Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Year in Film

I was looking at the year in film articles (like 2010 in film) and noticed all of the Notable Deaths sections were really screwy. Looking at the table code, it appears that the first cell had a row count for the number of deaths that month and editors kept adding in names but not increasing the numbers (sometimes there was a big difference).

I don't mind doing the work to correct the tables but it begs the question, what sort of notoriety is required to make it on to the Notable Deaths. Because names continue to be added, not just actors and directors but camera men and stunt men, most of these new names are red-linked because there are no articles about them.

There is a policy in Deaths in 2013 to allow red-linked deceased for one month and allow them on the list and give any Editor time to author an article about them. But after 30 days, red-linked deceased are removed from the list of people who died that year. Should this policy be adopted for the year in film articles? If not, should there be any criteria set for what is notable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Sheh & Kari Wahlgren

I came across the first on the BLP board. I'm sorely tempted to send to AfD, but perhaps some of you can examine these two anime voice actors and determine if there is any notability first? Both of these bios follow a similar CV like pattern. Much appreciated.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kari is a known voice actress (legendary IMO), Stephanie is less well-known but has done a good amount of voice over work...neither deserves an AfD...--Stemoc (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that in order to create articles for any subject, we first need reliable sources. Why does this not apply to voice actors?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It does. Notability can be provided (plenty of reliable sources from Anime News Network, video gaming magazines, anime convention interviews and writeups), just that no one has bothered to add that content and instead are concerned about adding guest roles and bit parts they play. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor in film

This just happened. I feel like linking this here to hear other people's thoughts or maybe some editors can improve it as well. I think we may need restrictions on when these kind of articles should be created in the near future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Character in film articles. I agree with Betty most of this information is already covered at the Marvel Cinematic Universe article, the rest can be and is easily covered in Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media. I feel same for the Captain, America, Hulk and Iron Man in film articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with this kind of article. The information will overlap, but we have different scopes here. Marvel Cinematic Universe is not going to cover works like the animated films, and with this kind of article, there can be a further drilling-down. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The in other media article seems capable of covering all of it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What TriiipleThreat said is my point, Erik. Yes, he has other films...but the question is should it be split from Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media#Film yet. It's a very similar problem with the future film article mess sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, my impression is that "in other media" articles are best served as list articles, basically providing a list of appearances. I'm supportive of "in film" articles because I think film versions get a lot more commentary as well as aggregate figures (box office, critical reception) than television/video game versions. This kind of depth allows us to write informative prose in such "in film" articles. If others don't think so, though, we can start a RfC discussion over whether or not to merge. Or we can try to figure out some guidelines here to use. MOS:FILM#Film series and MOS:FILM#Film characters are blank presently. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to "in film" articles, Batman in film and Superman in film are great examples. However, the question is when does such an independent article become notable from its parent article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem these articles face at AfD. Of course "Thor in film" is notable, but what will it cover that isn't adequately covered at the MCU and the "in other media" articles? Unless a film series is created that exists outside of the MCU not much is my guess, so what we end up with is massive duplication, but AfD won't delete it because the topic is "notable". Basically you're lumbered it I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the article if kept should be at Thor (Marvel Comics) in film to distinguish itself from the mythological being.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Cast lists in Hobbit film articles

This is a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Hobbit (film series)#Cast lists in individual articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Structure of "Carry On" articles

Following a recent move of Carry On (film series) to Carry On (franchise) caused me to have a look at all the articles for this series, and I think they could use some restructuring. My edits and move of Carry On series on screen and stage were reverted. Please see the discussion regarding this at Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage#Requested move - would appreciate input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any input? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unmade Carry On films

On a related note, whe the filmography was split from Carry On (franchise) a few months ago, the section on unmade films was removed without explanation or discussion. My attempts to reinstate the sourced material are being reverted. Please join the discussion at ‎Talk:Carry On (franchise)‎#Removal of "Unmade films" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dredd FA

OK hipsters, time to earn some real credentials. For all of you who have seen it, Dredd is a brilliant action film (that was written and filmed before the Raid thank you) and I'm putting it up for Featured Article status. I hope you can stop buy to lend your opinion! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

C'mon folks, you don't have to write an essay about it. And it has an awesome intro, go read the intro, then leave remarks! Simples! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You want the law? I AM THE LAW! And Dredd is now considered an "older nomination" which means it eventually gets delisted, so if you've been putting it off, get over there drokker! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Faande Poriya Boga Kaande Re

Hello, film buffs! This article appears to have no references at all. Is it about a notable film? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Pather Panchali peer review

Hi! Pather Panchali is one of the core articles of wikiproject film. It is in peer review now. If anyone is interested, comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine (film series)

Does anyone else find this unnecessary and completely redundant to X-Men (film series) and Wolverine in other media. I am starting to call content fork. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Redirected to Wolverine in other media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, what do we think of the claims that Glenn Danzig was "in talks" to play Wolverine? As far as I can see, this originates from Danzig himself, and may be an exaggeration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did you hear this? It does sound like exaggeration to me as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's on Danzig's article and the Wolverine article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That may need further looking into IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review of Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami

Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Surrealist films

There is currently a dispute at the articles Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse as to whether these two films are Surrealist. I have taken the stance that they have no connection to the Surrealist movement and that the sources being used to support the Surrealist claims are not adequate. Fyunck(click) has started a discussion at RSN about this, which I have not yet responded to. I would like to hear some thoughts from member of the Filmproject about all this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about bandying around labels like this. "Surrealism" as a label is often incorrectly applied to any film that has dream-like narrative, so you can often find sources that will incorrectly apply it. At the same time it is very difficult to find sources that prove a negative i.e. you won't fnd sources that say a certain film isn't a surrealist film. Obviously RS/N will find in favor of the sources if they are "reliable", because RS/N is there to assess the editorial oversight, not to determine the contextual significance of a source. Personally, I would be very dubious of using any source that is not primarily concerned with surrealism: there are plenty of books/articles that have been written on surrealism in general, and surrealism in film, and ideally we would stick to those types of sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely what I think, Betty, thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thor GA: The Dark World

Heads up everyone: I am going to help get Thor: The Dark World up to GA status, as with Iron Man 3 and the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. The discussion is at Talk:Thor: The Dark World#GA? if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_49#Film_director_navboxes

I too am in favor of including decades in director/producer templates. Adding my name to those in that thread makes this 2 to 2. Can we get an WP:RFC on this issue. I am currently in dispute at {{Scott Rudin}} on this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Splitting by decade is completely arbitrary based on year and leads to uneven templates. Maybe a non-arbitrary split by artistic or studio era or similar could be appropriate if boxes got out of hand and it becomes absolutely necessary. Splitting by decade also restricts the template to a minimum amount of vertical space - by removing the splits, we let the template find its natural size. They look a lot tidier with the splits removed. If you want wider input, you should probably get the template project involved too. (Oh, and not that it's a vote, but it's 3 to 2!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical lists of films years style - help?

In articles like List of films: A and all its siblings, I disagree with multiple parenthetical years, as required in Template talk:Guidelines for adding new entries:

Sahara: (1943), (1983) & (2005)

That's not good English punctuation, and it looks quite clumsy. I suggest:

Sahara: (1943, 1983 & 2005)

It looks less cluttered. While performing some year corrections, I boldly reformatted S, T, U-W, and X-Z in the minimal parentheses style (this was prior to seeing the guideline, which is only shown on Talk pages). If there's a better place to discuss this, I'll move it there. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the new format looks better. It doesn't make sense to have parentheses for each year separately. Might be a good idea to re-write the instruction template first though and see if anyone objects. Betty Logan (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. If nobody objects here, I'll update the instructions in ~4 days, then ~5 ~10 days later make the remaining article changes. And make an WP:Edit notice, too. --Lexein (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I updated Template:Guidelines for adding new entries diff. Sorry for the belated notification, all these editors: Wdchk, Rfc1394, MickMacNee, KnowledgeOfSelf, Trebor, Nehrams2020 & Hoverfish. --Lexein (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Finished updating A through Q-R. --Lexein (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

BBC news article of interest

• British film culture test to change

Thought this would be worth sharing, considering how we debate a film's "country" often. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this still only apply to British films though? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 13:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The English Patient

Can someone please take a look at the recent revisions of the plot of The English Patient (film)? I have reached 3RR, so I am not going to revert, but the current version is simply dreadful, clearly written by someone with a poor grasp of English grammar. He repeatedly claims that my reversions are the result of vanity. The plot is too long and needs a rewrite, but not his version. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fast & Furious 7

Should this film be categorized as an Upcoming film or an Unfinished film? Following the death of Paul Walker, the studio put the film on-hold indefinitely. However the director stated that film has not been cancelled and vowed to complete it. So should the article reflect its current status or the aspirations of the filmmakers?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "unfinished" is too final of a category. Hard to say if it should be "upcoming"; probably not. I would say to be more upfront in the lead section about it being in mid-production and having been suspended. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

The requested move has been active for over a month. Care to comment there? --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek featured portal candidate

• Portal:Star Trek

Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.

Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks in film director navboxes

If anyone is interested, this discussion is related to a proposal to allow redlinks in "filmography" navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I find redlinks in navboxes to be helpful and I welcome them. Not because I think redlinks are cool or because I want them to stay permanently, but because redlinks show us what article still need creating.JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of alternate titles in director navboxes and director filmographies

Should the title of films in director navboxes reflect the Wikipedia article titles, or should they use a title more "relevant" to the director? I reverted a change in {{Chris Columbus}} from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but it was reverted back, with the editor in question thinking that it should be nationally tied to the director, as it has at Chris Columbus (filmmaker). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "alternate" title. It's one of two "official" titles if the film. Wikipedia links have used both titles for years based on the nationality of the subject. American subjects use the official American title. JOJ ^Hutton 13:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternate "official" title then - not a big deal, was just looking for other views or relevant guideline for this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A navbox simply provides links between articles, so the links should reflect the actual title of the article (bar disambiguation term), since that's its purpose. There may be a solid argument for using the film's American title (or at least providing it as an alternative title) in a Chris Columbus filmography, but a navbox is not a filmography. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an abnormal situation. The company which owns the film, Warner Brothers, is an American film company. If the parent article followed the same pattern of every other film article on Wikipedia, then the parent article would be using the American title. The fact that the article uses the British title is a matter of technicality and not really based on any guideline or policy. As such, it's basically been a matter of longstanding compromise to use the American title in articles in which the subject is American and use the British title in articles in which the subject is British. Why would a template for an American director be treated any differently? We can agree to disagree in certain things, but let's have fairness in how the titles are written across Wikipedia. Otherwise it's just comes down to "majority rules" and that's not how Wikipedia is "suppose" to work. JOJ ^Hutton 16:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Directors can often work on films of multiple nationalities. Would we replace The Fifth Element with Le Cinquième Élément in the Luc Besson navbox, simply because he's French? No, because the navbox navigates to an article called The Fifth Element, so that's what goes in the navbox. A navbox is simply a navigational aid, so quite simply it should contain the names of the articles that it navigates to. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That example is invalid because you are comparing an English title with a French title. This is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia so we obviously use the English title no matter what. But in this instance we are comparing two separate English titles and the article and templates should use the English title of the subjects home country. JOJ ^Hutton 16:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When you cut to the chase, the purpose of a filmography is to tell readers the names of films, and the purpose of a navbox is to tell the readers the names of articles. So whatever the article is called is what goes in the navbox, on every navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't simply ignore the long standing compromise that American topics should use the American title. You are basically using a technicality to justify using the British title on an American navbox. I don't see the justification for using the British title especially when there is no harm in using the official American title used in the subjects home country. Where is the harm, I ask you, where is the harm to Wikipedia?JOJ ^Hutton 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a technicality in the sense that it keeps straight the technical details, which is good. Betty's logic seems pretty good. The purpose of the navboxes is germane, it seems. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And exactly what technical detail are you referencing? How about the fact that the Nav box is for an American director? Why not just stick to what has been working, which is to use the title associated with the nationality of the subject? The only thing fair and consistent would be to stick to what works. Otherwise Wikipedia is just a mob. JOJ ^Hutton 01:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - Language

I was wondering does anyone else think the Infobox Film that the field "Language" should be changed to "Primary Language" or "Original Language" because many people are entering every Language spoken in a film even if its only one scene. Let me know what you think Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need changing, the guidelines for that field explicitly state use the primary language. If someone complains point them to Template: Infobox film. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

National Lampoon films

Now that Animal House omits "National Lampoon", we can do the same on some other films, like Van Wilder. --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be automatic. Any renames need to be consistent with COMMONNAME. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

RM for Van Wilder now underway at Talk:National Lampoon's Van Wilder#Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Nine (film) and 9 (film)

Please see this discussion about naming these two articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sub-categories of Category:Teen films

Some sub-categories of Category:Teen films have been nominated for deletion.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Teen_films, where your it would be great to have input from members of this project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

Convenience? I've never understood the rationale for categorizing all films by nationality together. Categories such as Category:American films claim this is for convenience. Of what exactly? How is a category of 20,000 (which is virtually impossible to navigate) convenient? And to what end? Categorization schemes work by diffusion and I don't know of any other scheme of any size which encourages double and triple categorization like this. Even subcategories of this scheme aren't double categorized (e.g. films aren't in Category:American romance films, Category:American comedy films, and Category:American romantic comedy films—they are just in the latter). What is it I'm missing here? Why are films somehow exempt from standard categorization procedure? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"I've never understood..."

