Cinema of the United States? The link aids in navigation, but it does not aid in understanding. In the article body, a "cinema of" link is best used when there is commentary about the film's impact on its country's filmmaking, which would be later in the article body (and later in the lead section if it had that big of an impact). A "See also" section is a viable alternative because there are tangential relationships, when there is not quite a real relationship between the individual film and the entire history of film in the country that film came from. I'm not sure why this kind of section would be pointless, though I do see how limited it can be. We can try to be more creative with it. For example, if the film is a specific sub-genre, in addition to it having a category for it, the "See also" section could link to a list. For example, I've tried a mix of such links at Apt Pupil (film)#See also, though I find List of American films of 1998 to have a more real relationship with that film. I've suggested using Allmovie for listing "similar works" to flesh out these sections. I was shot down with Fight Club (film)#See also, but I used it for Surf Ninjas#See also, linking to tangentially related films of possible interest. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the distinction here is about the template. Based on my argument above, this means the links in each cinema template have the faintest of relationships, if any at all, to the individual film at hand. They are all otherwise too high-level to matter in relation to an individual film, and one cinema link is sufficient in letting the reader go another direction. The link just belongs in better context than in the article's lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I remember when Blofeld first created these nav templates and started putting them everywhere: I opposed them for the same reasons as Bovineboy, though I've long since resigned myself to their use. To be honest I do think that these things represent template spam. Using {{Cinema of France}} as an example, none of those links are specific to any one film. If I'm reading about a 2007 French film, then I don't require a link to a list if 1910 French films, or to a list of French film festivals, or whatever. A "see also" section that linked to Cinema of France and French films of 2007 would be enough to, as Lugnuts puts it, link the article to "the bigger picture of the individual cinema" but without including dozens of other irrelevant links. We should also be mindful of the incoming links these things add to pages. Category:South Korean film awards has hundreds of unnecessary incoming links simply because of the {{Cinema of Korea}} template. Finally, to pick up on something Lugnuts said, it is not the job of these nav templates to encourage people to expand or create articles, they exist merely to aid navigation between related topics. I beleive that these templates should be restricted to the core topics for each national cinema, and this should not include individual films. PC78 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't around for that but I agree with PC78's assessment of the situation completely. In a "see also" section; totally doable. Unless it can be worked into the prose somewhere for some reason (I have some hypotheticals in my brain but for once I'll spare you guys from my patented rambles) I don't really see the need for it elsewhere in any given article. That said, I've been ignoring the things getting added and removed because they seem to mean a lot to the editors who do either and they are easy for me to ignore when I'm in read only mode. Millahnna (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So, are these templates that should be included in film articles, or just those that are included in the navigation boxes? BOVINEBOY2008 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have little to do with WP:Films these days. good to see PC78 and Erik are still ruling the kingdom, what happened to the God of Films, Giro? I don't see a problem with a single Cinema of template what I object to its the ludicrous number you see in sports related articles. Anything over 2 looks disgusting. A lot of it is easily accesible in categories the whole point of the templates really were to access a guide to the films of that national cinema by year to ease broswing and to be placed at the foot of every film article. If editors really want to find it its pretty easy to do but the templates are certainly no more redundant than most of the others we have on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

I'm going to say that I'm against adding them in. As said above "if I'm reading about a 2007 French film, then I don't require a link to a list if 1910 French films, or to a list of French film festivals". 99.241.142.34 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the templates are helpful for providing an overview of a country's film industry, they better direct readers when listed in the corresponding articles included within the template. These templates have links that go to both categories and articles, and since individual films are linked to in the categories, it doesn't seem helpful to have them in every film article we have. I was going to suggest adding the template to the top of the noted category pages so that when readers click on a category they are able to see the template, but it looks like this has already been done. That location, along with the main pages covered in the template, should be sufficient for guiding readers to these articles. We are fortunate that we don't have excessive templates like other types of articles, and although these do assist readers, they're current placement seems to provide ample coverage. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to add a "hide navigation templates" option in your user preferences for those who dislike them. Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a question of liking them or not. This is a question of whether they are appropriate or necessary on certain articles. I do think they need to be included in the articles that actually link in the navigation template. That makes sense. Being included in every film article is just template spam. BOVINEBOY2008 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your point of view. Editors like myself and Lugnuts (who have started more articles on films than anybody else here) think it is useful to browse film listings by year. I've recommended previously that the templates are replaced with a single see also link to the relative year in film for that cinema and an editor began doing so enmase until you people started moaning again that you weren't happy and the editor who was doing so was halted from being able to do so. If certain people in this film project hadn't have got all anal over his edits there probably wouldn't even be these templates at the bottom of articles anymmore.. It is incredibly difficult to please everybody on here. If I had my way articles like Dogtooth (film) would have a See also and a plain link to Greek films of the 2000s instead of Cinema of Greece template. But it turned out that was also not acceptable to people here. Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And it seems my point of view seems to agree with other members of the project, as well as some guidelines. Consensus changes, and it seems that most people now, at least those that have responded, believe that it is excessive to link to those templates on every single film article. (And hardly see how making film articles makes one more knowledgeable in browsing articles) BOVINEBOY2008 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

