Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 16

message: Anybody interested in forming a documentary film task-force, as this genre is now in the second plan?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjerich (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand "now in the second plan", but yes, if there is support for a documentary task force, then it certainly is a possibility. I for one think it's a good idea. Girolamo Savonarola 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force: Documentary film 

message: Well, I'm useless to this project if nobody knows what I do and why I like movies.
My name is The Blaziken Master, I'm a DVD collector, my whole DVD collection can be found here. My favorite movie is Bad Boys II while my favorite actor is Will Smith.
What I will be doing here you might ask, before you ask, I will tell you. I'll be updating pages of course on movies I own and am interested in. When I discover the movies I like don't have a link to the page on Yahoo! Movies I'm also here to add it to the list, after all Yahoo! is a well known service.
Yeah, that's all I have to say. I hope I get very warm welcome to this project, and I really will help out as much as I can. TheBlazikenMaster 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to WikiProject Films!  Here's a couple of links to get you started -- style guidelines for film articles, and the best film articles this WikiProject has to offer.  Please feel free to ask for any help in writing a film article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm new to this project. 

message: The articles Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut have been nominated for deletion. Can anybody weigh in on the notability of either the film or the director? Thanks! -Pete 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The only mentions of it in the Google News archive are press releases; however, it did merit a short review at marginal local website LA Weekly. It may be telling that the reviewer called it "not quite a home movie, but not exactly a professional production either." However, its director has some minor notability (even if a public spat with the press a few years back appears to be missing from her entry), so perhaps the article could be merged with hers? Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, it's probably not enough - there need to be multiple non-trivial articles by reliable sources covering the film. I'm not saying they don't exist, but at the current state, it would be a weak delete, IMHO. If you're for keeping it, I'd starting digging around for more, so as to leave the issue less ambiguous. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm not fussed one way or the other to be honest. Maybe there's a slim case for merging Wilding and her film, but I'd not even heard of the thing until Pete brought it up here. I was curious, so went hunting for references for an hour or so. Despite lots of hits, there is very little that isn't a mere duplication of something from a press release. I have since forwarded my rather slim findings onto her article talk page, but that's all I'm having to do with it. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of film and director - ? 

message: is adding pictures (like this edit here ) of actors, in tiny versions, to film articles cast lists (muchlike IMDb has been doing for awhile). I am bringing this here so that admins and members who are part of the project can decide whether this is okay or not. If it is okay then no problem, but, if it isn't then I know that it is easier for admins to rollback multiple edits then it is for me. Also, I am not sure what warning or message one would give in this situation. I have also posted this at WP:ANI but there has bee no response there as yet. Thanks ahead of time for your attention to this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images are non-free, definitely no. If they are free, it's really unnecessary. All of the images would have to be like size 60px just to fit on the page. I removed them from the Halloween (2007 film) page, where that IP user added them.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also heads up for . Girolamo Savonarola 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image adding question 

message: Anyone with a moment and an interest in the film want to take a look at The Brave One (2007 film), my attempt to cut the plot down to a synopsis was resisted, so I'd like a few other people to take a stab. --Fredrick day 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite a doozy of a synopsis - they might as well just post the entire script up there! However, condensing it to a mere paragraph summary would I think be going a little too far. Everything to make it a good plot summary is there, but there's too much that's merely decoration. I haven't yet seen the film, so I'd feel uncomfortable about missing something out, but if you want to go through it and remove everything that doesn't drive the plot along (character beats, etc. are largely, though not wholly, unnecessary), I'll pop in later and give you some backup if it's resisted. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The brave one 

message: Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films (here) and music albums (here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles usually are deleted if they do not demonstrate notability and cannot be found to have any. If the article topic is notable enough to stay, then it's better to spend the time you waste AfD'ing it instead expanding the article, and giving it time to grow. (Making certain it's not orphaned always helps.) Girolamo Savonarola 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answer. In ru-wiki it's not about notability, but about a huge number of articles that are short stubs. The question is, if the subject is notable - then how short the articles are allowed to be for existence as a separate wikipedia article, and what essential issues must be covered. Alex Ex 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the articles topics are justifiable to have articles, then they should have articles. Stubs sometimes need time to grow. Girolamo Savonarola 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's some stub-related musings by by one of the founders of Wikipedia at :meta:The Perfect Stub Article. Basically what it's saying is stubs are a good thing. There's always a chance someone will get to it eventually, even small amounts of information can be helpful and we're really not in any hurry here. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask for help / exchange of experiences 

message: Just thought I'd bring this to people's attention: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20. Lugnuts 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films by topic cats at [[WP:CFD]] 

message: 25+ films listed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Uncategorised films 

message: First of all I'd like participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/September. I've proposed new stub categories for adventure films and mystery films of which there ar emany stubs which haven't got this yet please join in. Secondly I'd like to bring up the subject of splitting the primary genre categories like comedy, drama, SciFi , action, musical and western into decades like :Category:Horror films. Whilst there isn't a reason why all films of the genre can't go in one category when people are browising by genre often they associate a certain genre by period. For instance the Good the Bad and the Ugly you think Category:1960s western films , Stars wars 1977 - Category:1970s science fiction films, Goldeneye - 1990s action films   or for Hot Fuzz you would think Category:2000s comedy films and so on. I strongly believe these categories are large enough to have clear definition on there own by decade particularly as the stub categories have been split like this. Often many users are also keen on a certain genre of a certain decade -it makes browsing far easier.
Thirdly I'd like to suggest several new parameters to the film info box. Whilst I am against cluttering it too much in general as I have been creating many film I've noticed that many prominent figures who participated in the film production are often left out and are not acknowledged. As part of WP actors also I would like to see some expansion in this area. For me additional options of art director, casting, second unit (director only), costume design (this mostly for Indian films where there are famous designers who are prominent in the industry) and perhaps a genre parameter should be allowed into the equation. For me these people play a key role in the films production -the actual product of the film which for me is important. Now I'm not saying that all of these people may require a notable biography of their own or mentioning and I certainly wouldn't want to see all sorts of special effects aeroplane monitor coordinator etc etc into it and lis everyone as that would be ridiclous. but for many periods in film history there are some really key figures in these areas which played a major part in the film making but are left out and I'd like to see more coverage and the option to include the more notable figures.    ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"?  16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the infobox goes, I agree with expanding certain parameters. Production designer (this outranks the art director) and costume designer, most particularly. However, as for casting and second unit, I think that it starts to wander outside of the traditional HOD (head of department) roles with more creative leverage. Casting is mostly subject to director and producer preferences (and sometimes even agents trying to create "package" deals), and their greatest autonomy usually comes at the lower-importance roles. Second unit directors are strange fish, but once you open that door, then should we have second unit cinematographers? Second unit costume designers? And so on. Second unit is also subject to the whims of the main HOD controls, and they generally are given "assignments" to capture insert footage without the main actors, as often as not with strict instructions as to how to obtain the material. Additionally, how likely is it that these roles will be filled with names who have their own articles? Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I forgot to mention that production designer is a relatively recent term (infrequent until the 1960's, IIRC) - listing the art director would be appropriate where no production designer credit exists, such as Haas's films. Girolamo Savonarola 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What about flipping that around - a person shouldn't be listed in the infobox if they aren't discussed in the text. After all, the infoboxes are supposed to supplement the information already in the article. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: Hey everyone, there's a request for comment going on at the page for Slither (2006 film). If anyone is able, please weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I just started my first film page: Hippie Hippie Shake (currently shooting). It's barebones right now, though I will continue to work on it -- if anyone wants to pitch in, that would be lovely. --Melty girl 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hippie Hippie Shake'' 

message: Leave this section with only MY comment, you are invited to go here. If you have any questions, ask there, not here. All comments should be there. Please vote oppose or support, or whatever you feel like. But please make sure you read completely my reasonbefore you oppose. TheBlazikenMaster 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Road movies]] is being renamed. 

