Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films

There are a great many films on this list that already have fairly comprehensive articles. Are they still on the list simply because they need infoboxes? --The Famous Movie Director 14:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of them are, yes. My personal opinion on the subject is that it's better to keep a film on the lists if there's something that could be fairly easily improved on its article, such as adding an infobox. This way, it's easier to find articles about movies deemed notable by an independent source that 'deserve' a more comprehensive article. - Bobet 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur. It's notable, however, that the similar pages for lists of notable albums on this WikiProject doesn't seem to include albums that have pages but not infoboxes. --The Famous Movie Director 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought they did in fact add infoboxes to all the pages missing them. The people doing the infobox additions just have been so effective that you don't see them on the list anymore, unlike in here (see for example this edit) :) - Bobet 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistake: I created an article for A Taxing Woman's Return and then found that one already exists for A Taxing Woman 2. How can these be combined? CClio333 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Search template

I have added a search template to the list with links to imdb, google search, google wikipedia search and wikipedia search. If you click on the imdb link and you think you may have found the wrong movie (especially foreign movies), check for alternate titles which are right after the main credits at IMDB. I was really confused the first time I used it, but it should be there. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up list of movies

As this list is approaching completion, I'm thinking about doing a follow-up to this list, perhaps compiling the movies produced by the major studios and some of the larger independent producers and distributors.

Lists of productions are available at imdb, and could be relatively easily combined.

• http://imdb.com/company/co0022594/
• http://imdb.com/company/co0000756/
• http://imdb.com/company/co0071094/

Other insights are appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

After complition of the current tasks, I would like seeing the original list restored to take the articles further. One example would be to assume as a task to make sure that every film has some synopsis and/or some notes on critical response. The later could be done as, for many of these films (especially the older one), lots of critical analysis are available, inclussively online. On the other hand, your idea is also good AdamSmithee 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but the problem is that an infobox is straightforward criteria, either an article has it or it doesn't. I don't know how one could be consistent with synopsis and critical response. Does one simply look at length of the article. How much synopsis is a good synposis - a few lines, it's own section, several paragraphs? The same can go for critical response. How much is enough.

Also which do you think is the higher priority? A baseline for most movies (a infobox) or adequate coverage for notable movies? A followup question might be which list would you be more likely to work on? If both, does it make sense to split the project into two lists, baseline and "appropriate"? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, difficult questions indeed. Anyway, this new tasks would be feasible only after completion of the infobox task.

First, I think the synopsis would be easier to fill in. As for criteria, I think that a one paragraph (a few sentences) synopsis in its own section, would be enough. It should cover the main story elements and mention the main characters (specifying the actors in paranthesis). I don't think it is necessary to ask for the synopsis to go too much into detail (I don't like the overdetailed plot sections anyway). Moreover, it would be easy to check for completion. The difficult part would be to check for copyvio, but this is true for any WP edit.

Second, critical reception is more difficult and probably a longer term project, as it requires more work and research. Also, criteria are more difficult to conceive. On the other hand, sources are probably easy to find for these movies. We could compile a list of general references which include material for many films - some easy to find examples are Rotten Tomatoes or Roger Ebert's movie reviewes. Also, there ae some pages dedicated to French, British etc. notable films or pages dedicated to notable directors with lots of info. Anyway, this task would require more thinking.

As for me, I would work on any or both of them :-) But I don't have a definite idea on an efficient way of organising it... AdamSmithee 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I like your thoughts, and agree. Synopsis will be easier to cover an put a stamp on. As far as organization there is no reason not to split it into two lists, a "infobox list" and a "coverage list." Perhaps a range of what is acceptable removing criteria might help. Baby Face (film) and The Awful Truth are probably too short, but Bande à part and The Crime of Monsieur Lange are probably closer to standard and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Dodsworth at the high end of acceptable coverage. That was just a quick sampling at Time magazine top 100 you might have other movies that typify the norm. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think restoring one of the older versions of the notable films list and this time only remove the pages when they met some other easily defined criteria, like having at least some level of plot synopsis and not being a stub, is a good idea.

On the studio films idea, it's imo more difficult to build on, since a lot of (especially older) films from the studios are pretty much forgotten (not notable and no real info available that would ever make the article be more than a stub) and you'd need some way to prune them out. IMDB's power search with some minimum amount of votes to indicate someone's heard of them within the past 10 years could be a decent, but not perfect gauge of notability. It would help fill out Category:Films by studio, but could add to systemic bias, since there aren't that many big studios/distributors outside of USA (and if there are, IMDB would probably sell them short on the vote count thing). - Bobet 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On coverage standards: Baby Face (film) and The Awful Truth are definitely too short. I would like something more towards Dodsworth, but, at a minimum, I guess Bande à part would also be acceptable. When I have time, I will try to also compile a draft list of generic online critical resources. Regarding films by studios, I agree with Bobet that it might be difficult to compile the list, although I don't have a strong opinion on this; also, in case you preffer to compile a different list, imo it would be interesting to make a list of movies of important directors, organised by director. AdamSmithee 08:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I fleshed out the article on Baby Face (film). --Mathew5000 08:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple movie lists

One option not yet discussed it to create multiple notable film lists similar to the way the politicians list is organized. We can have our notable film list, directors list, studio movies list and whatever other movies are out there. There are two problems though: different standards for different lists and duplicates. It may make sense to have different criteria for "notable" films compared with a terrible studio film from 1956. As far as pruning, I do lots of pruning and am fairly good/fast at it, but I would like to avoid doing it if possible. Perhaps we can organize some sort of "completed" movies so that they do not need to be vetted every time they are added to the list.

Another list option might be to collect the top 500 voted-on movies at imdb and other locations. Might not get the best movies, but it would definitely be notable (popular) movies. I unfortunately don't have the wikitime I would like to devote to the project but I could definitely get it started. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Awarded films

Hi, I just found this page from Project Films talk. I hope awarded films are part of critical acclaim. As part of a round of refining the years in film articles, I have added through the years several more awards, and probably will include some more in the future. For one, I am waiting to see if the BAFTA awards will develop articles on all the years, to add them too. We have also a list of Sundance Film Festival winners (from '85 on), but I wouldn't start with other International Festivals (New York, Toronto, etc) which do not have lists of winners. I know there is a lot of interest for wide release films, but giving also attention to awards, the pages become more balanced and address a wider audience. I use unlinked text for repeated winners, linking always the most important mention. I put a link to all missing articles and they can be seen bold-italic-red. I think there should be a priority for stub making there. I try some, but I'm slow in such edits. I hope it's OK if they stay red until started, because if they are turned to unlinked text, they be confused with unlinked repeated winners. Hoverfish 16:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Red film list announcement

I post here too, since it is very relevant, that I have recently started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article, where I collect all films titles I find on my way given in red. I hope you find it useful. I intend to mark in the list all the awarded films with their award, as soon as I finish putting the awards in the years in film. Hoverfish 16:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Films with articles on other languages' wikipedias

Working on interlanguages links made me realize that most of the world's films are not covered by the English wikipedia, more work to be done here, please help translating from the languages you know. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)