t::Well, the templates were made in the belief that films by year are related to other films released that year. This was the point. I would agree with you though about a 1997 French horror movie being linked to a 1915 French silent comedy seems redundant. The best thing in my view in that case would be a see also link to French films of 1997 but a number opposed to this as I said abovr so in the end we ended up keeping the entire year templates. In my view it would be much better to have a see also direct link to that year in film than every year in a template. Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have only heard one person complain about a See also section, so this sounds like a good compromise, using the templates only in articles they link to and then link to a related list of films for that year in a see also section. Does this sound okay to everyone? BOVINEBOY2008 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and added this consensus to the MOS here. BOVINEBOY2008 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have "been bold" and removed it, until there is a clear consensus. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How is there not a clear consensus? BOVINEBOY2008 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you not paying attention? Read the above. And if you disagree on that, there's no way an important consensus should be reached within 3 days. Lugnuts (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are the only one who disagrees, Lugnuts. How can we compromise with you? BOVINEBOY2008 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not the only one who disagrees... Lugnuts (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted. Could you possibly state why you disagree with all the opinions and reasoning brought up? BOVINEBOY2008 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Lugnuts. It is also extremely narrow minded of you Bovine to apply your criteria to every single wikiproject on wikipedia. The historic registered places use a generic templates on tens of thousands of articles as do the aviation project. I agree in my view it would be better to link specific registered places by county in templates and precise articles by aviation but too many people like the generic templates so I can't do anything about it. Unless there is a wikidespread discussion and consensus involving every wikiproject to decide upon this then it it not up to you to set as a guideline. I agree with you Bovine in part that it is better to link to precise articles which are directly related. If there was consensus to replace the nav boxes with a see also linking to that year in film then I'd support it. The idea is that the film from a certain year of that cinema is connected to the others; categories do not do thise as neither say Category:French films or Category:1918 films link to a precise list. Now some may think a link to other films of the same year of that cinema is unimportant but I disagree and i'm sure many others do. As long as that initial link is there then you can rely on the template in French films of 1918 to link to others years. But the link has to be there. Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, there is only Lugnuts arguing for the status quo in this discussion. Blofeld, I'm a little confused by your comments: you seem to be simultaneously in favour of using a "see also" link as opposed to the navtemplate in individual film articles, while at the same time against a change in this direction. Can you clarify your position please? PC78 (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blofeld, I'm not asking for a change to all Wikipedia articles, I am specifically talking about articles in this project and what this project feels about the topic. And from the responses received, a grand majority do not support the use of the template. If you could clarify what think specifically about film articles and the use of these particular templates, it would be very helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I support keeping the navigation templates unless they are replaced with a single by year link in the see also section of articles. Given that you rejected this preivously, I recall Erik complaining about a American films of 1999 in Fight Club etc so in the end it came to nothing. Unless we can agree that the best thing would be a single link to the relative film bank of that year in every film article then I continue to support the use of these templates. Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not remembering rejecting this idea (but that could just be my poor memory). I support that link, as it is relevant and should be included in the film article somewhere, whether in the See also section or integrated into the article. BOVINEBOY2008 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But, correct me if I am wrong, you are arguing that the template should be included because otherwise, this one link will not be included in the article. That doesn't make much sense to me. That would be like including {{Countries of North America}} to include the link United States or {{Film festivals}} to include the link Cannes Film Festival. It introduces several links that have little to do with that article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to the demise of the navigation templates only if a discussion was opened about a see also link to the year in film and that there was consensus to do so and that as the templates were being replaced with a see also link that nobody kicked up a storm about it. Other than this if we were to change the category system to e.g Category:1999 American films, Category:1981 French films then there would be no need for any link at all as such categories would also contain the e.g List of American films of 1999. Somehow I can't see people supporting that idea. I personally however would support a split by year for the major cinemas as I think 16,000 articles in one category is too much.. Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are arguing for support of these templates because it helps categorize them? So you support filling articles with excessive links just so one link is included in the article? That isn't the point of navigation templates. Navigation templates are supposed to be a very transparent way to get quickly between closely related articles, which these templates don't do the way they are implemented now. This isn't the "demise" of the templates, they would be still included in articles, specifically those in the templates because they actually interrelate very well. BOVINEBOY2008 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth??? I strongly support a link to the relative year list of films. I couldn't give a damn if this is done by a frickin navigation templates or a see also section. However if a specific category existed contianing the specific films of that cinema by year as I said above I'd support the removal of the navigation templates in favour of a category which would contain the films of that cinema of that year and also contain the link to the list of films of that year. DO you understand now? Probably not. Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for making you angry. It was not intended. If we instate the categories, you support the removal of the navigation templates. Correct? BOVINEBOY2008 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not angry, just you misinterpreted what I said. Yes if the categories specifically categorized flms of that year for that cinema I'd support a rmeoval of the templates. However a split by year for countries which say have 100 film articles on here or even less by year would be over categorization . I think the best option would be a see also section linking to that year film list for that cinema. Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another reason for them is they look athestically pleasing, compared to a list of "See also" links. Take the article Happy Few as an example. Check the diffs for the version with the CoF footer template compared to the current version (well, current as of writing this). The CoF template is a nice little compressed feature at the bottom of the article. The see also section just doesn't look right. It's also missing List of films: H too... A user browsing an article with the navigation footer can expand it and discover a wealth of articles and categories they probably never knew existed. Fin.