message: I've noticed certain film articles listing taglines, and others not, and was curious if there is some sort of standard for listing taglines. Can they have their own section? Are they important at all? What about non-English titles, is there a place for these? Murderbike 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm comparatively new here, so I don't know what the consensus is, but it seems to me that a tagline would be largely unimportant and not worth mentioning unless it has some inherent notability in of itself, due to impact upon the popular conciousness or some such (e.g. "In space, no-one can hear you scream") - as long as there is cited evidence to prove this impact, of course. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Ah ha, found it. Read the Manual of Style for films, here for more guidance. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 10:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There was an article titled List of taglines in films (or something similar) that got AFD'd a while back. Lugnuts 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In the majority of cases, taglines should be removed.  There is coverage like this, though, that may warrant their mentions somewhere in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alien, Jurassic Park and Jaws 2 have very famous taglines that are discussed, but most taglines are cliched and non-notable. Alientraveller 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taglines 

message: I highly encourage you to post your opinion here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of characters from Epic Movie]] is being nominated for deletion. 

message: The article Superhero! was recently restored. However, the director of the film had prior complaints about the Wikipeidia article. This article needs some TLC and a review to ensure that it contains the latest information regarding the film. Thanks. -- Jreferee   t/c 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it should be noted that, according to the article, it hasn't been filmed yet and thus shouldn't (per WP:NF) actually have an article yet. Girolamo Savonarola 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I checked about that, and Variety says production started on Monday last week.  It's good to go, though a clean-up and a mention of production starting would be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Also, IMDb marks the film's status as unknown, so I think this reflects that they're not necessarily at the forefront for such information.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see that you're at the forefront of the production research as always, Erik. :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superhero!]] help! 

message: Hello, I know that movie isn't that famous, and probably a lot of people don't have it, or have seen it. But I'm bringing this here nevertheless, the plot is like holy madness. It's so damn huge. So someone needs to help with trimming it into five paragraphs at max, of course less would be great idea.
Tell you what, you don't have to own that video. Next time you rent a DVD you should rent that movie, and watch it more than once (before you give it back) to know for sure what's important and what isn't.
That of course is only a suggestion.
This page needs some serious cleanup, that tag isn't doing anything. But you on the other hand can. If you help me, I'd be very happy. Thanks for your time. TheBlazikenMaster 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some clean-up.  This included removing the taglines, removing the in-universe information about what superpowers a fictional character had (not notable), exported the trivia section to the talk page for later re-integration, moved the interview link to EL, removed the unnecessary "See also" section, and removed the unnecessary list under DVD release.  I haven't seen the film, so I can't address the plot summary.  I would suggest better clean-up of the "Reaction and box office" section, though.  If you'd like to improve it, I'd suggest modeling it after 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)#Release (ignoring the first paragraph, of course). Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but I bet a lot of people are in neighborhood of a place where they can rent DVDs (what are those places called?) so I suggest that everyone that hasn't seen the movie should see it and think about what's important and what's not. Well, since I own the movie, I will do it myself next Friday if nobody else will. TheBlazikenMaster 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I am not interested in seeing the film itself -- I've got 400+ films on my Netflix queue. :)  If you want, though, I can dig up some references that you could use to write about the film's production.  Be bold and tighten up the plot summary, and I'll be happy to research some interviews and such for the film's background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I will do it on Friday, I have more time then. You probably think trimming the plot section is a piece of cake, but it's not really that easy. Not for me at least. It's hard to tell difference between notable and unnotable scenes. I will do my best next Friday. TheBlazikenMaster 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a crack at condensing the plot summary, but it could use a pass from someone who's actually seen the film. :) Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do it next Friday, but I hope you understand that I'm still in high school, and I don't have really much free time on week days. I have good time on weekends though. TheBlazikenMaster 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no problem. My comment was a jokey dig at myself for attempting a plot summary for a film I haven't even seen, and have no intention of seeing. Truth be told, I'm rather pleased with it, considering that fact, and that I rushed it off during a ten minute break. The only thing it needs now is a glance from someone who's seen the film in order to make sure I haven't made any glaring plot-related errors, but there's no rush. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the movie plot, and it's perfect. Couldn't have done it better myself. TheBlazikenMaster 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[My Super Ex-Girlfriend]] needs some serious work. 

message: Elections for Project Coordinators are currently on-going using approval voting. Project members are highly encouraged to participate by voting, asking questions of the candidates, and leaving comments! Please take a few minutes to take part. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!
Also of note, there has been talk about possibly allowing self-nominations to continue throughout the voting period. If you believe that we should continue to leave the nomination window open, please discuss either here or on the election talk page. (At the moment, we have three nominees standing for three positions.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After agreement amongst all currently standing nominees, we've re-opened the nomination signup. Anyone wishing to self-nominate may continue to do so up until the closing of the election. Please do feel free to do so if you are interested! :) Girolamo Savonarola 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELECTIONS - Coordinator voting now open (and more noms wanted) 

message: This minor character from the film Superman Returns has its own article. I don't think it's necessary - the vast majority of the article is a reiteration of the plot of the film. The character plays a very small role in the film and clearly doesn't deserve a separate article. I redirected the article after suggesting a redirection on the talk page and a week of no objections being voiced. However, SonPraises undid the redirect claiming no consensus was formed. Please weigh in your opinions at Talk:Jason White (character) so we can settle this. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was redirected to the film, but that change was reverted. I think we should leave this up for discussion for a week - SonPraises complained that the one day discussion didn't constitute consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the six votes to support redirecting, I don't see a need to wait.  The consensus is clear; we should go ahead and restore the redirect. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jason White (character)]] 

message: Per an earlier discussion, I have listed the proposed Film festival task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Film festival (WikiProject Films). If anyone is interested, please show your support and sign up. I had also earlier proposed a Thai film task force, but will hold off on that for now. — WiseKwai 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film festival task force 

message: Is anyone interested in making a Image:Noposter-upload.png image for films missing a poster, similar to the one on the right? --Steinninn 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a sandbox template and added an example for how The Matrix would look like without a cover image. Example for The Matrix. What do you think? Could this be added to Template:Infobox film? --Steinninn 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I think it looks 'orrible! Really huge and ugly. Why can't we just leave things blank if there's no picture? Cop 663 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like an empty DVD cover. What's wrong with that? TheBlazikenMaster 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, why have an image saying we don't have an image when we can just not have an image? It's not like we need a spacer there for a standardized page template. I'm not really convinced in either direction, but I would also argue towards simplicity. Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It encourages people to upload a cover. --Steinninn 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If we must have an image, please don't make the "no image" image a default in the infobox if the image field is left blank, like WP:ALBUM does. Leave it as a manual option for editors to choose whether they want to use it or not. Personally, I dislike it. Aside from being too self-referential for my taste, the main problem I have is with the language: "No cover available." That's a lie. The cover is available - somewhere in the world, it's just not available on Wikipedia, yet. — WiseKwai 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a small change, so that when :Image:NoDVDcover-upload.png is added to an article, it will automatically work as a link to the upload form (Example for The Matrix). No nasty <imagemap>. Feel free to upload a better image and don't forget to spread it around the articles. --Steinninn 03:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm against this too. It provides no valuable content. If there's no artwork there people don't need a huge placeholder to tell them so. Adding these would take time that could be used to find actual artwork. Preferably we want original posters over DVD covers. And it makes the articles look less professional. Not to mention, the fair use police–types don't much care for advertisements for non free content. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No poster image 