Thus it's everyone else who is wrong?

Categorization is primarily there as a navigation feature. "Films by country" is well understood and findable by readers. Films by genre or technical detail within this, much less so. For small categories we just have a category, for medium-sized categories we try to diffuse them to reduce individual cat sizes, but for large mega-categories like this our best approach is simply to preserve a recognisable category such as country and then to faciltate navigation withins as much as we can by technical means, such as paging and nav by letter. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Did I claim that everyone else was wrong? WP:AGF. I'm trying to understand and the only way I can do that is by asking. There are similarly large and comprehensive schemes which don't apply this rationale and in general, categorization here doesn't as well. Asking why this is unique is a legitimate question (which is still unanswered) and doesn't imply any kind of blame. How would you prefer I learn about the rationale behind this, Andy? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think American films should be diffused - by genre at the very least, and then by any other relevant categories. If they are already in one of the genre subcats, no need to be in the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category: Christmas films

Recently, Smetanahue has been adding a lot of films to Category:Christmas films and its relevant subcats. I don't doubt that his intentions are good and that, in most cases, the categorization is accurate. But, in some cases, as with the film Eyes Wide Shut, the categorization does not seem accurate or useful. Eyes Wide Shut does take place during the Christmas season, but it is not an important part of the story. The same goes for some other films he has added to the category, including Lethal Weapon. The category should be reserved for films which feature Christmas as a central theme, not films which merely take place at that time of year. I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tough to say. I can see that Eyes Wide Shut has a section exclusively about Christmas, though as a setting. Any way we can figure out another category about films set during Christmas, as opposed to being about it? Erik (talk | contribs) 03:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, Jacobite. I only added the country category to articles already categorized as Christmas movies; I didn't watch all of them to check whether it was correct in the first place! Go ahead and remove the ones you think are wrong, and if someone disagrees, it's probably best to discuss at the talk pages of the individual movies. Smetanahue (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A christmas movie and a film that takes place during Christmas are not the same thing. Die Hard is not a film about Christmas, Home Alone isn't really, Jingle All the Way is. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sort of irrelevant to helping with the topic but I still sort of chuckle when Die Hard is considered the greatest Christmas movie by Empire. Sources like that don't really help with this case IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. A film set at christmas, a film about Christmas, and a film you watch at Christmas are not the same thing. Die Hard is a film set at Christmas, it is not a film about Christmas, it is a film you watch at Christmas, because why wouldn't you? Scrooged is a film set at Christmas, it is a film about Christmas, it is also a film you watch at Christmas, and you should because it's got Bill goddamn Murray in it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, most websites can't make the distinction between a "Christmas" movie, and a movie set at Chirstmas. Just one example, I recently took a quiz on Facebook about how many Christmas movies I had seen, and the list includes Die Hard, The Apartment, and Reindeer Games... Fortdj33 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this when the cat was added to Ben-Hur (1959 film); it didn't seem entirely appropriate, but since the film begins with the birth of Christ I didn't remove it. I suppose User:Smetanahue's approach is objective: if a film is set at Christmas then he has added the category. If the category was simply renamed to Category:Films set at Christmas, then that would bypass the problem completely, but would such a category be useful? The problem with setting the threshold higher is that we then need to find an objective way of doing that, rather than editors determining for themselves if the film is "Christmassy" enough. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Betty, I like that suggestion. Do you think that there could be a "Christmassy" category like "Category:Films celebrating Christmas"? Like with any category, the article should back that. For example, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang does not celebrate Christmas. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

lol to all the editors responding on that I agree with that source or something. Common sense, wise. I agree with all of you. There is a unfortunate truth that reliable source isn't as reliable as describing something you might think. That was a common discussion I had at Talk:Archenemy. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the category from Greed. It's the same for any category placed on an article - if people strongly disagree, then raise them individually on the talkpage. And Merry Christmas. Ho. Ho. Ho. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: if we create separate categories for "films set during Christmas", "films about Christmas", "films celebrating Christmas" etc, wouldn't they all still be subcategories of "Christmas films"? Smetanahue (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2007 in film - Notable deaths

Is it just me or is the table at 2007 in film#Notable deaths completely screwed up? I'm not good enough with tables to fix that. --Geniac (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that an editor has started making mass edits to death sections of the articles in the last couple of weeks. Here is 1999 a couple of weeks ago and here it is now with red links, entire filmographies and wonky formatting thrown in for good measure. It's a right pig's ear in other words and a huge number of articles have been affected. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems the editor has been IP hopping for quite a while. Some of this disruption goes back to May 2012. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

1996 is particularly bad. Deliberate errors have been introduced into the article too. I had started to restore some earlier sections from where the poor formatting started but I'm concerned that I've retained false information in some cases. The disruption goes as far back as May 2012 in some cases, so I'm thinking we should restore all the death sections from the start of 2012. It means wiping out 2 years of work though, unless we check every single addition. Anyone got any views on this? Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable: 1976 in film#Notable deaths Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:TNT maybe? Are there reliable sources listing actors and film-makers that died in a particular year? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's along the lines of my thinking, but it probably means going back to the last entry in 2011 to make sure the problem edits are wiped out. That will wipe out a lot of legitimate revisions on a heck of a lot of articles, so before I wipe out two years of editing I want to make sure we're on the same page. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiping 2 years of work on all of them sounds a bit drastic, but so many of them are in such a hideous mess. --Geniac (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

what should be done is to remove any red links or redirecting links because those aren't notable. only people and films that have wiki pages are considered notable that alone should fix that section. Redsky89 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore these very long filmographies are a disaster... we should list not more than the 5-6 most representative titles for each person... there are already the relevant articles for the whole filmographies. And the sillier thing is that the article lists just 5 titles for Yvonne de Carlo and 29 films for the obscure sound mixer David M. Ronne, just 5 titles for Jane Wyman and 23 titles for the obscure stuntman George Robotham, and so on... Cavarrone 22:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an IP-hopper making the mess. Should we see about getting these pages protected from anonymous edits? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. The damage is extensive so we need to stop it first and then come up with a plan to fix the tables. Either we go with TNT or someone is going to have a nice little project for 2014. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied up a few. Just the alignment of the tables mind you, I haven't checked the info. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way to cross-reference the names in those lists against the categories of dead people? I mean in an automated way, as opposed to clicking through every single one? That way we would just need to fix the formatting manually. We should probably also put a few guidelines in the MOS too about what should go in these tables, because we don't need entire filmographies. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've requested semi-protection for 1988 through to 2013 as the IP is still at it... --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles that use IMDb as a source

As some may know, IMDB is not generally accepted as RS. I created a list in my userspace of featured articles that use it. You can see it here: User:Beerest 2/FAIMDB. Feel free to edit it and add more, I didnt have time to sample many articles. Anyway, the purpose of this can be used to make sure that top quality sources are used in FAs, and this way we know which articles are in need of better sourcing. Beerest 2 talk 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is used as an acceptable external link (not as a source) because for released films it is reasonably accurate for information contained in the film itself and its film credits. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

and since Wikipedia doesn't allow titles that are in pre-prod/development from being added to wikipedia, IMDb does not affect the 'value' of the article and as that guy from New Girl mentioned, :P high budgeted titles that have been released are very very accurate and the only thing sourced for the 6 people on your list are their "awards" which is MAINLY added by IMDb employees/staff, especially the major awards...IMDb may not be a RS for any random movie but for high budgeted titles, its actually more reliable than wikipedia ....in 2012, IMDB stopped using wikipedia as a reliable source..lol..go figure--Stemoc (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No matter what you think of IMDB. Its not a RS. Even awards can be incorrect Ive seen and have proof. Beerest 2 talk 13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be possible to create a bot that can collect all of the articles using IMDb as a source and place them onto that page, or perhaps more ideally as a maintenance category. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When one considers that IMDB provides strong hints toward information that is usually sourcable elsewhere IN proper sources, AND we already have a tag that draws attention to an article needing sourcing beyond IMDb (ie: {{film IMDb refimprove}}), and with great respects to you Beerest 2 for your suggestion... we do far better to address issues and add sources than simply to create yet another means of flagging them for others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC for proposal at Talk:Alter ego

An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting planned films

Yesterday, UKER asked about the appropriateness of the notability guidelines for future films for the case of Terminator: Genesis (which was just blanked at first, then roughly merged). That led to a discussion as seen at WT:FUTFILM#No article until principal photography?, and I wanted to have a wider discussion here since more editors watch this page. I have noticed that there are an increasing number of "exceptions" to the notability guidelines for future films. The goal of the guidelines was to make sure that we will definitely have a film before we set up a stand-alone article for it. On the other hand, per WP:CRYSTAL, it is acceptable to consolidate discussion about plans for a film. I have not commented too much on these exceptions I've seen, mainly because they are films in active development (which draws frequent news coverage) and because the articles are kept shipshape. In a nutshell, it seems like the category of franchise films generates a lot of pre-filming coverage, for which the argument is made necessitates stand-alone articles. I was fine with that as long as we could present the news coverage as plans for a film (leaving out the film infobox, categories, etc) but that seems impossible to accomplish. Readers see these exception articles and revise them as if they were guaranteed films. I'm not sure what to propose in terms of better handling. Do we go along with the news coverage and propose merging when active development halts? Maybe something like going along with it if a director, writer, or star is attached until something affects production? Here's a list of exceptions I've seen:

• Ant-Man (film)
• Avengers: Age of Ultron
• Crimson Peak
• Development of Jurassic World
• Development of Star Wars Episode VII