PS - has anyone seen Dogtooth? Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah three links looks ugly. One link, French films of 2010 looks fine in my view... Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts, are you really arguing aesthetics over usefulness? Whether the links are there or not, I hardly think a random reader will want to expand the lacking list. Albeit that is something that needs to be done eventually, that is not the point of Wikipedia - to encourage expansion. And providing a link just so others realize the article exists is just short of advertisement or even spam. BOVINEBOY2008 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully support a link in the "See also" section of a film instead of including a template linking to one related and 99 unrelated lists. Wasn't that what the consensus about these templates was last time around? --Conti|✉ 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you support the addition of categorization as well? BOVINEBOY2008 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) So can we come to a consensus as a community to replace these templates in film articles with the links that are actually related to the film in question? BOVINEBOY2008 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, too. --Conti|✉ 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other objections to this? BOVINEBOY2008 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per the above. TBH, you're the only one who seems to be offended by these templates. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And you seem to be the only to support it not willing to make compromise. Why can't we use "See also" sections? These are fully supported in other Projects as a standard section in articles. Aesthetics should not be the only argument. BOVINEBOY2008 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am not seeing the linking value with these broad templates in individual film articles, either. Bovine's not the only one with this opinion; he's just trying to keep the discussion moving forward since such discussions sometimes taper off. In addition to using "See also" sections, what about including links to Portal:Film and modify the portal accordingly for broader navigation? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Again Lugnuts, you seem to be the only one in this discussion opposed to any kind of change. If a more thorough concensus is required, perhaps an RfC to get wider community input would be the way forward? PC78 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should these "Cinema of" templates (e.g. Template:Cinema of France) be used in articles about the films, or should their be a way to provide the most relevant links into the article, whether through "See also" sections, categories or Portal links? And if so, which would be the most appropriate? BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've already commented on this in the above discussion, but I'll reiterate the same points here. IMO these templates are unsuitable for individual film articles, as the links they contain generally have no direct relevance to any one film. We should limit the templates to the core topics for each national cinema, i.e. those articles that are linked in the template; I believe this view is consistant with WP:NAVBOX. Any links that are relevant to an individual film should be included in a "See also" section, assuming they aren't or can't be used elsewhere in the article. PC78 (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh the humanity!. My ideal of having these on each page might be heading for a thumbs-down (although that never actually happened... If these are less appealing than watching Police Academy 7, then I propose a bot to cleanup all the articles, along with a ton of other standardizations (infobox, cats, etc). I said this before the current elections started (are they still going on - has anyone bothered with them?!) Cheers. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree, Lugnuts. If we can just nail down the best way to do everything, I totally support a bot cleansing. I still see some articles using standards from years ago (literally). BOVINEBOY2008 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've commented above, too, but just so no one can say that there's only one guy opposing the current use of these templates: Here I am. I prefer a link in the "See also" section instead of using adding to template clutter. --Conti|✉ 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Commented earlier as well; full argument is here. I oppose "cinema of" templates in individual film articles. I'm open to the use of "See also" sections that can encompass a relatively specific topic such as List of American films of 1995 in addition to other links like to similar works, using Allmovie or reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - The Bridge (2006 drama)

• The Bridge (2006 drama)

Relevant AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hey. Due to a suggestion on a peer review. I have come to ask help for sources for the article Darth Vader. Thanks. :) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Film Stage

Is The Film Stage considered a reliable and notable source? BLGM5 has been removing these reviews from numerous articles with the edit summary "college kid reviews are not notable." It seems to me that the site has passed the threshold from a hobby by some college students to a reputable source for film information, interviews, reviews, etc. But, I would like the opinion of some other editors, which is why I also posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you posted it on the reliable sources noticeboard, let's focus all comments there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let Me In (film)

This is going to be a bit long, so please bear with me. I declined to bring this up earlier because the film hadn't been released yet, but it's now coming out tomorrow and there are numerous reviews from people who have seen it.

The film Let Me In is clearly a remake of the Swedish film Let the Right One In. The Swedish film, was in turn, based off a significantly different novel.

Let Me In follows the Swedish film's version of events scene for scene, sometimes shot for shot. When the Swedish film differs from the novel, Reeves opts with the film's version for events. For example, a significant plot development is derived from an interpretation many had from the film that never existed in the novel. There are also scenes in the film that were lifted directly from the Swedish film that weren't in the novel as well.