message: Can ya'll please tag, cleanup, and do your film thing at The Tic Code?  There are some things there that are Greek to me.  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. --Fredrick day 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I agree. Spoiler warnings have little place in Wikipedia articles; if people didn't want to know about the film, they wouldn't be reading the thing. I suppose some people might want to know about the production, or a particular controversy, without wanting to spoil themselves, so I wouldn't be unwilling, as a matter of courtesy, to keep any major plot points within the confines of the Plot section of the article where possible (if they read that... well, then it's their own silly fault), but only if it's not required to elucidate upon any relevant OOU information (e.g. the Production section may give details of studio-ordered reshoots, in which case it might be relevant to mention what exactly they've ordered changed). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that I find Template:Current fiction extremely redundant.  For the vast majority of the visits to the article of a released film, people are going to it because it's been recently released.  I mean, God forbid that there be a comprehensive article about the subject itself!  I find it to be a pseudo-spoiler tag -- while Plot section headings indicate plot details and Characters section headings indicate character details, we don't tag them because of that.  Considering that such information is the staple of a film article, informing the reader of such availability just seems condescending. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the other issue is that those types of tags (in my view) should be used to inform the editor rather than the reader, that why we have clean-up tags, tone tags etc - A "this is recent" tag makes a lot of sense with breaking news stories but it makes no sense at all with films or other media. If we follow the MOS for films, then the year of release will be in the opening paragraph, so it good practice with prose that is required not slapping an pointless tag at the top. --Fredrick day 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{current fiction}}</nowiki> 

message: Crisis ahhhh!! Somebody has ruined :Category:Australian films by splitting into the worst possible by genre ahhhh .What should we do. This definately MUST NOT be done. Category:Austrlaian films should be an A-Z   ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"?  15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... it's far too hard to judge genre to make it effective--plus, they should all be in the one category.  Now... I'm not really sure how you/anyone will go about reversing this but I definitely agree with you. gren グレン 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  For info, :Category:Australian cult films is going through CFD and I think a similar process should be agreed here first, then sent to CFD, before we have every country with a genre split. Lugnuts 08:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian film split 

message: I've recently posted an AfD discussion for the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  A similar preceding AfD discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if the WikiProject Films community, under whom these "difference" topics would fall, could find some kind of consensus.  I think it can be agreed that if it can be explained why a filmmaker pursued a specific change from the source material, it would generally be encyclopedic to warrant inclusion.  (A personal example would be Road to Perdition#Writing.)  However, there are a few "Differences" articles and sections that boil down to, "Just read the book and see the film, and you can see the difference yourself!"  You can find my argument at the Chocolate Factory AfD, but I was wondering what other community members thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your personal feelings, there's no need for you to unilaterally remove internal cross-references to pages just because *you* think the linked page should be deleted.  68.100.242.114 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Personal feelings" has nothing to do with the matter.  I've cited numerous policies and guidelines to show why the article does not belong on Wikipedia.  If anything, such changes would spur the attention of editors who monitor the related articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between book and film 

message: He is a character from Mission: Impossible III please cast your vote here.  TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article [[Owen Davian]] is being concidered for deletion. 

message: I noticed that Fight Club (film) has a little stars and stripes to denote that the film was made in the United States. Further to some discussion over quite a long period at WP:FLAG, I believe the flag icons on this and similar articles are redundant and can be removed on sight. I'd be interested if anyone can point me to a consensus at this project that using flags this way adds information to the article. Failing that, this would be a good place to bring up any advantages to the general reader of having the flag as well as the country name. --John 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, we recently had this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Use_of_flags_makes_information_harder_to_read recently, and consensus was that although flags are useful 'space-savers' in small infoboxes, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The style guidelines on release dates were changed accordingly, and there is no guideline saying they should appear in the 'country' section, so feel free to nuke 'em if you want to! Cop 663 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I developed a lot of the content on Fight Club (film), but I wouldn't mind its removal.  I guess I've just followed the trend to add  or  to the country attribute of Infobox Film templates.  If there is a motion to get rid of flag icons, I'd be happy to fix this at the film article in question and other film articles on which I've worked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess sooner or later we'll need to actually trawl through the articles and change them accordingly. In the meantime, it's a fair assumption that most editors are not aware of this change, and thus most articles retain the old style. Girolamo Savonarola 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, the documentation at Template:Infobox Film still says to use a flag icon for the release date. RWardy 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flags for release dates and distributors are more of a problem than flags for countries of origin. 86.148.209.162 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What information do you think they add? --John 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: Why are all A-class film articles in :Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles? – Ilse@ 12:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might need to comment out another bit of the template - it's a bit of code for the future possibility of the project itself assessing if articles are A-Class. Therefore, if the article doesn't have the appropriate A-Class review subpage for itself, it auto-cats to "Incorrectly tagged..." It's inherited from the WPMILHIST template. But thank you for pointing this out - I'll request the appropriate template edits immediately. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. – Ilse@ 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class film articles 

message: I believe that the above project would benefit from a merger with this project, if that is agreeable to the memberships of both projects. One particular advantage would be the greater access to information on the non-"Academy awards", like the various other national film awards. This project, with its greater size and multiple groups, would probably be best able to work on developing such content. Any responses below, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You used the template , I think you should have used  so I thought "Hell no, this project is for movies in general, not academy awards.", so I changed it. Anyway, yeah I agree, it's very hard to discuss academy awards without discussing the movie that received it in general. TheBlazikenMaster 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could easily work as a task force, which would keep the vast majority of the project's work and structure intact. Having originally raised the matter on your talk page, of course I support it. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to give each of the projects sufficient time (at least a week) to provide a reasonable amount of notice. Girolamo Savonarola 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Academy Awards WikiProject 

message: Another editor recently edited the page But I'm a Cheerleader to change the format so that a) the first paragraph after the lead looks better and you can see the edit button properly, but b) there is now a huge gap between the table of contents and the 1st paragraph, which is still there when you "hide" the TOC. The problem originates, I think, from the length of the infobox. Anyway, I haven't seen this anywhere else, I personally think it looks worse now and am having a minor disagreement with the other editor. I would really like other opinions on which is best, or if there are any other solutions? this is how it looked before. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that when I was going through the project's GAs to reduce poster sizes and thought it was a weird occurrence, maybe some problem with Wikipedia/my computer. But since it was intentionally done, I don't think that it should be like it is. No other film articles I have stumbled on have used this practice, and for our articles to remain uniform, the large gap should be removed. I don't see any reason why such a large gap is necessary based on the above reasons. --Nehrams2020 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting, with TOC & infobox 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Film Group
Though it should be mentioned here.Horrorshowj 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advent Film Group AFD 

message: They can be found Here for those of you who might want to comment. Lugnuts 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor-politicians categories up for CFD 

message: I know that several months ago the notable roles section of actor infoboxes was removed by sensible consensus. In editing today I noted that it still exists in the infobox for voice actors like Maurice LaMarche. Now it is is labeled as credits when you edit the infobox but it shows up as notable roles when viewing the page. Is this something that we should remove as we did with the actor infoboxes or will this be considered a new alteration that will have to go through the discussion process? If the latter please let me know where I have to go to get this process started and I will be happy to do so and thanks in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be fine to remove it. I've gone ahead and done so. If it's a problem we'll soon find out. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable roles 

message: Almost as soon as we've formally integrated the Indian cinema task force with much consensus from their editors, the sole dissenter (from WP India) has lodged a complaint in WikiProject Council. I find this quite distressing, since it seems to be an attempt to subvert both consensus and existing task force location conventions. In any case, if anyone would like to comment there, it would be much appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian cinema 

message: Please visit Template talk:Imdb name to discuss new capabiliy provided by  with a demonstration at . Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Imdb name proposed edit 

message: More info here. Please comment there if you would like. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I got some suggestion for [[Bad Boys II]]. 