These do not include films that have started filming fairly recently (like Guardians of the Galaxy) or have been merged (like Terminator: Genesis). If you have seen others worth mentioning, feel free to highlight them here. Any ideas on how to best handle these and similar topics would be welcome. Pinging relevant editors: MichaelQSchmidt, Robsinden, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Bovineboy2008, Rusted AutoParts, Flax5, Lady Lotus. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I mostly lean over to the inclusions side and what Michael Q Schmidt says. Mostly I really think this "Development of" is a good compromise too on help explaining that it's completely not a film being filmed yet but a notable development of a film IMO. Also one of the pinged editors can't partake in a discussion right this very moment. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that NFF is correct that most future films should not have their own articles, there are notable exceptions that should. I think a consensus should be reached beforehand to determine if a particular future film merits an article. Also I have no problem with cast lists, infoboxes, categories, etc. for these articles as the wording in these articles usually state that these are upcoming films, reinforced by a future date and usually have some information about production schedules. In other words, anyone reading the article can tell the current status of the film's production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On a sidenote, a proposal for a new "Draft" namespace recently passed and is currently being developed/tested by Wikimedia. Once implemented, I think this would be a good place to write such articles before they are included in the mainspace as it is sometimes hard to judge a potential article without seeing it first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are fine as they are, and these kind of articles should remain exceptions, if there is consensus for this. Like Triiiple, if they are deemed notable in their own right, then I have no problem with treating them like any other film article. That being said, personally I don't see justification for standalone articles for any of the examples above. They could all be merged to parent articles: Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars sequel trilogy, Jurassic Park (franchise) all exist, and if these films never get made, this is where the content would be merged to. Until they are made, we should treat them as if they were not made. As for Crimson Peak, if this is never made then this would be little more than a footnote in Guillermo del Toro's career. There's too much recentism and fanboy mentality in the justification given for their existence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I obviously disagree about some of the examples as there is too much coverage in the mainstream media to be ignored and are lengthy enough that they will give a particular film in a franchise/ film series article to much weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rob, what would be a planned film that would be notable in its own right? I can't think of anything with a development history more torturous than Jurassic World, as you state that none of the above examples are notable. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I thought the exceptions described here were pretty much spot-on as criteria for when a film starts to deserve an article. Basically, if a planned film was actively deliberated during five years, generating tens of news reports, it's worth having an article even if it eventually gets cancelled, simply because detailing the whole process in another article's section would most probably give it undue weight due to the size, as is currently the case with Terminator Genesis. --uKER (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with this is that we are constantly stuck with two possibilities: a film, or failed plans for one. So what kind of structure should such an article have, especially if there is no active development at the moment? Shantaram (film) was an example I cited to you, and before 2013, that "Film adaptation" section would have rest easily. Now there's a bit more activity, but without the start of filming, we're still stuck with uncertainty. If we treat the release of a film like an event, #1 of WP:CRYSTAL states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Erik (talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I think exceptions are invoked too often. The pre-production of a franchise film can be documented in the umbrella franchise article, and should be limited to confirmed facts. Allowing the likes of Development of Star Wars Episode VII to exist just encourages the addition of speculation and rumors; there is very little of enduring encyclopedic value in there. A year after ep7 comes out how much of that will be factually accurate or relevant? At this stage all we need is a paragraph or two covering the writing, the appointment of a director and any confirmed casting. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Betty, is sloppiness really a reason not to have a stand-alone article? Interstellar (film) just finished filming, and there have been edits to the synopsis based on rumors. Part of the reason I was okay with exceptions is that they were well-maintained; I saw a lot of discussion at Guardians of the Galaxy (film) to get the information right before filming started. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a case of sloppiness, it's a case of fact vs. speculation. Given that we are an online resource, facts can be corrected if they turn out to be inaccurate, but speculation is still speculation even if it comes to pass. In the case of a film that never comes to fruition or is in pre-production, you have very few actual facts to document. Both Batman in film#Proposals for fifth film and Superman in film#Abandoned projects handle this well without the need for dedicated articles. Documenting rumors violates WP:FUTURE: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". If you cut the Star Wars article down to confirmed facts, then there isn't that much left to be fair. IMO, franchise films are easier to handle than non-franchise films because there is usually an existing article where known facts about future installments can be tucked away, and the only good reason for invoking an exemption is if you have something that is worth documenting and nowhere to stick it. The start of filming is a good threshold, because at least by that stage you have a confirmed cast and crew and a production that is definitely going ahead, so you have something substantial to document. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It can be generally accepted that we bow to the general notability guideline for all topics. WP:NFF was written to acknowledge and somewhat curb usage of the GNG as a requisite, so we need be careful in just how we put brakes on such a widely accepted requisite. The essay WP:Planned films seeks to address those contradictions of policy WP:SPECULATION versus guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I am more concerned about presentation here. If a film-in-development has a stand-alone article based on the level of detail, should it all of a sudden be called "an upcoming film", use the film infobox, the usual film-article layout, and film-related categories? And if development does come to a halt, what should the long-term article look like? Are we going to go back and forth between a film-article look and a historical-article look with every attempt at development? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless the coverage for a film-in-development is extensive and enduring, policy and guideline suggest information on it be included in a related article, unless that target would be unduly overwhelmed by inclusion. Jhenderson777 wrote his Wikipedia:Film project in an attempt to address just that question to complement MOS:FILM, which itself might need some tweaking if we wish to handle such sourcable information in an encyclopedic fashion. He recently asked on my talk page about merging his essay into mine. Since policy and guideline allow that we can write about such in some manner within these pages. my own essay attempts to determine just how and where. Use of a modified film infobox for something not-yet-a-film is a judgement call to best serve our readers... and has been discussed before. To declare a film infobox is for ONLY completed/released films, and never for topics not-yet-a-film, we encourage dissension. As exceptions always occur and are encouraged per the hat-note on each guideline, we do well not to make this hard and fast "rule". A modified infobox CAN serve the reader (or goal here, after all). It should always be made clear in the lede if a project is in progress or completed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I am noticing with all these that Erik already linked is that these are developed film projects from a EXTREMELY notable franchise or from a popular director (Crimson Peak) Now it is really possible that some of these from popular franchises are content forks and actually have a better placement as a section. They usually do. Although with something like Crimson Peak. I see that being alright because I don't know where else to put the information. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre merger proposal

I propose a merger to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). Discussion is at Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise). --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Bubba Ho-Tep (film)

Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! See the request here. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing the Article Incubator

Hi, There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator to close down the Article Incubator. Please join the discussion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Society of Cinematographers

There is currently a speedy deletion discussion for the page Canadian Society of Cinematographers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's now fixed. Probably best to add sources straight away, rather than create an un-ref'd stub. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

quick question on the handling of "Distributor"

Is this Cahill U.S. Marshal really a sensible way to handle distribution in the infobox?? It seems to me that it should be limited to the initial theatrical release so as to avoid cluttering the info box. Also, is there a point in having a "box office" gross number that only pertains to tape/DVD rentals? Seems like this stuff should be in a separate section at the bottom of the page. Thanks!Drow69 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The distributor field is only intended to reflect the distributor that first released the film, per Template:Infobox film. I'm less certain about how to approach the box office field in this case as I couldn't find the film at BOM or The Numbers. Given that the number provided is sourced, I'd leave it until a more appropriate figure can be located. Generally detailed information regarding the distribution (if somehow significant) and the box office would indeed be detailed within the article text, but if only basic information is available, then as long as it is reliably sourced I don't see the harm with only listing it in the infobox. Others opinions' may vary of course. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Drow69 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikifiction

Hello,

Several months ago, I proposed the project m:Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia) on Meta. Discussion stagnated a long time ago and I thought here would be a good place to revive it. Since film-related have been known to get in-universe cruft added to them, it seems like WF could be a good place to direct people who add cruft, and people interested in working on plot summaries/in-universe details. Hopefully, you're interested,

--Jakob (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. I'm wishing this WikiProject a very happy one. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Awards lists and top 10 lists

At In a World..., I am getting a lot of static, such as this most recent reversion, about including a comprehensive listing of awards and nominations. I have seen film, actor and director articles with film award lists as well as separate articles for film awards for films and tv shows. From what I understand, they include almost every half notable film society that has awards. From what I can tell Phoenix Film Critics Society is a somewhat notable film society. They have awards and they are being repeatedly deleted by another editor. Additionally, I have monitored the Metacritic film top ten list database and found top 10 lists that the film was recognized in. These were removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The other user is wrong. PFCS is notable, with it having its own article, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts could you please revert so I don't end up in a WP:3RR situation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will. There was also this very recent discussion about the same thing over at WP:ACTOR. I think a consensus can be built from that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Tenebrae is still insisting on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And you two are WP:TAGTEAMing to avoid 3RR, which is truly inappropriate and disallowed behavior. Please refrain voluntarily and don't make me seek an admin on this. You know tag-teaming is not right. --zTenebrae (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop crying, Tenebrae. Maybe you could stop your vandalism in removing sourced content about a notable organisation? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please join the RFC at Talk:In_a_World...#Request_for_Comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Budget dispute at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

There is a dispute at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey regarding whether we should go with a budget range or a single figure. Since User:KahnJohn27 keeps reverting without joining the discussion on the talk page I have had no choice but to start an RFC. The discussion is at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RfC: Should the budget section of the infobox stipulate a budget range of $200–315 million? so all comments either way are welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Title dispute on Return of the Jedi

There's a dispute regarding the Jedi title in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#"Jedi" title in the lead section. All comments from project members are welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Starring field

I've started a discussion about the guidelines for the "Starring" field in the film infobox on the template's talk page. See the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple question on cast lists

Hi, another quick question. According to the MOS, the "plot" section does not need a source. What about a "cast" list? Here Kolberg_(film) someone just threw out my ref to Filmportal. Is that in accordance with accepted practice? Thanks!Drow69 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, cast lists of movies that have been released don't "require" a reference. Future films, or controversial listings (e.g., uncredited actors) require reliable sources to be listed. That said, nothing requires that the reference be removed either. It just is not mandatory because the film itself acts as the reference, so someone could look at the film credits and verify the information if need be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bignole is right. We do not generally require inline citations for cast and crew members because they are rarely challenged. They can be challenged for upcoming films, especially for secondary cast and crew members, but they can ultimately be removed. If you are attaching certain detail to a general naming, though, it would help to add a citation. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ok. Thxs!Drow69 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Brown#Requested move 2013

Requested move ongoing; comment whilst it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Brimstone and Treacle

Hi! May someone pay a visit here? Thank you. :) --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested films

Anyone up for a challenge for the new year? Please have a look at the entries on the requested film article page. It would be great if people could help establish notabilty for these films by either a) creating a few new articles, or b) removing any redlinks that you think are simply not-notable. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Runtime dispute

Can I have some input for Winx Club 3D: Magical Adventure? Anonymous users have included a dubbed, edited version of the runtime in the infobox along with the original runtime with no logical explanation. BOVINEBOY2008 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember the 1st Rule of Lugnuts Club: All IP editors are scum. Revert them, as they've not provided any source, per WP:BURDEN. If they keep up their antics, request page protection. Happy New Year everyone. Except IP editors. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Also remember that it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia to assume good faith... Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I do. But not with IP editors, as I've proved time and time again. Oh, looks like I was right here too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith applies to everyone. Per the nutshell summary, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Even if you believe that IP editors more often than not do not try to help Wikipedia, the point of the principle is to not prejudge. This is more to others than to you, but it is worthwhile to try to communicate with IP editors (who have less editing experience and guideline awareness) before determining that good faith cannot be had. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wolf of Wallstreet

There's discussion about the genre for the new Scorsese film on the article's talk page. Can anyone help chime in? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a derivative discussion, but feel free. Rusted AutoParts 23:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I Would Be Very Happy To See Wikipedia Entries About These Films

I do not know if this is the right place to post this so feel free to transer it if necessary. I have already posted this on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Requests but I do not know how many people view these pages so I thought I would repost here my belief that the following films should have Wikipedia articles:

• Das zweite Erwachen der Christa Klages (IMDb) - A very important 1978 art film by the great German director Margarethe von Trotta, her debut feature. It already has an entry in the Swedish Wikipedia. It received favorable reviews by both the New York Times and London's Time Out as well as another review by the Chicago Reader. It received a DVD release by Water Bearer Films.
• Die Berührte (IMDb) - A very important 1981 art film by the great German director Helma Sanders-Brahms. It received a favorable review by London's Time Out. It received a DVD release by Facets.
• Flügel und Fesseln (IMDb) - A very important 1985 art film by the great German director Helma Sanders-Brahms. It was released on DVD by Facets.
• Mein Herz – niemandem! (IMDb) - A very important 1997 art film by the great German director Helma Sanders-Brahms. It was released on DVD by Facets and was reviewed by Variety.
• Unsichtbare Gegner (IMDb) - A very important 1977 art film by the great Austrian director Valie Export, her debut feature. It was released on DVD by Facets and reviewed by the Village Voice, the Chicago Reader, and London's Time Out.
• Unter dem Pflaster ist der Strand (IMDb) - A very important 1975 art film by the great German director Helma Sanders-Brahms, her debut feature. It was released on DVD by Facets.
• Wings (IMDb) - A very important 1966 art film by the great Russian director Larisa Shepitko. It was released on DVD by Criterion, the world's foremost home video label, and already has an entry in the Russian Wikipedia. It received favorable reviews by the New York Times, the Chicago Reader, and Senses of Cinema.