Here's an example of what I am talking about from a review:

"Reeves respects Let the Right One In perhaps a little too much and though he claims that his film is based on the novel and is not in fact a remake of the cult hit Swedish film, the movie he’s made says otherwise. The movie he’s made is absolutely a direct remake of the 2008 film, the two are so similar that it’s almost impossible to differentiate between them. Reeves’ take is masterfully well done, but it’s not because he’s put his own stamp on it. Let Me In is good because Let the Right One In is good, and Reeves simply made the same film, only slightly better. They’re nearly identical, right down to their bones." [6]

But right now, the article for Let Me In has its lead sentence as "Let Me In is a 2010 American–British drama/horror film directed by Matt Reeves based on the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist and the Swedish film adaptation of the same name" It gives more prominence to the notion that this is based on the novel over the film, which is not true. It should read like Psycho (1998 film), which states "a remake of the 1960 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both films are adapted from the novel by Robert Bloch". The way it is now, it incorrectly implies that this is a new take on the source material or at the very least half and half, when the bulk of the film is lifted directly from Tomas Alfredson's adaptation.

The way the article is now is because there is an IP address who constantly monitors the article and changes it whenever someone correctly refers to it as a remake of the Swedish film.

The majority of reviews and published sources all refer to the film as being a remake. The confusion about this being a new version of the book has come from the director making some vague comments about the novel's influence on his film, but he has never explicitly said that his film is a remake or an adaptation of the novel. That being said, his comments have lead some people to assume that this is not a remake but a new take on the novel.

This issue has been discussed at length on Talk:Let_the_Right_One_In_(film)#The_new_film_version_is_not_a_.22remake.22 as well as the talk page of Talk: Let Me In (film).--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Director templates

Some director templates have been massively edited to be broken down by decade, no matter the number of films. For example, this was the case with Template:John Curran here. I think it is a better practice to break down by decade when there are a substantial number of films per decade. Some decades could be grouped together, too. If a director did one film in 1989, then did five films throughout the 1990s and another five films throughout the 2000s, perhaps the first six first could fall in a 1980s – 1990s range. The director templates are not as readily monitored as film articles (I can't imagine too many of us having these templates on our watchlists), so this is an approach I recommend implementing. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The main culprit appears to be TheMovieBuff (talk · contribs). Recent creation includes Template:Ken Wiederhorn with the one 1970s film as an outlier for that decade. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For a template like Template:John Flynn, would a better approach be to have two groups? Or just one? In addition, there were apparently films added to the template that were red links, but TheMovieBuff removed them. I cannot remember; do we ever include red links in director templates? It seems like poor skipping of filmography credits to do that. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For just 11 articles I'm not seeing need for a split of any kind. As for red links, the primary purpose of the template is to aid navigation between articles, not to reproduce someone's filmography. It's only an essay, but see WP:NAV. PC78 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of templates in general because of the ease they provide in navigating through a director's body of work clearly and simply. My main argument in favor of sectioning off by decade is that it makes the appearance cleaner instead of one big garbled mess. If I make a new template, I try and go through and add films that haven't been done yet to make them more comprehensive.Donmike10 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I support grouping by decade when there are sufficient films per decade. However, a template like Template:John Curran can look like this if we take a stringent approach to grouping. Where a director has only a handful of works, we should consider one group. Where a director has one film in a decade, it may be worth seeing if another decade can be labeled as encompassing two decades. I think you've done this in some of your contributions. Is that a worthwhile approach? I'm concerned that sectioning by decade everywhere is being consistent to a fault. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

TheMovieBuff continues his practice of being consistent to a fault, breaking up acceptably small groups by decade and creating mostly-empty lines in the templates. Could more people please weigh in? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't I told of this discussion until today? My name was brought up somebody should have warned me of this before, not almost 10 days after. Anyways, to the point, I think breaking up by decades makes it look clean and not all jumbled together. Some templates such as John Curran, I can gree with since theres only 3 films. Now for one such as Paul Greengrass I dont agree at all. There are 4 decades worth of films there and these decades should be seperated. I really dont see the problem with splitting them up by decades.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents The decade system is totally arbitrary and should only be used if it's actually helpful. If a director has a template which is one line of seven films stretching from 1998 to 2010, there's no added value in making it three lines with one film in the 90s, five in the 00s, and one next year. Furthermore, other templates include a more logical and helpful division of (feature) films, short films, television, etc., and breaking them up into decades there is just confusing and contradictory information architecture. This division by decade is useful for the Woody Allens of the world, but not the Irvin Yeaworths. Common sense should be the guide here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this distinction. We need to address the gray zone. For example, what about the first decade having only one film, the second having three, and the third having five? Is it bad practice to at least combine the first and second decades? My impression is that the goal of the breakdown is readability. Are the most-empty lines, like here, a concern to anyone besides me? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Italics in article titles