message: There are a few future film articles that are undergoing requests to merge to their source materials' articles:
*Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins
*Friday the 13th (2009 film)
*Untitled X-Files Sequel
Input from the community is welcome.  If there are any other future films that may not meet the notability guidelines for films, feel free to mention them here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled across Mortal Kombat: Devastation today. Girolamo Savonarola 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up.  I've put up a  as it was deleted before and there is no apparent addition to the existing content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done merge/redirects on all three above. Girolamo Savonarola 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future film mergers 

message: Can someone please watch this movie and start the article stub? I noticed it while looking at a movie list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you unable to create the article yourself? Lugnuts 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am because the movie isn't in movie theaters where I come from. TheBlazikenMaster 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Ten Commandments (2007 film)]] 

message: I think it should be listed in all movie articles, after all Yahoo! is a very well known internet service. Tomorrow I'll be going through my DVDs and add external links to Y!M, any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Yahoo! Movies needs to exist as its own article.  As the page history shows, there is a conflict of interest by the major contributor of that article.  There doesn't seem to be significant coverage by reliable sources about Yahoo! Movies specifically, so it seems better off as a section at Yahoo!. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are understanding my question. I wasn't asking if or if not it needs its own article, I was asking if nobody would mind if I added external link to Yahoo! Movies. TheBlazikenMaster 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, you're right... total brain fart.  What do you feel that Yahoo! Movies provides that IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. don't? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking if Yahoo Movies should be a regularly acceptable external links for individual film titles? I'd have to say that's exactly why WP:EL was written - there are scores of sites with databases of titles for which they have small modicums of information. We did have a straw poll maybe a year ago about which sites were acceptable for regular linkage, and only IMDb and AMG made it through; IMDb largely on the basis of its reputation, and AMG on the basis of its exceptionally large collection of reviews. (Which, IIRC, Y!M uses.) So what would Y!M be offering that would be exceptional? Girolamo Savonarola 02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be, but if that's our only standard, then consider where that will lead. Girolamo Savonarola 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yahoo! Movies]] 

message: :Meh. I'll reply here. You ask: "I think this article needs history about the making of the movie. I find that pretty encyclopedic. Should we make a section about how the movie was made? We already have history on that on some other movies, so why not this one?"
:I agree. So... what's stopping you?
:Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this on the talk page I mentioned. I added that note for a reason, I added it so this section wouldn't get to big. TheBlazikenMaster 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing further to say. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm happy that somebody did reply to the section on the proper place. Liquidfinale is also failing to understand this is the discussion page of movies in general, not that particular one, that's why I made the note. TheBlazikenMaster 12:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied here because I was making a wider point that you appear not to have grasped. See also: Lugnuts' reply to you earlier. There's nothing stopping your doing it yourself. Even if you haven't seen the film; the plot is a very small part of what a good film article is. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, this is NOT the right place to discuss this. Please discuss it on the right talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to be argumentative or anything; I was merely offering up some genuine advice, which was better-suited here as it didn't just relate specifically to the Bad Boys II article. This is Wikipedia; if you think of something which will improve an article, then you should just do it. e.g. the Ten Commandments question you posed earlier - just create the stub; it doesn't matter that you haven't seen the film, as the plot section is a very small part of things. Everything else is easily-sourced (directors, writers, cast, basic premise). Other contributors will flesh it out if they think it's worth adding to. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: it didn't just relate specifically to the Bad Boys II article
Oh, is that the case? Why didn't you say so in the first place?
And I can't just do it, making a section about how the movie was made is not easy. First off, you have to let it appear in correct order from the beginning of production, and it isn't easy. TheBlazikenMaster 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And can you please re-post your "as you stated earlier" into the other section? It's a lot easier for me to reply if you post it in that discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean it, having all your statements in one discussion and leave the rest of the discussions unreplied can get very messy, believe me. It also makes it hard to find the specific discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you explained on the talk page, but I still think this needs to be on separate section, as it isn't specifically about the movie. TheBlazikenMaster 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Liquidfinale was trying to accomplish was to inquire to you why you need to bring specific issues here so other editors can address them.  I created a stub for The Ten Commandments (2007 film) using information from reviews and the official site, which I had found in a Google search.  There's a lot of film articles on Wikipedia, and I think it may be more productive if we could help you learn techniques to improve film articles.  For instance, I keep a link to Template:Infobox Film on my user page so if there is a film article without a template or with a badly-formatted template, I can copy/paste the most recent template into the article and transfer the attributes into it.  As for Bad Boys II, do you want some tips on how to research for information about the film's production? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'd love to get some. But the tips would be more suitable on Talk:Bad Boys II. Well, because you see, in the future maybe, I wanna search the achieves on Talk:Bad Boys II that so far isn't a big discussion page, and it would be easier to find the tips on that talk page than here, since new discussion is added almost daily here. TheBlazikenMaster 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. Section 

message: I would like to bring to the attention of the community the effectiveness of Template:Infobox movie certificates, which is used in around 300 film articles.  It has been up for deletion back in August 2006, though the consensus was to keep.  There has been some discussion going on between me, Pixelface, and Bignole, as well as a broader discussion at the style guidelines talk page.  In brief, the template provides a collective list of movie certificates (ratings) for a film.  WP:IINFO states, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  To fill the template, editors usually draw upon the "Certifications" attribute under "Additional details" at a film's web page at the Internet Movie Database.  IMDb is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for editorial oversight (information being user-submitted) or fact-checking (as it has been incorrect numerous times).  My approach about movie certificates for films has been to include information about a certificate beyond just its classification, such as the specific reason for it or disputes surrounding it.  Some instances are Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 instead of R like its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film)#Release, or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not).
The issue is, what does a list of movie certificates contribute to a film article in the encyclopedic sense?  For a family film, certificates would permit younger audiences.  If there was an outlier certificate that restricted audiences more than others, then the list provides zero understanding of why this may be the case.  I do not at all oppose verifiable coverage of movie certificates if it can be reflected beyond mere classification how the certificate affected the film or the film's impact upon release.  There has been a suggestion to reduce the template's attributes to solely English-speaking territories, but this setup still does not try to provide encyclopedic context behind each certificate.  I would like to present this template for deletion, but I would like to hear any opposing arguments from the community.  A few reminders:
*Because an item survived a discussion for deletion does not mean it should be kept indefinitely; many items undergo multiple discussions.
*The template's widespread usage is not an argument to keep; trivia sections are rampant, but they are still frowned upon.
*The discussion is for movie certificates on their own merit -- comparing this attribute to a film's runtime or release date is akin to citing Wikipedia to support Wikipedia.
I welcome any arguments about how a list of movie certificates contributes to the encyclopedic nature of a film article on Wikipedia despite no detail or real-world context beyond their classifications.  Other comments are also welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for film certifications. Film certifications are available from multiple sources: film critics, Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo! Movies, etc. There are also available direct from ratings boards: US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany,  Canada (Alberta), Canada (British Columbia), Canada (Manitoba), Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island), Canada (Ontario), etc. A list of movie certificates shows readers the age limit that a country or territory's ratings board has placed on a film. Seeing how a film has been rated in various countries helps readers research social norms worldwide, particularly if a country/territory has banned a film. Movie certificates can affect box office grosses, so they do provide real-world context. Film producers know that a film's rating can affect it's profitability so they will often cut content out of a film to get a more commercially viable rating or even add content to appeal to a certain rating demographic. --Pixelface 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox movie certificates 

message: Post comments for keeping/deleting/merging at the CFD here Lugnuts 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian films by director category for deletion (and others) 

message: Another film category is up for debate at CFD here. Lugnuts 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films by writer category for deletion 

message: There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about as many animated cartoons as movies (if not more), so I honestly think it deserves its own WikiProject page. We can't add all problems in one field. TheBlazikenMaster 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be good to see an organized project for all animation topics. That being said, there's no reason why we couldn't operate a joint task-force with them specific focus on animated films, too. Either way, we need to maintain close(r) relations with many of the animation projects and descendants which do include some films in their scopes. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation project proposal 

message: Branded to Kill is currently listed at FAC. It's experiencing a bit of a dry spell and hasn't received any comments for more than two weeks. I'm fairly certain a couple more reviews would push it over the finish line. If anyone's interested in critiquing the article, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Branded to Kill'' FAC 