Thanks! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I recommened you create an account then you'll be able to create these articles. Merry Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I have created articles for these films and submitted them for review. You can view them here:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7] 46.116.250.15 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that at Article Review it states "This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1854 submissions waiting for review". I'd personally recommend registering an account and creating the articles straight away. They look good enough to survive any over-zealous deletion prod/AfD nominations too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Two articles have already been approved and are now standard entries! I made a typo when naming Wings ("1966 films" rather than "1966 film"). Does anyone know how to fix it? Also, how do I add links to Wikipedia entries in other language on the side? 46.116.250.15 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw you just added a link for the Russian Wikipedia's entry for Wings (as well as fixing my typo). Thank you very much! Can you do the same with the Swedish entry for Das zweite Erwachen der Christa Klages? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also moved Wings (film) to Wings (1927 film), so if someone wants to fix all those redirects, go nuts. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Will it be possible for any senior editor or administrator reading this to approve my five remaining articles? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell everyone that meanwhile I have created two more articles ([8] and [9]) in case you want to take a look. " Torben Skjødt Jensen" should be changed in the title to just "Torben Skjødt Jensen." Can anyone here do it? Thanks! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Zulu (1964 film)

Would some please explain to Manxwoman why she can't insert her own interpretation/analysis of a part of this film into the article without a citation from a reliable source? So far, she's reverted me twice and accused me of ownership, so I'm finished with her. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been entirely polite and unlike Beyond My Ken, I have not ever written "screw you" to another editor in response to a question, or on an edit, or any other matter. If the editor concerned does not like being reminded of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles guidance, that would appear their problem, not mine. The facts of this matter are simple: between 1m 36s & 2m 16s there is a glaring error in written continuity. Burton's commentary contradicts the dispatch shown on screen. This is neither interpretation nor analysis of a film (as wrongly claimed by Beyond My Ken) but pointing out an error that I think is worthy of inclusion in the appropriate section: Zulu. I am at a loss as to why this matter has seemingly become so contentious, but the other editor is demanding a source for this detail. The film itself is the source, how else can it be sourced? I would be most interested in peoples opinions, or at the very least, an apology for the unnecessary language. Manxwoman (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST which state, "Avoid listing miscellaneous information about accuracies or inaccuracies whose relevance are not backed by secondary sources; they are typically trivial to the topic." To ensure the relevance of such comparisons, we need to defer to secondary sources that compare film and history. It looks like other parts of this section are suspect too. It would be better to find sources that talk about the historical accuracy of Zulu and cite these instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this and I understand and appreciate the small change you have made to the title of the relevant section. I have no idea if the point I attempted to make on the page is accurate historically, or which is the correct date or its relevance to HISTORY, which I do not think is actually the subject of the article, as it only deals with the film itself, surely? I am merely trying to make the point that there is a rather glaring error in the continuity at the beginning of the film. The point I was attempting to add was as follows: "At the opening of the film (between 1m 36s - 2m 16s), the date January 23rd 1879 is shown (the day after the disastrous engagement at Isandlwana) while Richard Burton reads the contents starting "The Secretary of State for War has today received the following dispatch from Lord Chelmsford..." and then the picture zooms into the actual typed dispatch, clearly showing it to be dated February 11th 1879." I have no idea, as I seem to be the only one who has noticed it(!) how to source this fact, short of referring people to the movie itself. I have watched this film countless times since it came out and I have only just noticed it myself today, so its unlikely that it is "sourced" anywhere else. I think that given the article is specifically about the movie and not the historic accuracy of the military campaign, it is a fair and proper point to add. Can you please suggest how this can be included without incurring the wrath of the other editor? Manxwoman (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a place for it if it's unlikely that a secondary source noticed it. Like you mentioned yourself, you just noticed this minor mistake. Any given film will have its share of movie mistakes, and films based on science and history will most definitely have its share. Even Gravity (film), as precise as it was with detail, had its share of mistakes. (Though that one does have independent sources about its science, thanks to the Internet.) On Wikipedia, we cannot collect information indiscriminately per WP:IINFO, which says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Hope the WP:FILMHIST guidelines and WP:IINFO policy help. @Beyond My Ken: I don't think WP:OR is the correct claim to make here, as this mistake is readily observable. It's a matter of whether or not it is relevant, as WP:IINFO indicates. And in the future, I hope you'll both consider that the passage being in the article or not is not the end of the world. It would help for one of you to start a discussion preemptively to avoid this escalation. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much and point(s) taken and no, it is of course, not the end of the world! I would add that the entire issue could have been dealt with in the normal Wiki way had politeness prevailed. Insulting other, fellow editors &/or using bad language is never the way forward and "assume good faith" is the best way to proceed, as has been shown here. As far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed. Manxwoman (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Supercut

Supercut redirected to Mashup (video), which mentions "supercut" but doesn't define it. I've just created a proper (I think) article for Supercut, and linked to it from Mashup (video). But I'm not a film or video fan, just a language and reference geek, so will somebody from this project please check out Supercut and do whatever else needs doing? TIA. --Thnidu (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox cast lists

I've opened a discussion in regards to what actors should be included in the infobox "starring" parameter. All are welcome to join the conversation here at the documentation talk page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha... great minds think alike. See #Starring field above. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Spotlight / DYK

Hello! While I was looking at the main page of the project, I saw there was a Spotlight department and it caught my attention so I clicked on it, read every information and noticed the DYK section needed to be updated. I started updating it earlier, but my changes don't appear on the spotlight's page even though they have been saved, if you look at the history. You can see them on the page separately but not when all the different sections are gathered on one page. Does anyobdy know why and how to fix this? Thanks, --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

The article List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is up for deletion as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since Rotten Tomatoes comes up often here, I thought I would bring this up. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping categories for list articles

Hi, all. There are two categories that seem to overlap a little bit when it comes to list articles: Category:Lists of films by common content and Category:Lists of films by topic. Some list articles are categorized under both, while others belong to one or the other. I'm trying to figure out if the categories can be merged, and if not, what criteria each category should follow. It seems that "topic" is more primary than "common content", but I'm not sure how to make a verifiable distinction between the two scopes. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe that "Films by topic" should probably be a subcat of "Films by common content". For example, "Christmas films" could belong in either cat, but "Films related to Christmas" probably doesn't belong in "Films by topic". Are there any lists where that wouldn't work? Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the challenge is that some list articles will have films that present an element topically or just as one part. For example, List of films featuring dinosaurs has the King Kong films, which I agree with, but these films don't have dinosaurs as "topics" but as "common content". Most of the other films are pretty much topical about dinosaurs. List of films featuring home invasions has a mix of films that are exclusively about home invasion or that have major home invasion scenes. There's a big gray area in between like with Christmas (which you can see at List of films relating to Christmas). I can't really figure out how to organize and differentiate so readers can navigate well. I kind of want to combine both categories and let them browse, but not sure what to call it. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Outrage

At Outrage (2009 film), there is a WP:BLP disagreement about naming subjects featured in a documentary. Editors can see the discussion here: Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#WP:BLP. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Michael Prywes

Any preliminary thoughts on whether Michael Prywes meets WP:DIRECTOR #3? I'm trying to determine whether to take it to AfD but I want to make sure my read of the policy is correct. czar ♔ 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the figure is notable. Returning Mickey Stern is well-reviewed as seen here, and I found this by The New York Times directly about Prywes himself. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also found this and this. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. I knew RMS had reviews, but I didn't think that was enough for the first clause (significant/well-known work) of #3. But sounds good, I'll drop it. Appreciate the feedback.  czar ♔ 16:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming of the Star Wars film articles

So I am curious why we allow these articles to be named by retroactive titles instead of their original names, and the lead's mentioning the newer names. I find it weird that the article for Star Wars (1977 film) opens with "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, originally released as Star Wars" instead of the other way around to reflect the actual history. I can't see how if they made a third Ghostbusters film and retroactively renamed the other films to form a trilogy like "Ghostbusters: Chapter 1 - The Zuulening", that the article would be renamed even if the additional title would be added to the lead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed it was based on an effort to standardize all articles, disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. There's a similar issue with the Lord of the Rings movies where apparently stating the book first is sufficient disambiguation. A multi-move discussion for that failed as seen here. Maybe it's worth a multi-page move discussion for the Star Wars movies as it's probably been years since the last one. Still, there may be editors who like the organized nature of these long and winding titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think the harder issue is fans who will appear en masse, at least in Star Wars case. Even though the article itself refers to it as far as I can see as Star Wars and not A New Hope in the lead and development. Being anecdotal I never hear people refer to these films as Episode 5 or whatever, it's "Empire", "Empire Strikes Back", "Jedi", "Return of the Jedi", etc, in regards to Common Name. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the argument made by fans in any such discussion would be that the titling makes these film articles consistent. However, in the process, it does become less natural, usually less precise (except for the 1977 film, the rest are recognizable by their common titles alone), and less concise. There would probably be the status quo argument that it has been that way for a while, so why change it? Still, wouldn't mind seeing the discussion take place. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The case for Star Wars is complicated by the fact that the franchise takes the main title, so the first film has to be disambiguated in some way. Ultimately it's still better known as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope than Star Wars (1977 film) which is a made up Wikipedia title, so a legitimate title in widespread use should probably take precedence over an invented "in house" version of the preferred title as per WP:NATURAL. As for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi there really is no reason why they can't be at the original titles; yes you lose the consistency with the other articles, but WP:COMMONAME doesn't seem to suggest that consistency is factor we should take into consideration. My guess though is that if there were a move discussion it would be a "no consensus" at best since I'm betting the Star Wars project would vote for consistency across the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Betty, in my previous comment, I was referencing WP:CRITERIA (just above WP:COMMONNAME), which mentions recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. These items are what I was alluding to, and you can see that consistency can be an argument. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that guideline, but as I said I think a move discussion would be pointless anyway, because I'm pretty sure the Star Wars project would be resistant to a rename. For better or worse I think those articles are staying put. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Erik said though, the discussion should probably take place. Intransigence with a fan-based agenda really shouldn't go unchallenged long term, while I do not like nor condone Harry Potter in anyway, isn't that more commonly known as the Sorcerer's stone even though it's original release is Philosopher's Stone? The enduring effect of these articles effectively being misnamed is both a misunderstanding of history and a misleading introduction, and the older films are already a complex mismash of what was original versus what has been altered. So having them named as if they came out after the latest films is increasingly awkward. There's nothing to stop htem being linked to as such if it aids a contemporary audience, but the articles should be bearing the original name. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are the past RM discussions. Surprisingly, they do not seem that extensive. I would support having a multi-move discussion where we outline the relevant policy points at WP:TITLE. For example, we can acknowledge that consistency per WP:CRITERIA can be a reason to standardize all six films, but that in the process, it fails to be natural, precise, and concise (also per WP:CRITERIA). WP:COMMONNAME under WP:TITLE is also worth citing because it clearly states about official titles, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I have a feeling that The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith would all work. The challenge is the original film. I would be okay with Star Wars (film) or Star Wars: A New Hope, the latter which is still recognizable, disambiguates more naturally than "Star Wars (film)", and is more precise and concise than the current article title. Another thought is that it would be worthwhile to do this before Episode VII comes out. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideally Star Wars would be just Star Wars (film), but I will acknowledge that can create issues with the series being named Star Wars. On the other hand, that is true for most series that are born out of the massive success of the original: The Matrix franchise, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, Terminator, Batman has no choice but to disambiguate by (year + film) same with Spider-Man. Probably the closest analog is Star Trek, for which the series, franchise, 2009 film and several games are named. To allow for some consistency A New Hope might be acceptable, when did it take that name? I seem to think it was before the original trilogy had finished but I may be wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is the correct title. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't released in 1977 as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been consensus and discussion on this on the A New Hope page a lot. Also honestly I think the consensus would probably be in favor of it now. A big example being thrown in there is Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was called that originally but of course it has been changed to Indiana Jones and the Raider's of the Lost Ark commonly in home media. Also another one I would like to point out that has a similar issue is The Thing from Another World. The remake may have led it's title being changed to disambiguate it from the remake...but that doesn't mean it's the common title. In fact the remake being titled John Carpenter's The Thing is probably just as common. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All sources I've found (example) indicate that the subtitle Episode IV: A New Hope was added for the two-week reissue in April 1981, which would mean that it was known simply as Star Wars for a whole four years after its theatrical release. —Flax5 18:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Flax5: That matches my memory, and I saw it in first run. --Thnidu (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Do you plan to set up a multi-move discussion? I think it is worth doing. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look up how to do it, should I direct it here or to one of the articles? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be done at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, to keep it close to the mainspace. I believe that when you create a multi-move discussion, a bot will place a notification on the other articles' talk pages directing them to that discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK I'm in the process of doing this, what was the preference, Empire Strikes Back or Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I would personally advocate for The Empire Strikes Back and similarly for all the other films except the original one. Still not sure what that should be. You can have a question mark for it, and we can figure out a consensus in the discussion. I think Star Wars (film) or Star Wars: A New Hope should be considered. Anything longer is extraneous per WP:CRITERIA. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Wars: Epsiode XI: The Revenge of the Edi...tor Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator re-election