The long-running RfC on the use of italics in article titles has recently closed in favour of using them, and policy at WP:ITALICTITLE has been changed accordingly. I notice that the folks at WP:ALBUM are planning to implement this via {{Infobox album}}, so we might want to think about doing likewise with {{Infobox film}}. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it pretty simple to format? Does it take into account additions to titles such as "(film)" or "(1953 film)"? For all of the stubs that do not have the infobox do we have to add the italic title template or only enter the actual infobox film to get it to work? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at Category:Film articles needing an infobox and I think this needs a task-drive to go through and add them in. And there are small enough numbers in the sub-cat of Category:Film articles needing an infobox by task force for people not to be too overwhelmed. There's also the flip-side which is how many don't have an infobox and aren't tagged on the talkpage... Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But at least some which are tagged but do have an infobox. :) PC78 (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question Nehrams, {{italic title}} is specifically designed to handle disambiguated page titles, so tacking it onto the infobox is the simplest way to handle the majority of our articles. There are a few limitations that will affect a small percentage of aricles, e.g. page titles of more than 50 characters will not be italicised; in this case adding |italic title=force to the infobox will force italics for the whole title. If italics are not required for some reason, they can be disabled with |italic title=no. There are some awkward page titles that will need to be done manually with the DISPLAYTITLE magic word, e.g. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy will need {{DISPLAYTITLE:''The Lord of the Rings'' film trilogy}} adding to the top of the article. And as you note, there are those articles that don't have an infobox; for these you could use either {{italic title}} or DISPLAYTITLE, but as Lugnuts suggests it would be a good opportunity to add an infobox to the article and do it that way. PC78 (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added the necessary code to {{Infobox film/sandbox}}, so feel free to give it a try! PC78 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At Black Swan (film), I substituted the regular template with the sandbox template, but the article title appears unaffected. Am I missing something? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some changes have been made to the template, it's not working for me now either. I'll chase it up. PC78 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it should be working again now. It's also now been implemented at {{Infobox album}} if people want to check that out too. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! I see it now. It's going to take some getting used to. I'll have to review the RfC; I was under the impression there was issue with using italics for such a large font size. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, personally I'm not overly keen on this whole italic title thing, but you know, consensus and all that jazz. :) PC78 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to start using the sandbox Infobox film for articles? Mike Allen 04:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the sandbox template just holds the main template's coding plus the coding to italicize the title. We can basically copy all that coding back to the main template through an edit request. It would take effect right away. PC78, any reason not to make the edit request now? Erik (talk | contribs) 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I added to MOS:FILM an "Article italics" section. Is there any additional guidance to provide? For example, for films with titles of more than 50 characters (e.g., Borat), do we use the {{Italic title}} template or the magic word DISPLAYTITLE to address the article title? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If the edit request is done at {{Infobox film}}, adding |italic title=force will force italics for the whole title. This is also useful if the actual film title contains brackets. If it's necessary to use DISPLAYTITLE, I would recommend setting |italic title=no. Italics may also need to be disabled if the infobox is used in a non-film article. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated the section further using what you said, though I realize the coding is not quite updated yet. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over articles based only on reviews

I just expressed some concerns over writing an article (in this case on a PBS TV special) based only on reviews: Talk:The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Please check it out if you are interested. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

• Pulp Fiction (film) → Pulp Fiction (discussion)
• A Few Good Men (film) → A Few Good Men (discussion)
• Psycho (film) → Psycho (1960 film) (discussion)
• Back to the Future (film series) → Back to the Future Trilogy (discussion)
• I Start Counting (film) → I Start Counting (discussion)

Above are ongoing requests to move. Editors are invited to comment at any one of these discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over debatable plot summaries NOT based on any reviews

Relatedly, I just asked about where to find a specific template to tag movie articles whose plot summaries contain debatable interpretations or claims (i.e. original research).

See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup#Fiction_template_for_.22no_OR_in_plot_summaries.22.3F - and please reply there if you reply, so we can keep replies in one place.--greenrd (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

MTV.com a reliable source?

With my GA review of The Twilight Saga (film series), the responder and I have differing opinions on whether MTV.com is a reliable source or not. Does anybody else have an opinion on this? Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to talk page here. Let's direct all comments there. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Election results

As some of you probably gathered from the recent WikiProject Films newsletter, the sixth election of coordinators for WikiProject Films has concluded. Here are the results in order of supports:

• Erik – 14
• Nehrams2020 – 12
• MichaelQSchmidt – 11
• Lugnuts – 9
• MikeAllen – 9
• Bovineboy2008 – 8
• Ankitbhatt – 1

I have accepted the position of lead coordinator, and Nehrams2020, MichaelQSchmidt, Lugnuts, and MikeAllen will fill the remaining four coordinator positions. Coordinators will discuss an agenda at WT:FILMC, and others are welcome to participate. The title of coordinator is one of willingness, and not having one does not bar anyone from participation. :) If you have any ideas based on the older agenda at WP:FILMC or in general, let us know at the coordinators' talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To all, it is the five elected coordinators' unanimous agreement to appoint Bovineboy2008 as the sixth coordinator. Welcome aboard! We are currently discussing a cleanup agenda at WT:FILMC. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan101

Just a heads up about a disruptive editor. An editor from the 98.85.XXX.XXX range keeps inserting false information intoi film articles. You can get all the recent IP numbers here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:98.85.5.251. The editor seems to target running times, screenwriters and composers, so if you see any of those types of edits by someone from that range it's best to check the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Betty. This searches for English-language films (which the contributions appear to target) and exclude logged-in edits. It also looks like the edits lack edit summaries, so there would be no section identifying or actual summarizing. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed category for talk pages under WikiProject Films

I have proposed a category to add to the WikiProject Films banner on the banner's talk page. See discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Boys Don't Cry to be copyedited and corrected