message: Awhile back I proposed creating a Thai film task force, which didn't really get very far because the scope is too limited. Recently, the suggestion was made to broaden things a bit and propose that Southeast Asian cinema task force be created. The proposed task force is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema. If you contribute to articles about films from Southeast Asian countries, then please list your name among the Interested Wikipedians.
A proposed task force page has also been started here.
In terms of its name and regional focus, the task force would also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, though I would expect that for article assessment purposes and talk-page banner coding it would fall strictly under WP:FILM, because some countries already have their own projects, are handling their own assessments and don't desire to fall under the broader banner of WP:Southeast Asia. — WiseKwai 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southeast Asian cinema task force 

message: Can you all keep an eye on this?  Someone made a wreck of the talk page articlehistory and WikiProject links.  I reverted it all, but I think there's a WikiProject peer review in there that's not correctly added in somewhere.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Batman (1989 film)]] 

message: A cat which could become huge has been created: :Category:Films with Original Screenplays. You might like to consider it before it's added to too many articles. The JPStalk to me 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider what, consider deleting it? Yes I agree. It's overcategorasation if it can be called that. --Steinninn 12:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it's worth, yup. Didn't want to send it to CFD before mentioning here (XFD involves pointless hassle if it's just going to be a keep). The JPStalk to me  —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it up for deletion already, it's original research. There are many movies that could be based on something, and it isn't the same character as of the previous work. One of the stuff currently in the category for example is The Incredibles. Who says they aren't based on anything? The article does mention that they are based on the Fantastic Four. And the description is also questionable. Previously existing? What do you mean previously? They still exist. Yeah, I can think of many more stuff wrong with that category. Maybe changing the description to "not directly based...", but that would be original research too, since we don't let movies be literally everything from a book, just get rid of it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For one, it should be titled :Category:Films with original screenplays... Lugnuts 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cat warning: [[:Category:Films with Original Screenplays]] 

message: But first someone needs to get the article out of the unsourced category. Once that's finished I will go right ahead and make it a featured candidate. It looks nice, and doesn't have any tags, (except a hidden one, that's why I need help, since I can't find that small unsourced rumor.) TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I found it alright, but I don't know if it should be removed or if it can be backed up, that's why I need help. TheBlazikenMaster 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you need help with, exactly?  A few Google searches may be able to help you source.  If not, bring it to the talk page where you'll be likely to get into contact with those who have worked on bringing the article to GA status.  You wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.  María (críticame) 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is I don't actually trust Google, as it can find every page, including pages full of bullshit. But I'll try. TheBlazikenMaster 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google has just as much potential to find reliable sources, such as mainstream press, as it does to find unreliable ones. (And let's keep the conversation civil - there's no need for profanity.) Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will nominate [[The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)]] for featured candidate soon. 

message: Looking at the Forrest Gump article, and I'm trying to figure out why four characters from the movie have separate articles (Forrest Gump (character) Jenny Curran Lieutenant Dan Taylor Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue). Is there something super important that I'm missing that gets them a separate article? None of the four articles seem to impart any different info from the main article other than to just retell the plot, again, and repeat stuff from the novel differences section, with a lack of citations on anything. Are those four pages really necessary, notable, etc?  Should they be AfDed?  
I'm also wondering if the Film and Novel should separate articles (also posed on Talk:Forrest_Gump page.  There seems to be a lot of differences between the two, the book has a sequel, and with the film dominating the article, it seems like the book has no real chance at fair treatment or getting well documented info. AnmaFinotera 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the book and the film should have separate articles to allow both articles to develop independently. There are enough differences, and will be more as the articles develop (eg. critical reception). --BelovedFreak 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film and book most definitely should be split. As for the character pages, there may be argument for keeping the Gump one, since he appears across two novels and one film, but I'm guessing that the other ones are good merge candidates if they have little real-world context of enough substance to warrant an article split. Girolamo Savonarola 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to do the split, but anyone have any suggestions for the best way to go about it? Leave the film with the exiting article and make a new Forrest Gump (book), let the current be the book and make a new for the film, make two new and make the current a disambig, etc.  *scratching head over how to try to follow the naming guides without making a huge mess* AnmaFinotera 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just make Forrest Gump a disambiguation page, and let the reader decide if they want to go to Forrest Gump (character), Forrest Gump (novel), Forrest Gump (film), or the sequel book's page (I apologize for being too lazy to look its real title up). Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it more likely that by far the majority would be looking for the film, so this should have the Forrest Gump article name, with a couple of simple disambiguation links at the top? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: OK, the relevant section of the naming conventions reads "When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, [my emphasis] title the film article like this: Film Title (film)."  As I say, my feeling is that the film is the primary article in this case, though I have little idea how popular the novel was, and will be happy to be proven wrong. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forrest Gump 

message: Now that the Academy Awards banner is no longer on any pages there are several categories and pages that are no longer used. Not sure the best way to go about removing them. The actual banner itself is not used as well as the quality and importance categories. Banner is here:  and top level categories are :Category:Academy Awards articles by quality and :Category:Academy Awards articles by importance. Let me know what I need to do and i'll sort it. Cheers. RWardy 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CFD Girolamo Savonarola 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave the categories until 4 days/banner is deleted so they can be speedy deleted. RWardy 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty cats and old pages 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — RWardy 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:AcademyAwardsproj}}]] 

message: I'm watching this page, and was wondering if I could get help in keeping an eye on it? Since the sequel and director's cut is recent, I'm not surprised to see vandals, and the situation could get worse. I have feeling that it can even be one of the most vandalized movie articles until the actual Halloween day, TheBlazikenMaster 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw, but really the best thing is just to watch the page and, if it gets too crazy, request semi-protection. Girolamo Savonarola 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has now been semi-protected. Greg Jones II 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saw III]] 

message: I created Durian Durian today. Please improve it? Totnesmartin 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good start.  Take a look at the WikiProject's style guidelines for films -- also, I'd suggest looking at articles that have appeared in our spotlight to see their high-quality nature.  My first suggestion, though, is to insert an Infobox Film template in the article.  You can copy the template from Template:Infobox Film and paste it at the very top of that film article, then fill out the attributes.  Let me know if you need help with this! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Isn't this article just a poor-man's version of thie one?  I fail to see what the first article achieves, as it's all covered in the main one.  Merge and redirect them all as there's only a few (judging by the nav box at the foot of the page)? Lugnuts 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the recent 79th Academy Awards, it appears that for some reason, there is a sub-article containing all the nominees and winners.  I suppose 2nd Academy Awards was trying to follow this precedent, but it does not appear back then, there were as many categories for the Academy Awards, making the sub-article useless.  I'd support a merge, and it may be necessary to specify some criteria for articles about annual film awards like this, the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is a legacy remnant of style guidelines from WP Academy Awards. I happen to agree; there's no good reason why the entire nominee list can't appear in the ceremony article, with the winners appropriately differentiated from the rest. The only possible exception I could envision would be all of the country submissions for Best Foreign Film, but again, since most of these articles are considered List-Class, those could just as easily be integrated into the ceremony article too. Other thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking along the same lines while I was looking through to assess some of them. I thought it might be part of past style guidelines.  Might be an idea to ask the awards task force for their opinion (Have added a link to the awards talk page). RWardy 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary problem would probably be standardization. If including all the nominees and winners in the main article for the current awards isn't a problem, then there's no reason to keep the awards page proper separated from the winners and nominees article. If it is a problem of length for the more recent articles, then the two should probably be kept separate throughout the history of the awards. John Carter 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Awards - duplicate articles 

message: While looking up the name of an actor from Anaconda: Blood Orchid, I noticed that a section talking about a sequel Anaconda 3: The Offspring.  Looking at the article, though, all three sources fail the reliability standards and I can't find a single reliable source that mentions these two movies in the work, not even IMDB or David Hasslehoff's own site (and considering his site, I would think it would be all over it).  I'm not sure what, if anything, though should be done about the article.  If all of the sources are suspect, should it even have an article or are we only offering unintentional validation to what seems to be a vague rumor? Thoughts? AnmaFinotera 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaconda 3 