We had our last coordinator reelection three years ago. Is it possible if we can get a new coordinator re-election? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you could explain what the point of the co-ordinators is, then yes. I took the post up myself a few years ago, and for the life of me, I couldn't see what they actually do. If people have questions or want to gain a consensus they discuss it on this very page. EDIT - ahh, here's the post I made. Happy days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: The goal of having coordinators in the first place was to emulate WikiProject Military History (which does quite well for itself) but I think we've learned that WikiProject Film has a different kind of community. Our individual editors' interests in film are pretty disparate, and with lack of collaboration, what's left on a project level is the "dirty work" of tagging, which most of us (save a few dedicated editors) are not motivated to do. That's my assessment, anyway. I do think that we've put together a good set of guidelines in an effort to resolve the most common conflicts, and we have a very active forum here compared to most other WikiProjects. I'm curious, are you interested in having leadership, or trying to get the WikiProject more active as a community, or both? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed re-merge of Carry On (franchise) with Carry On series on screen and stage‎

Would anyone like to join this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, good to see this on the front page yesterday. Hopefully some of the film articles can be expanded on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FAR

Seeing as how a FAR requires interested parties to be notified, the film project seems a natural place for me to post this. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diane Keaton/archive1 is underway. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: You can also post a notification at WT:ACTOR. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Shutter Island (film) article -- Critical reception section

Any editors here willing to weigh in on the Critical reception section for the Shutter Island (film) article? I went there and saw that the lead-in sentence describes the film as having received mixed reviews. This struck me as odd because it currently has a 68% Rotten Tomatoes score, which cannot too accurately be described as "mixed," and a 63% score from Metacritic...which outright classifies that score as generally positive. I figured that either an IP changed the lead-in summary to "mixed," or that a registered editor was keeping it that way. And sure enough, I looked into the edit history and saw that TheOldJacobite has been reverting anyone who changes the lead-in summary to "generally positive" (or something very similar). This stopped me from changing the summary.

So this is a case where the lead-in summary should be completely removed, right? Even if a WP:Reliable source can be found to specifically support "mixed" in this case, there are likely also sources that describe the film as generally well received by critics (or something like that, like Metacritic does). So selecting one or more sources to support the lead-in summary in either scenario can be considered WP:Cherry picking. I will now bring up this matter at Talk:Shutter Island (film). Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

When how to summarize critical reception becomes a contentious issue, I'll always vote Remove on the grounds that it's essentially WP:SYNTH...or a source can be provided to back up the summary. DonIago (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Generally positive" is, to me, a way editors try to spin a mixed critical reception to sound good. These numbers, 68% and 63%, indicate the critical consensus was mixed. Some editors try wording like mixed-to-positive, which is just another way to try to slant the wording in favor of a film they happen to like. This is bogus editing. I would rather say nothing than try to couch the wording in positive terms. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacobite, I don't understand your reasoning on this one. It doesn't indicate the critical consensus was mixed when Rotten Tomatoes says a 68% is "fresh" (positive) and Metacritic says a 63/100 is "generally favourable". That's definitely indicating positive reviews. Getting negative reviews doesn't negate the majority being positive, and I disagree with your assessment on "generally positive". I agree that "mixed to" is terrible language, but saying a film has "generally positive reviews" shows that reviews were more positive than negative, but far from widely lauded. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We cannot interpret the Rotten Tomatoes % especially because it only treats reviews as positive or negative. Metacritic is a better gauge, and you can see that the breakdown is 26 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and 4 negative. The positive reviews do not mean that it was a perfect film, which is why the composite score of 63 is low. But we need to explain that with reliable sources. We can't just extract "mixed" from these figures; we need to provide context per MOS:FILM#Critical response. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found for fleshing out the article: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Doniago, Corvoe and Erik on this matter (though, unlike Erik, I do believe that we can interpret the Rotten Tomatoes score). Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film)

• Related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals

Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29 WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Outrage (2009 film)

The article is undergoing changes. Please go to talk page to discuss a BLP enforcement on a such dispute. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: Already notified the community above (#Outrage). :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cross WikiProject relations and decisions about portals

I got a message: "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." This is very problematic because multiple Wikiprojects are relevant to a typical article. So there is consensus to add portals to United States-related articles but not to film-related articles? (Gone with the Wind is relevant to both WikiProjects). Then what do you do?

My view on this is that an individual Wikiproject cannot unilaterally opt its own articles out of a systemwide thing such as portals unless the articles in question only pertain to that project. This is impossible in that case of most films because they will be relevant to country-related projects.

I just went ahead and started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles. There have been inter-WikiProject conflicts (I remember one about Japanese names between Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Video_games_developed_in_Japan) which have taken up valuable user time. My recommendation is for WikiProject Film to say "There is no consensus to not have portals" to avoid inter-WikiProject conflicts. Then on an article-by-article basis decide what portals are okay for which articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why you needed the message when you are the user who instigated the exact discussion being referenced with your portal abuse of barely related topics. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the relevant discussion, Dredd, the rationale "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." makes no sense. It should be "there is no consensus not to add portals" considering portals are becoming standard elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. I dispute your characterization of it being "abuse", which is a strange and inflammatory choice of words. If need be I'll make it an RFC. Decisions by WikiProjects are overridden by decisions by the overall Wikipedia community. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse is appropriate, points were made in the previous discussion to which you failed to respond. So now you are taking your ball and trying to go to the Supreme Court to see if they will let you play in the yard instead. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_46#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles - Where did I fail to respond? And your response is making me believe an RFC is absolutely necessary. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You failed to respond right at the end. It isn't hidden in the text, you are challenged and you fail to respond to the challenge. Your response makes me think that anyone not agreeing with you makes you want an RFC. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. You may wish to check the WikiProject United States project page. There are more people than me who "disagree" on the idea that portals shouldn't be included at all. There is a difference between not including portals at all and believing that a particular article has too many portals (what you are calling "portal abuse", but the latter is something to be discussed on the article talk page for that particular article. The issue is whether portals are allowed or not at all.

2. I was probably busy with some other thing and let the discussion drop. I apologize for that but I'll begin right where we left off

)

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last post: "Beyond a film being a film, what does Film in the UNited States have to do with Prometheus? What does the reader gain from being led away from everything to do with the film beyond it's part nationality, none of which is relevant to the in-universe part or development of the film? It's a worthless portal in that article and completely redundant. You could MAYBE argue for science fiction except it's still completely unrelated to the topic at hand AND there is a navbox right next to where said portal would be that is exclusively dedicated to the expanded universe around Prometheus."

My answer: The US portal article has an inherent relation with an article about an American film. Wouldn't someone seeing an article about an American film or a film co-produced in the United States want to see related topics related to American film? That is the answer. And if you think the portal is worthless, nominate it for deletion. I guarantee you that it will not succeed considering the size and prominence of the U.S. film industry.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to the full thing right now, but I am in no way surprised that a project believes its portal should be used on articles barely related to the subject, impartiality is rarely a strong suit of Wikipedia editors. And portal abuse is not just the number of portals but the addition of portals that add nothing to the existing topic. I'm not describing it all again, it is in the discussion. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You will have to work with editors from that United States WikiProject. I'm not confident that the the country United States (and/or any daughter subjects such as a particular state or city) has a lack of relevance to an American film or a film co-produced in the United States. Consider a Japanese film. Isn't the country Japan relevant to a Japanese or a film co-produced in Japan? Would you agree? Now what about the United States? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This exact discussion has been had. Japan in general, america in general, switzerland in general has no relation to a film that may be "american" only in funding and nothing else. And in that case we have categories that lead you to DIRECTLY related articles. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There are already "pro-portal" and "anti-portal" arguments brought up in the perennial discussions about them. AFAIK if the community is allowing expansion of portals, that's that and it's up the project to give a reason why it won't allow the use of Portal:Film. So I don't see a point in trying to make general arguments against portals here. In regards to all portals throughout Wikipedia, either accept the decisions the community made in allowing portals or go back to the Village pump or whatever other venue is and propose all portals be abolished. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment To provide some context, this was instigated by WhisperToMe adding Portal:Film in the United States to Gone with the wind (film), and my revert. There are two reasons for me doing this:

1. I find the portal largely tangential to the article (it is well served by four templates)
2. There was a discussion earlier this year at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_46#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles where it was clear that there wasn't any broad support for adding them en masse to film articles.

It's also worth pointing out that we have an analogous template {{Cinema of the United States}} that is prohibited from transcluding to film articles. I think a project should have jurisdiction over its own portals, and as yet I don't see any broad support for adding film portals to film articles. I suppose the Film Project cannot prevent another project from installing their own portal if they have a project consensus to do so, but in the case of the US Film portal it belongs to both our project and Wikipedia: WikiProject United States, so I believe regardless of how WP:US stand on this issue, WP:FILM also have a say in how the template is used. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Is your viewpoint that each project controls its own portals? Is your idea that the Film project can say we don't add the Portal:Film to film-related articles but the WikiProject US can add the United States portal? Then that means that both WikiProjects will have to discuss the portals related to both projects like "Film in the United States" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I accept we can't tell other projects how and how not to use their own templates and portals (if you a problem with how another project uses their portal then I guess you take that up either at the article talk page or their project page), but it is my view the Film project should retain control of the film portals, and in the case where the portals are "co-managed" then their usage needs to be agreed by all the managing projects. Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment I left a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Do.2FShould_WikiProjects_have_the_power_over_how_the_portals_in_their_scope_are_used.3F and an editor responded with his thoughts WhisperToMe (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is asking everybody to look at Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages, arguing that "WikiProjects are not power centers; they're groups of people who happen to want to work together" I think the relevant part of the page he is linking begins with "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope[...]" In other words he's arguing this project does not have the authority to prevent usage of the Portal:Film within Wikipedia articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously guidelines are not policies, and are not designed to be adhered to stringently i.e. they are not binding. However, consensus is binding, and it is irrelevant where it it is formed: the article talk page, at a project page, or through an RFC. There was no consensus among the editors in the first discussion, and as it stood more editors opposed the placement of the portal than supported it. Obviously that might change if more people join the discussion, or it expands beyond the Film project, but project members are capable of forming a consensus in a discussion just as any other group of people are. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK while guidelines aren't policies they pretty much are followed unless one can come up with a reason why the guideline should not be followed in this instance. While technically a group of editors can make a decision in any venue, I think his point is that a smaller group of editors cannot overrule a larger group of editors and that WikiProjects cannot carve out special exemptions to overall practice on Wikipedia unless there is a consensus in Wikipedia as a whole that these editors can do this. Wikipedia:Guidelines states that "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting a might makes right style of policy making, where there are people who support the use of portals (primarily people who made/work on those portals surprisingly) and therefore the people who oppose you do not matter. You're attempting to undermine your opposition by stating a WikiProject cannot make the rules, yet as Betty points out, take away the WikiProject, there is still a chorus singing against the inclusion of portals in these cases, and unless your backing group wants to argue for each and every case then there will always be that chorus who will sing against their inclusion, and since pretty muchg everything here short of vulgarity and offensiveness is a guideline, there is not and never will be a hard rule that backs you against those who don't believe in the use of portals. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 13:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK unless one can come up with a reason why the guideline should not be followed in this instance. In other words, show the rest of the Wikipedia community why this particular portal shouldn't be in articles. Wikipedia:Guidelines states that "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - Also in debates where a middle ground is not possible, both sides are considered, but one side will have to be rejected. That's distinct from being ignored. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just too tangential to the film itself. Shall I add a British portal to the film, as Leslie Howard has a major role? We can add hundreds of minutely connected portals if we want to, but does it actually help and serve the reader? Not in this case, no. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

An American production company making the film is not the same thing as a film having a British actor. Many American films, in fact, have British, Canadian, and Australian actors. But they are all categorized under the United States WikiProject. Also it is very strange to argue that "Film in the United States" is "too tangential" to Gone with the Wind, when it was preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry as an example of a culturally significant American film. I am confident that if I made an RFC specifically on "Should this article "Gone with the Wind (film)" use Portal:Film in the United States" the community would have overwhelming consensus to put the portal in. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point there, or perhaps I didn't phrase part of it too well. I think you're also missing the wood for the trees here too, and maybe you should try and take a step back for a day or so and think about what others have been saying. This is just too tangential, as one single film. The AFI list is something of a red herring too: there are non-US films included on that, so it's not "American" as such. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I split the discussion about the particular film, just so this discussion doesn't go off track. We'll talk about the forest here, and the tree over there. I will consider the viewpoints but I honestly don't need to take a day's break to do that. I need to take maybe an hour.