Hi, I am interested in getting Boys Don't Cry into GA shape, and there are some issues with the prose. The grammar and sentance structure needs some polishing, so anyone good at writing, oould you please give it a decent copyedit or fix major issues with the prose? It would be very appreciated and I hope I have come to the correct place. Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also (as the person who suggested Ashton 29 ask for help here!), the article is at peer review, so any constructive criticsim would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Boys Don't Cry (film)/archive1. --BelovedFreak 10:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article 300

On a whim, I researched the film 300 (which has a Featured Article on it) for retrospective coverage. The film article was promoted five months after the film was released, which had struck me at the time as awfully quick. In my research today, I found and listed several references that cover 300 in retrospect in their chapters. Since 300 is a Featured Article and ought to meet the criteria of comprehensiveness, it is important to include such coverage. The references can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Films without an IMDB page category

Interesting discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is The White Ribbon an Italian film?

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments would be greatly appreciated. It's giving me a headache. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And this related discussion too! Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As Lugnuts noted above, there is live discussion about the country field. Editors new to the discussion are welcome to comment, and editors who commented at the onset are invited to catch up. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation

Hi. I've noticed for a while that wikipedia lacks a decent (and free) representation of the dolly zoom technique.

I've taken a bash at creating a CG animation which I have uploaded to commons:File:DollyZoomTest.ogv and added to the dolly zoom article. I would like to improve this video with an aim to getting it to featured status and am looking for suggestions on how to do so. Useful feedback could include:

1. Whether there is a better range of movement/angle of view to show off the technique to its best effect.
2. What background/foreground objects could be used and in what arrangement.
3. Colour schemes and other artistic rather than technical suggestions.

You can leave comments here or go to commons:File talk:DollyZoomTest.ogv. Thanks.

I've also dropped a note at Portal talk:Computer graphics#Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

God of Carnage (film) article?

Would it be good to go ahead in creating the article. The movie is in pre-production and is going to be released in 2012. If I do go ahead to create this article with your all's help, I would need someone to guide me to the stuff I need to create the article.IBS101 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there something more to this article that the current location does not offer?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and here is some sources http://news.google.co.uk/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=God+of+Carnage&ncl=dWMYuss0vesjBkM5CdFKDMetQ8nHM in this link. At IMDB, they have some of the key essential things not mentioned in section http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1692486/. I don't know, but in my opinion all of this merits an article rather just a simple section. IBS101 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, IBS101! Welcome to WikiProject Films. :) You can create a film article at God of Carnage (film). It may be too soon to create an article, since the references show that filming won't begin till February 2011. We have notability guidelines for future films that say to create film articles when filming has begun. The threshold exists because production is not a sure thing. The fairly recent writers' strike, for example, got a lot of productions canceled. If you want to work on a laid-out film article for God of Carnage, though, you could start it in your userspace at User:IBS101/God of Carnage (film), then move the article into the mainspace when filming begins. I'd be happy to help. Let me know what you want to do. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will hold off on publishing it to the article. I will work on it in the userspace to get it ready for showtime in a couple of months time. I just want to thank you Erik. I cannot wait to get it done and onto another article.IBS101 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it needs to be worked on in user space. Work on it in the film section of the article about the book then, when there are enough reliable sources that the section is long enough it can be split off into its own article. GDallimore (Talk) 11:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No Strings

I am just curious how many producers should I list. Who should be listed?IBS101 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The precedent is to list those just titled producers. We do not usually list executive producers, associate producers, co-producers, etc. It's just too many names for the infobox. For that film, you'll only need to list three producers. In addition, the film is in post-production, so it's near certain that it will come out. You can go ahead and move the article into the mainspace if you want. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How do I italics the title when creating a page?IBS101 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When you create a film article in the mainspace and use the film infobox, the infobox has coding that will automatically italicize the film title. It probably does not work in the userspace. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to go to the page No Strings (2011 film) to make the article better now.IBS101 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Link I got film info http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411238/ IBS101 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start! You can probably add the following sections: cast, production, and release. You can see that the article title is italicized now. I put the article on my watchlist, so if you have any questions about building it up, you can ask on its talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bond Film

Why does this francise have its own infobox? 20+ films, yes, but I don't really see the point. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's really no need. A TfD for this has been on my to-do list for a while. PC78 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have not seen the need for a separate infobox, either. What did you have in mind? Just replace this specialized infobox with the main one, or at least try to merge some of the parameters (like those for James Bond music) to the main infobox? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it can go. The Bond actor can be incorporated simply into the cast section on the standard box, and as for theme/song I'm not convinced that it even needs to be there. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need it, the very few parameters that are special in the Bondbox can be easily integrated into current parameters of the film infobox. And while we are on the topic of Bond films, those articles are still using the parenthetical notation of the year after the title in the lead sentence. I thought this practice has been deprecated for a while now. Has that changed, or does the Bond project hold their own MOS disjoint of ours? BOVINEBOY2008 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 13#Template:Infobox Bond film. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all - thought I was missing something! Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Afterlife – budget

Can we have some more input at this discussion please: Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife

The issue is between two estimates, $57.5 million and $60 million. The Numbers claims here the budget is $57.5 million. However, it uses this article in the LA Times as its source which claims the budget is "nearly $60 million".