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic film topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: I have to start by saying that I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to all the legal ins and outs about pictures here at wikipedia so that is why I am posting this here. Today my watchlist revealed this edit . I have been under the impression that film posters weren't being deleted at the same rate as pictures, though I could be wrong. Since the editor that downloaded this may be long gone, or unaware of the need to update the page for this picture and since I have no clue what needs to be posted on the page to keep it from being deleted I am wondering if there is anyway to save the picture of this poster? One picture has already been deleted from this page and losing the poster from the infobox will leave the page looking rather forlorn. I realize that there may not be a way to keep this but if there is any help that can be given will be much appreciated so thanks, in advance, for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a more detailed rationale which will hopefully stop it being deleted. --BelovedFreak 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the above image issue has been resolved, this is continually happening for hundreds of images within the project each month due to editors not adding FURs/sources/properly stating which article the images is being used for. Although the initial editor who uploaded the image may receive the message, and as MarnetteD pointed out, they could no longer be with the project/don't care/don't know how to fix it, which will result in the deletion of the image unless someone happens to catch it if a message is left on the article's talk page (which happened in the above case). I'm not sure if it is possible or not, but we would probably be able to save more of the images from being deleted if the bot could specifically list all of the images for a certain WikiProject that it is currently going to delete in a week's time on some subpage. Then members of the project could determine what needs to be fixed for the listed images, address the issues, and save the images from deletion. This would allow other projects, not just ours, to also catch all images that are up for deletion. I don't know if this is feasible or not for the bot to do, but it would save time from having to reupload the image again later and possibly face the same issues. --Nehrams2020 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that SkierRMH set up a system to track this sort of thing. It almost looks like he's got it covered singled-handed but perhaps we could integrate it into the project. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe moving it to the project will get more watchful eyes on it and decrease the burden of addressing the images for SkierRMH. Thanks for pointing out the link. If SkierRMH doesn't mind and if other members are interested, I think we should move it to a subpage for the project. --Nehrams2020 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, we had an issue regarding this with a hasty admin, and I voiced similar concerns. Surely it can't be difficult to assign a topic category to the proposed image deletion, a la AfD? That way we can just have a regular page to keep tabs on. Girolamo Savonarola 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, he doesn't mind if this is added in!  If you look here User:SkierRMH/My Sandbox/Film toolbox I have a handy little work box  on all of the "watch areas" for the project.  It can be adapted as need be - a couple of other projects use something akin to this as a shortcut for their watch lists.  SkierRMH 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some help be given? 

message: Bad faith nom. in my book, but for those interested, take a look here and here! Lugnuts 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American film and TV actors up for deletion at CFD (!) 

message: The article Bills is fascinating though brief. It details how real-life gangs in Kinshasa based much of their image and outlook on the cowboys of American Western movies, esp. one that is a redlink, Pony Express (1953) starring Charlton Heston. This is interesting stuff that could use reapiars from a dedicated editor... --Ling.Nut 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlton Heston and/or cultural impact of American film: anyone interested? 

message: * has raised a concern about sourcing in the Plot section of The Simpsons article, The Joy of Sect.  Last time I asked this question,  DIFF,  DIFF, and  DIFF answered me quite quickly.  Perhaps someone could provide some clarification at Talk:The_Joy_of_Sect#Plot_synopsis ?  Thanks.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question has again come up about sourcing in plot sections 

message: I stumbled on this page when assessing articles. Should this page exist as surely the content should be on the page for the film (Sivaji (film)).  The cast and crew pages lists more people, but i'm sure it could be incorporated with the film article. Let me know what you think and i'll tag the pages with  and . Cheers. RWardy 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it's considered encyclopedic to have such an extensive list available for a film -- it's doubtful that there would be much real-world context behind all these names.  Sivaji (film)#Crew should be removed as well, unless there can be some information behind the names of the crew members.  Such lists are indiscriminate information, basically.  Other sources, including the film itself, will have the full credits available.  Film articles on Wikipedia should strive for more than just a list of names and roles.  A merge would be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Second Erik's comments.  Kill off the crew list, merge in anything salvagable from the Cast and Crew article and merge. AnmaFinotera 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of it most of the decent stuff is already there (The main characters section is identical on both). Might just need to go through AfD?. Cheers. RWardy 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Cast and crew of Sivaji]] needed? 

message: *http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/independence_day.htm
*http://www.film.com/movies/review/independenceday/13302022
*http://www.film.u-net.com/Movies/Reviews/Independence_Day.html
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/18/independence_day_1996_review.shtml
Currently these links are used as refs in Independence Day, but I'm unsure they could be considered "fit" to use as references. What do you think?  THROUGH FIRE  JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think only the last review from BBC would be acceptable.  You can find mainstream reviews at a film's Rotten Tomatoes page under the "Cream of the Crop" section, which collects reviews from mainstream media outlets.  Here it is for Independence Day. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've used Google Alerts to collect headlines on films, and I've just unloaded a batch on a few film articles' talk pages so they can be implemented in the article now or sometime in the future.  This is the list of film articles which will have a batch of headlines in their talk pages from yours truly:
*3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)
*Across the Universe (film)
*American Gangster (film) (halfway implemented)
*The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
*Beowulf (2007 film) 
*The Darjeeling Limited
*Eastern Promises
*Gone Baby Gone
*Into the Wild (film)
*Lions for Lambs
*Michael Clayton (film)‎
*Rendition (film)
*Stardust (2007 film)
*We Own the Night
Some of these films may be Oscar contenders or have players who will be Oscar contenders, so I figure it may be a good impression on the readership to have decent articles about the films come Oscar season.  No Country For Old Men (film) should be on the list, but I've only added it to my Google Alerts, as I did not expect it to be as big of a deal as it apparently is on Rotten Tomatoes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines for films 

message: Post you arguements for/against deletion here.  Lugnuts 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character actors categories up for deletion 

message: Friday the 13th (franchise) is up for GA review, and it's been sitting there for awhile now. Just thought I'd spread the word, in case there's some bored GA reviewers out there who have a spare minute...or 10.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring your criticism 

message: I would like to notify the users of this project of the featured list candidacy of List of films that received the Golden Film. The list article was nominated two weeks ago, but received only two comments and one support vote since. You can help by replying to the candidacy. Thank you, Ilse@ 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC List of films that received the Golden Film 