• 1. On the view that in general the portal "Film in the United States" is too tangential to the subject of an individual American film at hand... There's a reason why I split the Gone with the Wind debate, because it's really not well served by that example and an exception could be carved out for it anyway. We could use a better example, a film that is not so notable at all (pick any!) and ask the case "Why should a portal be linked here from this article about some random obscure American film that had no long term cultural impact on film or on the United States?"

Portal:Contents/Portals states: "Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics." - So the purpose of a portal is to link to a directory of similar topics. Maybe a film buff sees an article and says "Hey! I want to learn more about Hollywood films!" So he goes over to the portal, and learns more about American film. The purpose is that the portal is linked from related topics in general. If you asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan "Is an article about a Japanese novelist or a Japanese food too tangential to the topic of Japan and therefore Portal:Japan shouldn't be in this articles?" I bet you they would say those articles are not tangential. Just like an article about a Japanese novelist or a Japanese food is a "related topic" to Japan, then the article about an obscure American film is a "related topic" to American movies.

• 2. On the viewpoint of "too many topics tangentially related to this subject are being put here!" (or: "portal abuse"), it was brought up in the previous debate. One Wikipedian argued Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Questioning_the_need_of_portals_when_categories_exist that it is possible for an article to have too many portals, but that sounds like something to be done on a case by case basis. In individual article talk pages one would discuss whether certain portals are appropriate for that topic. So therefore the debate whether "portal abuse" happens at a particular article and the debate over whether portals should be used at all, or ... the debate over whether a WikiProject has authority to prevent other Wikipedians from using a portal in a certain way are technically three separate debates that need to be in three different venues.
• 3. Betty brought up the idea "project members are capable of forming a consensus in a discussion just as any other group of people are" in other words: that consensus among editors is a consensus whether that is on a WikiProject talk page or some other talk page, so therefore the guideline Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages should not prevent WikiProjects from adopting their own practices with their own articles. I do understand that WikiProjects have good reasons to tailor special practices for articles in their scope as they often have inside knowledge of a particular field. I do agree that this matter needs to be resolved (I'm not sure exactly which venue) as it is important to define the rights of a WikiProject. But I suspect that the persons/people who wrote Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages interpret it as meaning "a WikiProject cannot contradict practices from the wider community."

The examples on the guideline page: "such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project."

As Betty said, it is a guideline so an exception can be carved out if the wider community agrees with the reasoning of the project. So if the members of the project have a consensus against portal use, they should answer why the topic scope "Film" should be an exception to the de facto Wikipedia practice of putting portals in articles. They should persuade the larger community that film articles should get an exception.

I do think that the issue Does the WikiProject have authority on how its portal Portal:Film is used? should be brought up in the village pump.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that if you ask a question like this, you're going to have to start by realizing that "its portal" doesn't exist. WikiProjects do not own portals.

In general, a WikiProject (like any other group of editors) is free to write an essay (there are even specialized essay tags for them) giving its advice. But a decision about whether to add a link in a specific article should normally be discussed at that article, not in the Wikipedia: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And that also means it should go in an article-by-article basis and its inclusion must be evaluated specifically for that article, correct? If the WikiProject Film community wants to have a blanket decision made on the relevant portals, how should the proposal be crafted for the proposal village pump? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there has not been a response in two days, I state my intentions. In light of the post by WhatamIdoing (who has been involved in the WikiProject Council), if nobody here is interested in drafting a proposal to the village pump for proposals about this project having total control over Portal:Film and partial control over Portal:Film in the United States, I want to continue adding these portals to articles (and if someone disputes a portal being in a particular article, it must be discussed in the article talk page and each article discussion only pertains to that article). If someone disagrees with the application of Portal:Film and/or Portal:Film in the United States I will be happy to see a proposal at that village pump. You are welcome to write one, or I can write it for you. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are taking "we oppose the inclusion of portals on film-related articles and since our point is made we don't need to discuss it further" as support of you just doing what this discussion was started over. Also do not like this unsourced comment: "they should answer why the topic scope "Film" should be an exception to the de facto Wikipedia practice of putting portals in articles" De facto? Outside of film articles I have rarely seen the abuse of portals as you choose to use them Whisper, nor are they a 'de facto' inclusion in articles. Nowhere during the FA process for Prometheus did any commenter feel it needed holding back because it lacked porta,s nor is there a guideline that says they should be included. This is your personal belief, and its clear you're only interested in the outcome that lets you continue to add unnecessary portals even if others are opposed to it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Blake, my supposition does not come from your comments. Kindly check the comment chain. My supposition comes fromUser:WhatamIdoing, who says a WikiProject is forbidden from saying "we oppose the inclusion of portals on film-related articles and since our point is made we don't need to discuss it further" unless it has support from the wider Wikipedia community. And I didn't ask him to say it. He said it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Do.2FShould_WikiProjects_have_the_power_over_how_the_portals_in_their_scope_are_used.3F. Either this project:

• A. Only disputes the portal on an article by article basis, evaluating whether it is okay for a single article. That means the supposition "we oppose the inclusion of portals on film-related articles and since our point is made we don't need to discuss it further" must be withdrawn
• B. Writes a proposal that allows it to say "we oppose the inclusion of portals on film-related articles and since our point is made we don't need to discuss it further" with approval from the community: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
• C. I write the proposal in B. for you.: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

If the next reply does not follow A or B I will write the proposal for you, selecting option C.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a heads up, I made a proposal specifically on Prometheus (2012 film), the very film article Darkwarriorblake uses as an example of "portal abuse": Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#What_portals_are_appropriate_at_Prometheus_.282012_film.29.3F Considering the three divergent views I brought up specifically related to that article I think it will be beneficial to see. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you've already done C for me, taking a conversation from here elsewhere to gain support you aren't getting here, which is WP:CANVAS, and WP: FORUMSHOPPING, instead of say requesting a 3rd opinion. By default, if the people who curate these article do not think the portals are appropriate, then the onus is on you to prove they are, not the other way around and you've not been able to do that when it has been pointed out that they are both redundant, in usefulness and too the existing and more directly useful category system, and at best tangentially related to the immediate topic. At best. Portals are NOT a requirement of articles, and if they are opposed, they are opposed. Despite the opposition points raised, which are actual points against their inclusion, you have not raised counter points, your argument seems to boil down to simply that because a portal exists it should be added to an article regardless of its relation or usefulness. Prometheus is so tangentially related to the US and UK that I'm only surprised you didn't include an Iceland portal as well. It has about as much a relationship with that country. And you'd learn just about as much nothing going to an Iceland portal as you would the UK, US, or 2010s portals. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we have gone from one particular portal to the "Film project opposes all portals". We don't. We have James Bond portals on James Bond articles, Star Wars portals on Star Wars articles etc. We don't oppose relevant portals; they are useful for articles in a particular topic area. However, we dispute the relevance of Portal:Film in the United States on articles about American films: it's a safe bet that someone reading an article about Star Wars will find other Star Wars articles relevant to what they are reading about, but I simply don't feel this is the case with Gone with the Wind and the US film portal. Portals are not for categorizing articles (we have categories for that); they are basically an extension of internal wikilinking and as such any portal added should provide further context for the content of the article. Since this issue involves the deployment of a particular portal across a wide range of articles, the Film project talk page seems a good a place as any to formulate a consensus on its usage. Personally I would like to just survey views with respect to this particular portal being used in this particular way, because this meta-discussion about where consensus should be formulated seems to be taking us away from the actual issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

1. I haven't taken C. yet. You said: "I don't see how we have gone from one particular portal to the "Film project opposes all portals". We don't." - You don't. Darkwarriorblake does. And yet nobody here has spoken against this view of removal of all portals and told him that this isn't correct. That's the problem here. If I were you I would go back and re-read his posts, and the action he took at Prometheus (2012 film) in removing all portals. Then you'll understand why I phrased the proposal the way I did, Betty. And I didn't say "remove all portals" is the only one, it's one of two options. The other options stems from your point of view.

2. Whenever a Wikipedian quote guidelines or policies, I like to examine the text of those and explain why or why not these policies are correct. So let's take a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP:

• Wikipedia:Canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (emphasis mine) - What is cautions against is canvassing, "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate." - Posting to a general proposal that affects the entire community would be the former. Please review "Inappropriate notification" to see examples of the latter. What examples of the latter have happened?
• Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." - I think what it means is if one noticeboard on the same level is asked and a person gets an answer he/she doesn't like, then asking another one the same level is unhelpful. But considering Wikipedia:Canvassing says that by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus is good, then going from asking multiple WikiProjects to a proposal board shouldn't be forum shopping.

3. "Portals are NOT a requirement of articles, and if they are opposed, they are opposed. Despite the opposition points raised, which are actual points against their inclusion, you have not raised counter points, your argument seems to boil down to simply that because a portal exists it should be added to an article regardless of its relation or usefulness." - And if they are supported, then they are supported? And if multiple people with opposite views have different opinions? Then something has to decided. I don't feel the need to generally say why portals are okay (this isn't a discussion to abolish all portals and the topic shouldn't get distracted on the general properties of portals without addressing the specific topic), and I've specifically raised why portals should be used for specific articles such as Gone with the Wind (film) (see discussion) and Prometheus (2012 film) (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_46#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles). Maybe I haven't specifically stated why Portal:Film in the United States in general is so dang useful, but I will: it consolidates two topics into one, reducing the number of portals needed, and all American films are already covered by the American film task force, which is a joint project of WP:Film and WP:USA. The portal introduces the very specific tradition of American film which affects all US films and co-productions with the US. And this portal has a link to the task force which allows new blood to flow into the WikiProject (WikiProjects can't be linked from article pages but they can be linked from portals).

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about the issue more, I need to make some things clear. The idea of a proposal comes from a post from User:WhatamIdoing (the guy at the WikiProject Council) here: User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Explanation of WP:Advice pages.

• He says: "This discussion can still take place at a WikiProject's talk page. But it should be structured as a WP:PROPOSAL to the whole community, not a discussion by and for self-declared members. What matters is who participates, not where the discussion happens." (emphasis mine)

So the proposal can be posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but it can ask people to participate on this page. Betty, if you believe the way I structured my proposal does not adequately reflect the views of the WikiProject, what proposal would you write? That would be Option B.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the entire Darkwarriorblake notion of no-portals-in-any-film-article from my proposal, considering what happened to the individual Prometheus proposal (of the two people responded so far, neither said no portals at all and instead discussed what portals they felt were appropriate). So the only overall matter left to discuss is whether the Film project has the right to control the use of the Film Portal and would discuss such rights to the Film in the United States Portal with the WP:US project, as Betty Logan had stated; this is separate from the consideration of whether such things can be discussed on this page (they can) but it's a matter of who gets to decide how the portal is used. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been a lack of discussion here, then I presume the agreement. This means: Darkwarriorblake accepts the presence of portals and objections should be specifically on why a certain portal is in a certain article is inappropriate, or an article by article basis. If this is not presumed, then it's going to be the proposals section in some way, because I don't want to have to go on my merry way adding portals only for some general objection like "what is the point of portals?" to come up again. I want to add Portal:Film and Portal:Film in the United States across multiple articles and only to encounter specific objections in specific articles over specific portals like how it should be.