1. The issue is should The Numbers be permitted as a reference even its stated figure is at odds with the figure given by its own source?
2. And, given that it provides a source for its information, does using The Numbers instead of the original source violate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT?

This is going to keep dragging on unless we get a few more opinions into the discussion, and it's probably best if weekp the discussion at Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Film budgets – a fresh approach?

Given the budget dispute on the Resident Evil: Afterlife article, I've been mulling this over. There is a tendency to put any old crap in the budget field on a film article, provided we can source it. If a studio or producer releases an official statement and that can be sourced, then we can just treat that as we would any other verifiable fact. The problem is this is usually an exception to the rule, and most budget figures are estimates.

I think how we deal with estimates needs a rethink. I think it is closer to an expert opinion than a fact, since the estimate will rely mainly on the quality of journalism and the quality of the journalist's sources. Better journalism and better sources will lead to more accurate estimates, or if you like more informed expert opinion. In effect, which sources we cite for budgets in our articles actually becomes a question of notability. To draw a comparison, The New York Times TV reviewer claiming that GM crops increase the cancer risk is verifiable but is not notable, so the inclusion of his opinion on Wikipedia would fail notability. Similarly, the same TV reviewer claiming a film cost so much is also not notable for inclusion, because he's not in an acknowledged position to ascertain that information or knowledgeable enough to come up with an informed figure.

So my suggestion is that notability for a budget estimate should be established for inclusion, since it is a formulated opinion rather than a fact. This of course would rule out websites that simply list budget amounts. This may upset some editors but there really is no need for a budget to be listed on every article (I don't subscribe to the view anything is better than nothing).

My view on what would be acceptable for notable estimates, would be prominent journalists/writers/scholars whose writing concentrates on the film industry. At the very least estimates should come from authored pieces so it is clear who is making the estimate. For instance, Sharon Waxman (former NY Times entertainment journalist and editor of The Wrap) stating "someone close to the production says the film cost $200 million" would stand as notable, because Waxman is a notable writer in the field of film journalism, whereas a budget entry on Box Office Mojo wouldn't notable because you can't establish the notability of the estimate.

I'd like to get further thoughts on this, and whether you think the view of setting a notability test for estimates is a route worth exploring. The budget numbers get changed a lot in articles, simply because it isn't concrete data and varies quite a bit, so maybe a fresh approach to it might help stability as well as improve the quality of the information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about everything you're asking, but any source that says "someone close to production" is sketchy in my book. I don't care if it's the NY Times or IMDb.com. "Someone close to the production" could be the damn key grip for all we know, and what would a key grip know about the budget for the film? That's producer info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but generally it's someone who wants to stay anonymous. In reality a journalist could just make up a source and publish their article. You don't really know how the journalist comes by the information (which is true for many articles where the journalist doesn't reveal anonymous sources) which is why the validity of the piece rests solely on the journalist's prominence and professional reputation. Are you saying that a professional writer like Waxman who has a reputation for getting insider information shouldn't be treated any differently to unauthored entries on Box Office Mojo, and that you would have no preference between them? Or are you going the other way and saying that we shouldn't include estimates at all unless they come from formal press release? Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Producers, directors, anyone of status on the film that would generally know what the budget actually is doesn't typically "stay anonymous". They're giving interviews when they release this type of information. Random workers on a film want to stay anonymous because they don't want to lose their jobs for opening their mouths. Random workers on a film are less likely to actually know what the budget is. I'm not saying that BOM is any more reliable, or even that when I read statment of facts about budgets (e.g., ...the $120 million project was....) with no actual attribution to any specific person that they are reliable or unreliable. I'm merely saying that when someone says "anonymous" or "close to production" it comes across as more sketchy than not saying anyone at all. When I read that, I read that some loley hand deck that needed a quick buck was fast to give a quote to the journalist. I cannot imagine Michael Bay or Joel Silver requesting anonymity when telling a journalist what the estimated budget for a film is going to be. Then again, I rarely see well known, professional journalist for film/TV get "an anonymous source" when it comes to budgets. I usually see that from low rent journalist who don't have an established name for themselves and will take whatever info they can get. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, as I'm sure you're probably dealing with an example such as that right now somewhere, just that I don't come across it all that often. That is why when I see it I steer clear of "someone close to production". Otherwise, you end up with the supposed 275 million Superman Returns film, based on "someone close to production", which later turned out to be way off the mark when Bryan Singer clarified that the film was closer to $209 million when it was finished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what direction you are advocating, if any. Are you saying that you would prefer to only see "official" budgets where an RS cites a named person with production knowledge as the source, or are you saying it should just be a free for all and cite anything because an industry journalist relaying an estimate from an anonymous source is no guarantee of a more accurate estimate than Box Office Mojo that just puts up a figure? I mean just to avoid confusion, where exactly do you stand on BOM as a budget source? Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify there is no-one "close to the production" being cited by any of the sources in the Afterlife discussion, in case it looks like I'm trying to smoke out a consensus favorable to me. That's just a quote I generally come across a lot in sources so was the first to spring to mind. Another variation on that is "industry insiders". Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BOM should be a last resort source regardless because we generally trust their info, we just never know who at BOM is reporting it. BOM is considered reliable, but are they as reliable as a direct quote from a producer/director? No. My stance is probably that it's not our place to try and define "notable" source on such a specific bit of information. If you would accept the source in question for some other part of the article, then it shouldn't matter if you're accepting it for the budget info (whether that's an anonymous source or a specifically identified person). We're not going to keep a comprehensive list of all "notable" film/entertainment journalist. We'd be updating said list forever. Plus, I don't know Sharon Waxman from Bill McDonald, which makes Waxman's "notability" irrelevant to me. If Waxman says "according to a person close to production", and McDonald says "Michael Bay stated..." - who do you think I'm likely to cite? The point is, all we should care about is whether the rules of WP:RS are being obeyed. Whether the individual in question is a "notable" film journalist or not shouldn't come into question unless you have two competing sources of information over two different data. In such case, you take the most reliable of the two. Thus again, my stand is that we have no busy trying to dictate how WP:RS is used with regard to film articles. If the source is reliable, use the info. If you cannot find a specific journalist/person citing info, and BOM is the only other location providing the info then last resort says to use BOM if the budget is something important to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