message: About a week ago I put a request for renaming on all of the talk pages below for the film series listed below. I have gotten very little in the way of a response for any of them. Some have had no activity at all since the request was added. Before moving them I would like to get some more input from this project.
These articles should be renamed to bring them inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. There are no other articles so named for series of films with other lengths (duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies, hexologies, etc.). Also, a lot of them could possibly grow. From what I understand LOTR is going to have The Hobbit made, so the LOTR article name would be inaccurate once The Hobbit is out. Also, with nothing ever being sacred for film makers, it is possible for the series that appear finished to be revived or added to later. Clint Eastwood could get really nostalgic and do another Dollar film for all we know. Lucas could be dead and buried and his estate nearly bankrupt years from now, and the Star Wars property could be sold to the highest bidder who then continues the original and prequel series independently. We may not ever know. So, those are the possible reasons why the word trilogy should not be used in these article titles. Please discuss each separately on their talk pages.
Thank you. - LA @ 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue I have with some of these moves is that some of these films were explicitly intended to be trilogies, like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.  Other items like Blade or Spy Kids would make sense as a film series.  Is there not a way to make a distinction between films that were planned as trilogies from the get-go as opposed to films that either kept going because the first, then second, made enough money or as opposed to films that could've made more but ran dry?  Seems like this distinction needs to be made -- even if rights are usurped in the future for whatever reason, trilogies like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars would remain quintessential trilogies, no matter what. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there needs to be some distinction made. "Dollars Trilogy" is listed here, and as I said on the merge, you cannot say "Dollars (film series)", because "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" didn't have "Dollars" in its name, and they weren't called "Dollars, Dollars 2, and Dollars 3". The name "Dollars Trilogy" is something given to the three films as a whole, not a title they share. It's about the plot of the films. The same thing could be said about "Apocolypse Trilogy"--not title sharing, but plot sharing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOTR can't be renamed: I've already made this clear on the talk page. If The Hobbit is made, it's still it's own unique adaptation, not LOTR, even if it could be the same cast and crew. Alientraveller 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole, the whole point is to remove the constricting use of the word trilogy. There are no other instances where the amount of films is used in the naming of the article about the film series. I do not think that anyone would call the article on the Freddy/Jason film series The Freddy/Jason octodecology (or nonodecologies if Chasing Jason is allowed to be considered part of the series). - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Erik, LOTR will not be a trilogy when The Hobbit is made as the prequel, it will be a tetralogy. If the other book is made, the Sim(somethingorother), it will be a pentalogy. - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's an adaptation of The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings trilogy adaptation. Consensus has been reached there. Alientraveller 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) In response to Apocalypse Trilogy, I think that the article should be disseminated altogether.  Even if he personally considers it his own trilogy, there does not seem to be enough real-world context (that isn't original research, anyway) about all three films to warrant a trilogy article.  It could easily be a sentence or two at the article for John Carpenter: "John Carpenter considers The Thing (1982), Prince of Darkness (1987), and In the Mouth of Madness (1995) a collective body of work, which he calls his Apocalypse Trilogy."  It's purely nominal here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As for LOTR and The Hobbit, wouldn't it be better for information about the prequel to be placed in the book's article, if consensus was reached to establish LOTR as a trilogy?  I realize that the content was moved from the book's article, but perhaps this needs to be undone to keep topics consistent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To LA, I understand the generalizing thing you are trying to do, but the problem is that you are doing it in a manner that suggests "Trilogy" is never used when describing a set of films. I agree that people use that word all the time whenever a third film comes out, but certain films are specifically that. The Dollars Trilogy is specifically marketed as such, it's known as such by probably any film scholar that you can find. It is not, I repeat, not known as "Dollars" with three films attached to it. "Dollars Trilogy" is specifically geared to the idea that surrounds those films, not their titles. Hence why I oppose the name change for "Dollars Trilogy", but support it for "Grudge Trilogy", because there is a difference between the use of "Trilogy" in those two titles. As for your example of Freddy and Jason, well they don't have joint films. We have a Friday the 13th (franchise) page, which is named for the purpose that it encompasses far more than just the film series. I'm sure there is A Nightmare on Elm Street film series page somewhere as well.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Disambiguations should only be used when necessary to disambiguate between identically named articles. Overall, the consensus of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia should be used to determine the article titles. When I was going through these they were all called Trilogies. It's a popular word. And if a 4th film is added it's not at all difficult to move the article to whatever the collection of films might be called afterwards. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for renaming - trilogy to (film series) 

message: The  template was recently deleted and the spoiler guideline was rewritten. I have a question regarding spoiler warnings in relation to MOS:FILM and I have a started a new section on the talk page for MOS:FILM discussing it. I would appreciate some input from editors involved with WikiProject Films about this. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about spoiler warnings at [[MOS:FILM]] 

message: Just an FYI... I've been working on consolidating the film templates' categories down to one - :Category:WikiProject Films templates, which is now linked on the project page.  I know there's lots of other templates out there, if anyone finds them, please add them to this category.  The now redundant :Category:Film templates will be nominated for deletion as redundant as soon as it's 100% de-populated.  SkierRMH (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Consolidation 

message: A discussion of fair use images in film actor articles is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and editors have begun removing images from actor articles. In my opinion, the fair use hawks demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the difference between a photo of an actor as her/himself versus an image of a fictional role in a way which may seriously impact articles related to our project. I think the input of editors who are educated about film would be very valuable. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that the situation seems to be one regarding one single editor who has determined that his own, personal, opinion should determine wikipedia content. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who removed images is far from the only one there who thinks that screenshots and the like are "replaceable" for living actor bios. The discussion is ongoing, complete with a list of actor articles that use fair use images of actors in character, so I wanted to notify this project so that concerned editors have the chance to participate. --Melty girl (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, without consensus or official review, deleting of images has begun. The fair use hawks do not understand visual art/film. It's the actor articles now, but don't say I didn't warn you... --Melty girl (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alert: film actor fair use images are in potential jeopardy 

message: How do we resolve the question here, when reliable sources differ?  What role does "I watched it and the New York Times was wrong" play?  (as an example.  I haven't re-watched it, so I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to re-watch it if ya'll have a better answer for how to resolve this).  The question is at ATC's talk page instead of the article talk page because she is still learning her way around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How relevant is the boy's age to the film?  He could easily be called preteen, since both 10 and 12 are under 13. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's particularly relevant, but ATC seems to care.  I'm wondering more on general principle what we do when reliable sources differ on a film.  And, 10 is a key age for Tourette syndrome, as tics tend to statistically peak at 10, and decline thereafter, so the 12 surprises me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I come across conflicting information, I try to sidestep the issue by adding ambiguity to it.  If the information needs to be included, though, perhaps ATC can retrieve the direct quote from the film that mentions the age.  I've seen on top-rated articles about fictional characters that take quotes to shape the background of the character.  Perhaps the same can be done here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you rewatched it, so I don't have to, but since reliable sources disagree, it's probably best to simply leave out the age and not guess.  It's fine just to say a "young boy" or a pre-teen.  We really don't need to introduce the age, and if we do, I'll have to put together a fancy footnote explaining the sources that differ.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[The Tic Code]]'' 

message: I'm just wondering why there are no movie ratings on Wikipedia. I think it would be very useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.56 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To which kind of ratings do you refer? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably means movie certificates. While I feel we could change WP:MOSFILMS to allow an English-language bias, uncontroversial cases (eg a violent assasin film getting an 18) violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Alientraveller (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could put all the different countries ratings into the info boxes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I was thinking. Video game pages have ratings from many different countries on their pages. Why not the same thing with movies? Flamingtorch372 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a bad idea. But it's not a simple thing either. The law of the country gives the movie the age limit, and there are plenty of countries out there. So it would be hard to get all the ratings out there. In my opinion, those on English-speaking countries (or country of origin) should be listed. If people wanted to know ratings in other countries they could go to that language's Wikipedia, or look it up somewhere. Ever wondered why we have link to the Internet Movie Database in the infobox? It's because it has all the info you need which doesn't fit to this website. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings? 

message: I have tagged that article a lot, I invite you to join the article talk page and tell me what you think. Believe me, this is something you can discuss here as well, as this isn't only about the article, also the future of movies. Just read the talk page of that article, and tell me what you think. And tell if you can help, again it doesn't matter which talk page you choose, as both this one and the article's talk page I'm pointing at is relevant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, congratulations on the page so far - it looks like a lot of time and care has gone into the content and design, and it is very informative. However, I'd like to just broach one concern, which really is less about that particular page and more about the entire series of [year] in film articles: they are tremendously biased towards American mainstream films. What do you think could be done to remedy this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2008 in movies]] 

message: Blade Runner has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs) 05:49, November 23, 2007
:I've made some comments at the discussion page, and I've provided a pretty exhaustive list of resources at User:Erik/Blade Runner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blade Runner 

message: is apparently blind in why this category should be deleted, and is unable to follow the rules of contesting the speedy deletion of this redundant category. Alientraveller (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest a category redirect? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Films of the 21st century]] 

message: I just thought I would say that Hairspray (2007 film) is currently undergoing a peer review in hopes of further improving the article.  Seeing as the film falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I thought I would post here to let any members of this WikiProject who might be able to help know that any contributions they could make would be more than welcome.  Thanks! —Mears man (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hairspray (2007 film) peer review 

message: Hi.  Please see Talk:Jar Jar Binks#WikiProject_Films.  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article review request for [[Jar Jar Binks]] 

message: Could someone take a look at Talk:Manon of the Spring (film). As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), the most common title should be used. In this case Manon des Sources is around three times more common than Manon of the Spring. IMDb uses Manon des Sources. It also makes sense to use the original French title as the first film, Jean de Florette, has a French title and no English equivalent. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: What is the project's policy on using Ain't it Cool News as a source? Is it classed as reliable for works that have already been produced (i.e. AICN reports a rumour which turns out to be true)? Brad (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely not use Ain't It Cool News as a reliable source for rumors since it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.  While I personally think that the website should not be cited in articles whenever possible due to the obviously questionable appearance, the website does occasionally have interviews with filmmakers and cast members containing information not found elsewhere.  So basically, AICN should be OK for primary sources where people involved with the film are upfront in articles such as interviews.  However, for rumors, it shouldn't be used.  If it becomes true later, then just use whatever reliable source redeemed it true, like the director in an interview or The New York Times. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do. Brad (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AICN as a source? 