If there is silence on this matter then I presume consent to allow this to happen.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My lack of interest in repeating the same discussion over and over with you does not mean I agree with you, and silence is not something to be interpreted as you wish and in your favour. I disagree with and object to everything you are saying, as laid out originally, and you repeatedly proposing the same thing, the thing that gets your way, is not the same thing as an ongoing dialog. Your proposal is unnecessary in every possible way, replaced or redundant to other things already in existence on articles, this is the second discussion about this and you've still failed to gain any kind of support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Blake, let me summarize your post for you: "I don't like portals and because I don't like portals, I don't want them so I won't let you put them in articles I edit." Is this what the argument is? Am I right? Then that forces me to go to proposals board each and every time: as the community allows certain portals in each article and it will happen again and again and it forces me to do unnecessary work. Plain obstructionism is not welcome here. Either stop the general objection to portals as an argument against inclusion of a specific portal in a specific article, or argue for their collective abolishment somewhere (it will fail). I have also rejected the argument "but articles don't have to have portals/but there is no policy saying so" as then it comes down to a de facto wider community proposal. Unless you want me to just post, in your place, a proposal asking for the abolishment of portals. Is that what you want? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize your comments: "I'm not getting the response I want, so I will keep asking here and in as many places as possible until people either stop responding to me, which I will take as their silent acceptance, or I find enough people to agree with me". It has been explained to you on multiple occasions the objection to portals, including their effective redundancy to basic links and categories. Their use on the French wikipedia doesn't fly under WP: OTHERSTUFF, they have the fancy infobox header too and we don't use that here, we also have generally substantially better articles here than they do there, so them doing something is not by default something to emulate. Let me be clear here in that I object to the usage of portals on Prometheus, there is no policy forcing the usage of Portals at all purely because a portal exists, I have no interest in discussing this further with you, and my not responding to your comments is not me acquiescing to your demands. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me take the chance to offer a third opinion: I hereby formally oppose the addition of any portal such as "Film in the United States", broadly construed, to any article about a specific film unless at least three editors come forward expressing support for adding the portal to the article. Editors are of course welcome to suggest films here for which they think adding such a portal is an appropriate choice. DonIago (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Want me to post that on the proposals board: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked User:SchroCat about his thoughts on a proposal for a village pump proposal Talk:Gone with the Wind (film), and he responded by suggesting "I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on". I humbly reject this request and feel justified by rejecting this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29. To buy into it means preventing the wider Wikipedia community from having a say in this matter, which is what should happen. Discussions are welcome to take place on project or article talk pages, but the participants should not be limited to one set of users or one WikiProject.

He argues that "I'm not sure you're listening." My viewpoint is that I have understood the objections, and have decided against them. There is a difference between "not listening" and considering and rejecting a viewpoint.

Considering the behavior of Wikipedia users who don't check talk pages, by removing portals it's removing a way of these new users accessing WikiProject pages (portals can link to Wikiprojects but articles can't)

The Wikipedia community has overall adopted the use of portals. A total abolition of portals is not feasible (but I encourage someone who feels differently to file a proposal and try). Even though there is no policy saying an article has to have a portal, the consensus process and decisions in RFCs would, in my view, consistently lead to portals being installed. In any case I have been told by editors in the WikiProject Council that a restriction on use of a particular portal needs to be brought up with the community as a whole.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The film portal tag is found on every film article talk page, so it's redundant to have it on the main article (and spam too). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC).

Help needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Rhapsody in Black and Blue

If anyone is interested in helping on coverage of early films, a novice editor is working on a draft about this early musical cartoon. They're having some issue with POV and sourcing, so if someone wants to lend a hand that'd be great: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Rhapsody in Black and Blue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can Anyone Please Help Me Change My Proposed Article's Title?

I made a typo while naming a proposed article. The title needs to be changed from " Torben Skjødt Jensen" to just "Torben Skjødt Jensen." Can anyone please do so? Thanks! Here is a link to the article: [10]. 46.116.250.15 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

List of accolades received by (film) titling

JuneGloom07 brought up and interesting point on my talk page. I've made a handful of accolades article lately, for films such as Her, Gravity, and American Hustle, but in the case of all of these films, I've added any parentheses that the film may include. As you can see by the links, I titled Her's article "List of accolades received by Her (film)", etc. I recently moved the Nebraska accolades page to reflect this idea, before JuneGloom noted that I didn't really have any reason for doing it. So, if an accolades page is made and there is no other accolades page with that title (like in the case of Her, Gravity, and American Hustle), would dropping the "(film)" additives be acceptable? Corvoe (speak to me) 06:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing when someone moved List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film) to List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility. Is there a standard on this? It seems to me that adding (film) to article titles would help avoid confusion for readers, especially for film titles like Nebraska (which is also the name of a U.S. state) and Sense and Sensibility (also the name of Austen's novel). Ruby 2010/2013 06:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It should match the title of the main article (compare Milk for example, and my hilarious (ho ho ho) edit summary - "per the main page article, and "Milk" on its own is ambigious - is it the liquid?"). ...awards for Her is ambigious to say the least. I've moved the Sense and Sensibility page back to the correct title. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight. I'll have to get on moving Atonement's accolade page then. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep the disambiguation term since an accolades list article is a sub-article of the main film article, and there exists the likelihood of an unclear article title, especially if the primary topic is the source material (like Sense and Sensibility). I do see why it would look odd especially when seen in a changes-related watchlist (since DISPLAYTITLE would not apply there). The only alternative I can think of is to make it part of the article title, like "List of accolades received by 2013 film American Hustle". If we can determine an overall consensus, we can update WP:NCF accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think just keeping the parent article's title works best when there's potential disambiguation needed, but I would argue that films (or television shows) disambiguated from subjects that aren't going to feasibly reap accolades could drop the brackets—to pull an example out of my ass, the film Mulholland Drive is disambiguated from the actual location, but streets don't win trophies so "List of accolades received by Mulholland Drive" would work without any disambiguation. That'd be a case-by-case thing I imagine, though. GRAPPLE X 15:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. What do you think about a case like American Hustle, though? The other topic is a DVD of stand-up comedy. Should that mean disambiguation? And there's also List of accolades received by American Beauty without disambiguation, and there are a number of minor media topics for that. (Also, just noticed that American Beauty (1927 film) now exists, so may need to disambiguate American Beauty (film) further.) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Going back to Eric's point, I think the page titles should follow the NCF guidance, as this applies to all sub-articles of films, not just the award pages. For example, in this category I believe the Themes in Avatar article needs to be re-named accordingly. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can approach this situation logically, within the context of the current naming guidelines. Currently List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility redirects to List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film), which I think is incorrect: if List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film) is indeed the primary topic for List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility then List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film) should be moved to List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility; if it is not the primary topic, the page shouldn't be redirecting there. I believe the latter case is correct here. And here is why: if Sense and Sensibility were a featured article then we would expect it to have an "accolades" or "reception" section, and List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility should redirect to such a section. Such a section doesn't exist at the moment, but the article that should contain the section does. I think List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility should be redirected to Sense and Sensibility and tagged with {{R with possibilities}} which states: Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text, which may possibly become a future article i.e. we treat the section as existing because the article exists, but just currently empty.

This approach also works with Grapple's exception: Mulholland Drive; we would never expect that article to have an accolades section, so we can contend it is a section that genuinely doesn't exist, rather than one that does exist and is just currently empty as with Sense and Sensibility i.e. List of accolades received by Mulholland Drive would never redirect to a section in Mulholland Drive, in which case the primary topic for the title would be List of accolades received by Mulholland Drive (film) which under the main naming guidelines then shouldn't be disambiguated. I think I've waffled on enough, but hopefully I'm coming across clear enough. The crux of it comes down to whether the page should redirect to another article on Wikipedia if all articles were FA class; if so we should just treat the sections as empty rather than not existing, redirect the page to the primary topic and tag it with the R template. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with disambiguating "(film)" when it's not needed. My view is that unless another page exists devoted to accolades of another topic named American Hustle, there should be no disambiguation, as readers will unmistakably know what the page is about as they're reading it. I can say that on the television front, editors haven't found that disambiguation is needed (see Arrested Development, Lost, etc. which don't use "(TV series)"). Thus, I am in favor of removing "(film)" when we can. In actuality no one is confused what the accolades page List of accolades received by Avatar is referring to. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation should be applied to accurately distinguish the subject of the article. Per WP:PRECISE, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedical, we need to have foresight on this issue. I agree that it's likely that based on the article title, readers would not confuse Avatar with anything else. However, that's what's likely right now, considering Avatar being a recent international blockbuster. Wikipedia will outlast us (I assume), so we need to avoid recentism and strive to serve readers in the long run. A similar manner that we do this is to disambiguate film articles from each other regardless of the importance of one film over the other(s). For example, most people would assume Iron Man (film) is the 2008 film, but there are other films with that title too, so we disambiguate all films from each other. Like I mentioned with American Beauty, readers cannot necessarily know the universe of topics related to a term, including list sub-articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Fly (1986 film) article -- Plot section

The Plot section of the The Fly (1986 film) article has a lot of text, and the film isn't even long; I'm mentioning this here in case anyone from this WikiProject wants to tackle reducing that text. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it bug you? Hehe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm more concerned that the entire "Deleted/alternate scenes" section has no references at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for online ambassadors

Hello! I am running a course on approaches to research for second year undergraduate students in Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Over the course of 6 weeks, students in small groups will adopt, evaluate and edit an existing Wikipedia page on a single film topic. I thought it might be likely that there are some Wikipedia Education Projects online ambassadors, who are also members of the WikiProject Film community. If any existing online ambassadors might be interested in attaching themselves to the course, I'd be delighted to hear from you! You can find out more on the Course page here. In terms of time commitment, I hope it wouldn't take up too much. About 20 students are working on their small group Wikipedia project for around six weeks, and the course began at a gentle pace on 10 January 2014. If you'd like to know more, feel free to send me a message - or if you would like to sign up, that would be wonderful! Thanks very much for your time, best wishes, --DrJennyCee (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Critical response

At WT:MOSFILM, there is a new discussion about wording the critical response. (Yes, yet another one.) The discussion can be seen here. I've responded and have edited the guidelines to try to address future concerns based on the consensus I've seen here. Please weigh in if you have thoughts. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the IP there and was already planning to point him or her to past discussions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-finished films in the filmography

This RFC will be of interest to some. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, this issue is about whether or not to include Finding Fanny Fernandes, a film completed last November, in an actor's filmography. It's unreleased, but it's not an unfinished film in that sense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, in my estimation this is a general RFC intended to gain consensus across the WikiProject regarding a standard practice. So I would encourage those in this WP to join in. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

A request for comment that is relevant to this project has been filed here Talk:Martin Landau#RfC: Is a career image better for the lead.3F. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

There is a request to move the 1974 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There is a history of contradiction in the use of a space (see note in article's opening sentence), so please review this and what reliable sources say per WP:COMMONNAME. The requested move can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Academy Award/s

There is a request to move Academy Award to Academy Awards that may interest editors here. The guideline WP:SINGULAR may or may not apply here, considering that the article is multi-faceted; it covers the ceremony and the statuette and the various categories. (Note that WP:SINGULAR has been applied to the individual award articles, e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture.) The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/20/20 Awards

Dear film buffs: Here is an extensive article that has never been submitted for review, and now is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Are these notable awards, and should the article be saved from deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: The topic might be notable, but the article is not about the topic. It is copy-pasted from Academy Awards (to use as a template, I guess). I would endorse deletion, but cannot say if it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Would be worth reviewing Seattle-based sources and creating a stub if desired. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I will let it go, since I don't know anything about these awards. Perhaps someone in the future will make an article about this topic. Thanks for identifying the copy-paste. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jackie Chan/archive1

This article is currently a Featured Article; it needs fixing. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)

I have put in a requested move at The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), and would like any and all opinions on the matter. Comment on the request here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Michael Moore film hoax

Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge notices

Hello. Here are some notices regarding some "in film" pages, that I have proposed be merged back to their respective "in other media" pages. I believe these pages may have entered this talk page before (most likely by TriiipleThreat) for other opinions (not definite), but in short, they were all created by one user (except the Thor page) who felt that these had to be a thing, probably because other stuff exists, and a brief discussion was held on the Thor in film talk page that they really can convey the same info from a section on their "in other media" pages.

• Talk:Thor in film#Merge proposal

• Talk:Captain America in film#Merge proposal

• Talk:Iron Man in film#Merge proposal

• Talk:Hulk in film#Merge proposal

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could this not be done as a single merge discussion since they are all relatively similar?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that possible? I know you can do multiple RM together, but is there a (technical) process for that, or just the start of one discussion for all? I would have done that had I had a better mindset last night. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you use this template to tag all the pages but hold discussion in one place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at that. Completely over looked that template. Thanks Dark. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Template for Academy Award lists

This posting concerns the template below.

I think that the idea of this template is great. However, I think that it needs some improvement in organization, wording, etc. Generally speaking, the wording seems to be too compact and too abbreviated, and it doesn't really offer a good indication as to what the (linked) list is really all about (in several instances). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is there any way to revise the template so that the full name of the article appears; or would that be too unwieldy? Perhaps there is some middle ground? Thoughts? Also, some items are listed in alphabetical order, some are not. Also, the organization/break-down of categories on the left-hand side might be tweaked. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's very rare for templates to list articles by their full titles. Often a hybrid approach is used; using the director category as an example, you could have something along the lines of Winners and nominees (multiple winners · winners by age). It's a question of finding a balance between exposition and brevity. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it is a balance between those two competing interests. But some of these are too short and cryptic, such that the reader doesn't know what they might be referring to. Even I don't know, with some of them ... and I am a "regular" on the Academy Award pages. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New articles

This is (somewhat) related to my post above (about the template for Academy Award lists). I am considering creating two new articles: List of Academy Award-related lists ... and List of Academy Award-related articles. Something along the lines of these, for example: List of film lists, List of Sri Lanka cricket lists, and List of United States congressional lists. Any thoughts, ideas, feedback, input? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they are necessary. What would they offer beyond what {{Academy Awards}} and {{Academy Awards lists}} already offer? Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

They'd be articles, not merely templates. And this also ties into my point in the above discussion (i.e., the drawbacks inherent in any template, given its nature). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I and Beyond My Ken disagree as to the appropriateness of some "cast notes" at No Other Woman (1933 film). Could somebody take a look at the discussion in the talk page and give an opinion? Thanks in advance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Is he the same person as Grouchy Realist? They're both edit waring across a number of film articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Ahhh. I've been around the mill a number of times, and pointers on WikiProject talk pages are supposed to be totally neutral. I don't think that's actually the case for Clarityfiend's notice above -- and as for Lugnuts, what can I say, apparently "BMK: Grouchy Realist" is just too different from "Beyond My Ken" (colloquially known as "BMK") for him to grok (even though we've been knocking heads since 2007) -- which explains a lot about his pompous and arrogant style of editing. In any case, sure, come on over to Talk:No Other Woman (1933 film) -- the talk page of an article which I just expanded to twice the size it was -- and express your opinion on the article's talk page. What we don't need is more uninformed editors making reverts in the article because they're pals of Clarityfiend. Instead, say why you agree or disagree on the discussion page - after all, that's the Wikipedia way! BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 2007? No, don't remember you. Obviously you're so un-important. And your edit history only goes back to 2009. BAM. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Lugnuts, please stop being uncivil. This behavior is unnecessary and hardly respectful and considerate. Don't feel a need to respond if it's not going to be that way. And BMK has been around longer than 2009; he edited on a different account beforehand. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Felt the need to change his name to hide behind another one? Ahh, all making sense now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Do you ever consider how bad of an example you set in not following Wikipedia's behavioral policies, in not being civil and not assuming good faith? There's no need for this kind of attitude. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Why else would he need to change his name if he wasn't hiding? And have a look at Ken's edits for real definitions of not being civil and assuming bad faith. Still, you keep sticking up for him. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC) If this discussion is going to move into conduct issues I'd really prefer to see it elsewhere.... I'll just observe that it might be worth keeping WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in mind. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed, now that Erik has made it quite clear where he stands. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Box office India template

This discussion may be of interest to some people. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Great Beauty (La Grande Bellezza) and 26th European Film Awards

Sorry, an administrator can intervene here please? thank you --Pava (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to the source for the European film awards they have categorized it as a French and Italian entry. In the edit history you say the other editor is "ignoring the source", so which source are you referring to? Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Loving all those flags in each and every table. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Transhumanist films

This discussion may be of use to any fellow transhumanists or anyone who is a transhumanistologist. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

What do you think of this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It fails to meet notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Corleone. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Film template at TfD

Hi. I've added this nomination at TfD. Please add your thoughts there. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The English Patient (film)

Kind of a problem over on The English Patient (film). I offered a plot recap for the lede as follows:

"The film's invocation of fate, romance, and tragedy unfolds through the story of a burn victim in the closing days of World War II Italy whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell the end to the dashing Hungarian archaeologist he had been."

Along comes LimeyReader to insist that the last three words are superfluous and he has taken them out a few times. Of course, those three words are unnecessary if you don't need to tell the reader that the burn victim and the Count are the same person. Limey doesn't seem to get it. Anyone else like to contribute? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Starring section (still)

I've officially opened a vote involving changes about the infobox film template. To put your opinion forward and see the proposed changes, click here. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of posting to TFA nominations

I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that one might be rather controversial!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move discussion

You might be intrested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing film director navboxes.

What are our thoughts on forcing film director navboxes into a collapsed state? I don't see this as common practice (unless massively unwieldy), but have noticed this happen a few times recently.[11][12][13], and my reverts have been challenged. Is this something we should be encouraging? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, in actuality, the edits he found were mine, and he's following me around to find them. He should also have pointed you to the discussion on my talk page, if which I give my justification for my actions, and in which Rob Sinden has, so far, been unable to answer my request for a pointer to a community consensus discussion which forbids collapsing navboxes. I would also point out that this is project-wide question, and cannot be decided here. As ArbCom is currently in the midst of confirming in the Kafziel case, WikiProjects do not have jurisdiction to override project-wide policies or guidelines, so if there is no specific policy that forbids it, and no guideline which advises against it (as WP:Navbox does not) it would be highly irregular for the Film project to ban the action.

In any case, my argument have been made, and stand unrefuted. You can find them at User talk:Beyond My Ken. BMK (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that if there are multiple navigation templates, they are all collapsed so they do not collectively take up too much space. If there is just one navigation template, it is less of an issue, especially since it comes after the article body. I do not agree that it would confuse or irritate readers to show what other films the person directed. It seems to be something they could expect after finishing reading one film article, a sort of where-to-go-next. These connections are not as tangentially related or inappropriately broad as possible templates for other topics. Another reason to keep the template uncollapsed is that it could be overlooked. I remember seeing an interesting discussion involving WP:MILHIST about how they were trying to design a battleship infobox that would be collapsed, and someone would have to click [show] to see the additional information. Apparently, some readers completely overlooked the ability to click this and see it. It's just a thought that not all readers will be as in tune with Wikipedia's structure as we are. If there are a few lines of collapsed navigation templates, that may draw attention, but one such line might be looked over, and it could benefit from being rolled out in full. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Erik, with all due respect, this is not an issue which the Film Project can decide. Anyone who wants to ban collapsing solo navboxes needs to start a community-wide RfC. BMK (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about banning the ability to collapse. The default mode of a navigation template is to not collapse. So there needs to be a reason for collapsing it. Looking the template {{Robert Day}}, it is a reasonable number of links, where others (like corporate ones) can get unduly massive and could warrant collapsing. The reasons highlighted on your user talk page seem to have more to do with sidebar templates within the article body where there can sometimes be tangentially related or inappropriately broad links, which can be collapsed unless a reader really wants to see the links enclosed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It defaults to autocollapse for a reason. You should have a good reason to override the default, which BMK has failed to give other than personal preference, and that you CAN. And he's edit-warring the hell out of them, despite only just recovering from a block for edit-warring. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's a massive navigation template on a stub article, I collapse it, as it's too intrusive. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed if it's massive, but this not the case in the examples above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a reason these have to be collapsed. As far as I'm concerned, templates usually have this code in them: |state = autocollapse which will autocollapse it if there are additional nav boxes on the page. But like Lugnuts said, if it is not massive and the only one, I see no reason they have to be collapsed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And he's still at it [14]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This editor is becoming very problematic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AGAIN!. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone point the irony of his logic of using edit summaries that ask for a policy, when his edit warring has no policy based rationale at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. :( Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an admin will. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur that consensus is the applicable policy here. The other policies and guidelines are not going to get this granular (or pedantic). This is a matter of stylization, which can have positive or negative effects. I don't mind experimental approaches (have tried some myself), but if such an application is across multiple articles with criteria that seems applicable to all director navboxes save those with one line's worth of films, that necessitates a wider discussion. In this particular case, I think collapsibility somewhat negatively affects bidirectional navigating for navboxes that are small/medium-sized as far as navboxes go. (It's certainly not ruinous, but I don't find the need to apply the feature in these cases.) The initial consensus (four editors in this discussion concur about collapsing when the navboxes are very large) should be considered in the spirit of WP:BRD. If there really is a demand for RfC over this matter, I have better things to do with my time. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that the energy expended on this matter is better used elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I probably should have commented on this before now, but I am largely indifferent to the collapsed state of navboxes, and Ken would never accept my comments as objective anyway. However, perhaps we could progress this discussion by moving away from the "we need a reason to change the default state" and perhaps come up with a simple rule of thumb to determine when we collapse them or leave them expanded. The crux of the issue is this: navboxes are there to help/encourage readers to visit other related articles and collapsing the boxes may be counter-productive in this regard. On the other hand readers probably aren't going to read through a huge box of links if it swamps their screen, so basically you get to a point where you don't really gain anything from leaving them expanded, and the article is tidier if you collapse them. I propose we leave them expanded if all the navbox(es) can collectively fit on to a single ipad screen (the lowest screen resolution we are obliged to consider) in their expanded state, but collapse them if the reader would have to scroll to see all the links (I figure once a reader starts scrolling you have probably lost them anyway). Betty Logan (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that single navigational templates in general should not be collapsed in film templates. I used to expand all collapsed infoboxes, until Lugnuts explained why he left collapsed templates on stub templates, which makes sense. If Beyond My Ken could have explained why he kept collapsing the template, I probably would have backed off sooner. Instead he kept slow editing (in some cases five months later), that I decided to step away from the situation because I figured my edits would get reverted at some later point. As for the size, I do not think we could get much smaller than Frank Perry's template, but apparently it too needed to be collapsed, [15], without explanation six months after he last tried to make that edit.

Is there any opinion on the spacing that Beyond My Ken also adds before the navigational template like in this edit, [16]? He seems to do both collapsing and spacing by stating that they are not against policy and even though numerous different editors explain why these edits are wrong, he continues to revert and make these edits. Aspects (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography

Is there a place that I'm not looking that states it's ok to add additional columns to a filmography such as the director, budget and box office? I think it looks awful and clutters the table up tremendously. Filmographies should be limited to Year, Title, Role, Notes, and Source if necessary, just because it's all a user needs to know about the actor, is what they were in, their character, what year it was and any notes that might go with it. Director, Budget, Box office is starting to get off tangent about the film instead of about the actor. Like at Justin Timberlake's filmography, I tried bold deleting it without consensus and summed it per WP:FILMOGRAPHY but was reverted by another editor just because they disagreed and said that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is a guideline not a rule. Thoughts? Am I totally alone on this? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you centralize the discussion here or at WT:ACTOR? Otherwise the discussion will be split up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments transferred to centralized discussion

Now we have two discussions going. Great. In the future, please start a discussion in one place and post a notification in other places that point to the main location. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I'd include the director, but I'm not sure about the other info. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Personally I would bin it all. I don't see how any of that stuff is integral to a filmography. If readers want to know how much a film made or who it was directed by they can look it up at the film article. There seems to a culture of bunging in as much information as possible into a table, but I think tables are better when they just stick to the pertinent facts. In the case of filmographies that is the title, role and year. Everything else is just window dressing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please leave further comments at Wikipedia talk:ACTOR#Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography.

Star Wars discussion

There's a discussion at Star Wars (film) regarding whether "of all time" should be included in the sentence regarding it as one of the most successful and influential films. The discussion is Talk:Star Wars (film)#"of all time". Your thoughts about this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox for Academy Awards

The info box for the various Academy Award categories includes the wording "currently held by". This wording is really not accurate or appropriate. For example, it is not correct to say that Argo currently holds the title of Best Picture. All of the previous 84 films hold that title. The title isn't "currently" held by one individual (or one film) alone. Perhaps better wording might be something along the lines of "Most recent award winner" or "Most recent recipient" or some such. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable suggestion to me on the face of it. Just try changing them and if anyone reverts it can be discussed further. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will do so at some point. For now, I will see what other suggestions arise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

we could add a 'last awarded to' field in {{infobox award}}, just make a request on the talk page for that template. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I did that. No reply, as of yet. I went into the template, and I had no idea how to edit it. So, I didn't want to create a mess. Now what? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)