More Pricer1980 socks

Following on from this, I think this is another one:

• 86.185.77.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The edit on Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives was a dead give away. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another one:

• 86.185.77.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Ah, appears to be the same as the above. He's back after the IP ban was lifted, doing exactly the same edits as before. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I reported the IP and requested a longer block. Some edits involve fixing previous acts of vandalism, so evaluate the context closely when undoing edits. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

188.28.13.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked after two edits. (I feel like the "BOOM! Headshot" Internet guy.) Might be useful to watchlist Upside Down (film) as it seems to get visited every so often by socks. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And another one -

• 90.216.88.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Where do you report them? Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV. I identify the IP as a sock of Pricer1980 and the editing pattern (fake information). For example, my previous report was this. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tables on film pages

The move towards eliminating tables for film pages in baffling. Tables show some degree of professionalism and aesthetic sensibility, whereas using the simplistic actor in a role looks as amateurish as the cheesiest websites out there. Why we are making this move to look so low brow is beyond me.Donmike10 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See this and this. In essence, lists are easier for editors to edit than tables. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And honestly, I feel exactly the opposite. Using tables where there isn't enough extra information to warrant it (i.e. at least more than two columns) looks amateurish to me. It reeks of the guy who uses overly large (and often incorrect) words because he can instead of using the words that are accurate to his intended meaning, if you'll forgive the awkward analogy. Tables work when there is a lot of info to impart (Saw 3D used a cast table to show when the last sighting of each character was in light of the complicated timeline of that series). Most films don't need it, and frankly, it looks pretentious. Millahnna (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What's it called

I know this propably isn't the place to ask; but, can anybody here remember the name of the Canadian movie (from the late 1960's or 1970's), which involved a mute woman name 'Eve' being forced to live with & latter falling in love with a woodsman named 'Jonathan'? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Try using the entertainment help desk, or IMDB's I Need to Know board. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's The Trap. (I searched this to find the answer.) IMDb is here, and Wikipedia article is here. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actor question

Question posted here at our semi-inactive sister project. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Question from editor of Movie Review Intelligence

I am David A. Gross, editor and publisher of Movie Review Intelligence. Several months ago, the editors of Wikipedia allowed my website to have its own article, for which I am grateful. Last week there was an article in the New York Times about the reception of The Social Network and other current movies under consideration for recognition for distinguished artistic achievement by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, of which I am a member. I am wondering if this article deserves posting somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, what is the protocol for receiving a link to my site in the general information box on the Movie Review Intelligence page? In visiting other similar articles, it appears to be a common feature for people who wish to learn more. Is that possible? Movie Review Intelligence is cited regularly by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other authoritative sources covering the movie industry. Here is the NY Times article: http://iurl.us/bd8 Thank you for your time and consideration. Dagrossla (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For all, link to previous Movie Review Intelligence discussion is here. I thought there was a request before to have a specific whitelist for the main web page to be included at Movie Review Intelligence. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a request to have the moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/about_this_site/ page whitelisted to allow for a link in the article. I've just added my support to that request, though the page has a backlog which may take some time in being dealt with. As for an article for Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (assuming that is what was being suggested) I have no opinion, but someone else is welcome to look into it. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He meant Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He also meant using the New York Times article being referenced somewhere on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be used at 83rd Academy Awards. I'd be concerned about quoting Gross directly, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK. As for the NYT article, I'm sure it could be used as a reference for something, but I wouldn't go out of my way to use it just for the sake of it. PC78 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on these issues. I would appreciate the whitelist for the link. - David A. Gross Dagrossla (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

for me it would not be a bad idea to use the article in the NYT as a source --G DEULOFLEU ™ 10:36 pm, Today (UTC+2)

The website's "about" page was whitelisted and is now included at Movie Review Intelligence. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)