message: Hi everybody.  I know that for albums, as per this, they are all categorized by artist, even if they've only released one album.  What are the rules for the films by director category?  Obviously the cat should only exist if the director has an article to begin with, but how many films does a director need before the category is created?  Should all directors who have at least 1 film on WP have a category in :Category:Films by director?  Looking forward to hearing your views. Lugnuts (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. The problem with the matter is that usually all albums are created more or less in whole through the artist, while with films, the collaborative nature makes the question: who is the artist? We've been conditioned to generally perceive the director as the auteur of the form, but this is not necessarily so and is generally a more recent perception. I would say that this is an issue, though, which sorts itself out - if there is enough interest for someone to start grouping a director's films together, then it is valid. On the other hand, it perhaps isn't unreasonable to suggest that at least two or three articles should exist before creating a category. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply and input.  Any more comments from anyone?  I was hoping to get some sort of consenus on this and adopt it as policy, along the lines of the albums guidelines. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Films by director 

message: I am slowly making my way through the articles on the various films Alfred Hitchcock directed and am finding them either completely unreferenced or incredibly under-referenced. These films are quite famous and most, if not all, are considered classics. It cannot possibly be difficult to find references. I am adding them as I work my way through two biographies in addition to using my good friend Google :) If anyone else would like to pitch in it would be much appreciated. IrishGuy talk 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised.  Older films tend to have more underdeveloped articles unless they're highly billed.  Hitchcock films are known because of Hitchcock (and unsurprisingly, there's a substantial article about him).  If you need any references for a specific film, I'd be happy to provide some.  Any specific requests, though?  Obviously, there are quite a few films by him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been combing through the 1940's and 1950's films. I am up to To Catch a Thief. I haven't had a chance to get to anything after Thief nor have I delved into the films of the '20's and '30's. IrishGuy talk 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to work through all the films, updating them with cast lists and adding in articles for actors, etc.  Alot of good work in those earlier film articles though, compared to other films of that era. Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchcock films 

message: is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of film posters/DVD covers for standard identification of a film in an infobox, as well as our filmrationale template. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use for identification 

message: On "Genres (top-level genres only; no subgenres)", what if the movie is a mix of two genres, and the funny/scary scenes are equal (Horror comedy in this case)?
Oh and before you ask, yes I am inactive. I just come here once a day, and make VERY minor edits. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your activity level is up to you and has no bearing either way - we don't require people to be on the member list and it confers no special privileges. As for the question - task forces generally are allowed to be liberal in their scope - the idea of a task force is to single out a particular group of articles for particular attention, so a film under several task forces has a better likelihood of receiving editorial attention. We have many articles which are part of several of the national task forces, due to international co-production, nationality of the filmmakers, and where they were filmed. There's no reason why a film couldn't belong to several genre task forces. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And WP:MILHIST certainly makes it clear that they think articles can fit within the scope of several task forces, so there is certainly precedent for doing so. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Potential task forces|Question regarding this]] 

message: To reduce systemic bias, I've taken to adding "American" in the first sentence of the lead section for American films.  For example, "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film based on the fictional DC Comics character Batman."  I've used American, while I noticed Alientraveller use American at Cloverfield.  In addition, there's been some edits at The Lovely Bones (film) (page history) about how to identify the nationality of this film, which is produced in the United States and New Zealand.  The issue was temporarily disambiguated to say "of the 2002 American novel".  I've looked at WP:MOSFILM#Lead section, which unfortunately seems American-biased on the matter: "The very first paragraph should cover the ... country (if not the US)..."  I am wondering what is the best way to determine the nationality of the film.  It seems that The Lovely Bones is an American production -- while it is produced in New Zealand, it is not a "New Zealand film".  Another example is Valkyrie (film), which is an American film produced in Germany.  Thoughts on the matter, especially how to wiki-link "American" in the lead section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not define a film by its nationality unless it was made entirely in one nation. Films by Peter Jackson or Tim Burton are NZ/US or UK/US co-productions, respectively, but a film like Transformers was made entirely in the USA. I don't mean just shooting locations: where it was written, edited, scored, had its effects and sound completed and so on. Alientraveller (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, the likes of LOTR or Harry Potter are UK or NZ-based productions, despite American funding. Although this does complicate the likes of Bond or Narnia, which shoot up and down the planet... Alientraveller (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should look at studios and their distribution as factors.  Some films will be produced in other countries because it's cheaper, but there is still a certain national studio backing it.  Some American films will be mostly/entirely produced in Canada or Eastern Europe because it's cheaper, but they're still for the American film market.  Perhaps we should outline the distinctions to find, though we'll need to inject some ambiguity due to complicated factors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, shooting films in other countries has always been an economic or artistic practise, but there is a difference between a film's shooting locations and it being produced between different countries. Again, I cite Peter Jackson, who has the support of American money for films he writes, shoots, edits and supervises visual and sound effects in New Zealand. If we got too specific, it'd be indiscriminate, because likewise the Bond films base production in Britain but shoot in exotic locales. Alientraveller (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how would one address a film that's equally shot all over the world on American coin?  We need to determine some kind of threshold.  For Lord of the Rings, the films strike me as American-produced, no matter where actual production took place.  The talk about filming The Hobbit is taking place in the United States -- there's no New Zealand ownership in determining its making. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of films 

message: Are Web series, Webisodes, and List of Internet television seriesthe like considered to be a part of this project?  --Is this fact...? 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's internet television, then it would be part of the Television Project.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web-Only Series 

message: You may be interested to share your views at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Fiction_in_Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR and movie plots 

message: A note to the members of the project. Today The Tramp moved Fantasia (film) to Fantasia (film) without giving any reason or with any discussion on the films talk page or here at the project page. While I don't know this for sure I think that this editor does not realize the full implications of this move and they, more than likely, did not fix any double redirects - or single ones for that matter. I am alerting the project in case those of you who know how want to move it back. However, if you are okay with this move than so am I but you may want to keep an eye on this editor in case they start moving things in a wholesale fashion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I left him a note as well, for what it's worth. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed page move 

message: An editor has requested that this receive attention from the community with an eye towards fixing rather than deleting. At the moment, it's a collection of unsourced trivia that could easily be construed as original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award records]] 

message: Hey, I'm trying to improve Behold a Pale Horse (film), but have kinda hit a wall on sources. Does anyone know a way to find stuff from the mid-60s (critique, analysis, etc.) that would be helpful? I'd love to get this article up above Start status, but can't really do much more without finding some more sources. Murderbike 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think you'll struggle for online sources, but sometimes the Google News archive throws up a few good articles from the period. Though many require payment (I've excluded the non-free ones from that search; the option to include all articles is under Advanced archive search beside the searchbox). For anything else, it might be necessary to do some unfortunate leg work and check a main library. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was kind of thinking of print sources I could find at the library. Maybe collections of Variety or something? Murderbike (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a list of possible resources that you could check out.  If you go to the library, you can try to see about searching news headlines via their databases and write down information (and the citation) from them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's great. Thanks a lot! Murderbike (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources?