Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/List and navigation management

message: It is my opinion and the opinion of many more editors, that lists full of red links are not advisable. The List of Austrian films contains an overwhelming majority of red link. I think this should be avoided. I take the List of Thai films as a good example of moderate use of red links, whereas most other articles are left unlinked. Don't forget that we have a project page for lists of films without articles by country. My idea is to link to this page in section "See also", so that if editors want to pick a red link to start an article, they can do it there. Also I think we should limit the use of bold text in titles. IMO if bold must be used, it should only be for the title as per article, while aka names and translations should be in normal text. Hoverfish Talk 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links and title formatting in lists entries 

message: The List of Australian films (and it's not the only one) has been split to pages of decades and individual years. This means that when one tries to do a maintenance round and see if the "overall list" is properly updated from, say, :Category:Australian films, one has to keep tens of tabs open and edit them all separately and simultaneously. This seriously slows down the work and can discourage one to even do proper maintance. Someone from outside trying to do some checking will have much of the same problem. I suggest condencing to decades. I have checked for size and it's not going to be too bad, at least until the 2000s. I also did some sampling in titles without an article and found several films with an imdb rating of around 4 (example: imdb), with no awards or nominations, plus going to the uncreated page and checking for "what links here" only one had a red link in the screenwriter's filmography. Some critical prunning would help. We can have huge dumps (actually we do have several) in the lists of films without article, and we could give a "see also" link to each county's dump. We can also define in the lead section that it is "a list of most notable Australian films". I think if we use this key phrase in all the lists' lead sections, we will avoid oversize lists and at the same time we will have more "top" and useful lists. Hoverfish Talk 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of lists and problems with splitting

message: One thing I would like to bring to people attention is the seriously increasing number of external links now appearing in the list of films such as the Australian films. The page List of Australian films now has a directory of external sites which whilst being useful for finding out of Aussie films - will serve to direct users to other sites rather than staying at wikipedia. THis is also against WP:SPAM I dont see a problem with two or three links and several links to imdb but please no more than a few. I don't want to attract the wrong kind of attention unnecessarily. THanks and keep up the good work.  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just glancing, and they all seem like useful, valid links and I don't see why they would cause a problem. Wikipedia isn't in competition for people's eyeballs like sites that depend on advertising. I agree that there are a lot of them, though, and perhaps ways should be looked at to narrow some of those down. For example, perhaps the film festival links could be put on an article or list that is dedicated to Film festivals in Australia. — WiseKwai 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think too that the links at the end of the article are good. I thought the problem was the imdb-links for nearly every film. -- Otto Normalverbraucher 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many external links

message: This thing with the red links should be discussed by all of us who work on lists. I took them off the Australian list, but had in mind to run the list for famous ("needed") films and link them again. But I don't feel confident either way. This is why I think it should become a major discussion topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied discussion on wikifying missing links

message: (See above copied discussion)
As the films by country are being compiled lately, there arises the problem of red links present in the lists. I have to admit I am not sure what is preferable. Link all films and have lists full of red links, no links on films without an article, or some selective linking? Please, offer your opinion, so we can proceed in a way agreed by many editors. Hoverfish Talk 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional comment: going by previous discussion about this issue, I really like the idea of keeping red links in the lists of films without articles (for reference and disambiguation and all reasons stated above) which keeps the main article clean and free of red links. This way just obviously notable award winning films or high grossing films can be red linked, all others are likely never to even have an article. Peter 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This is why we have the project page for films without an article. There we (film gnomes) can do all the checking and developing. As for films with an article, they have to be linked in the main list. So is your opinion "complete linking" or "selective"? Hoverfish Talk 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've thought about it and think selected titles should be linked. All other minor titles can be linked to from the missing articles page(s). As long as new titles being added can be easily tracked and checked to make sure they are also linked on the main list page. Peter 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Selective linking If only a few titles are missing just leave them red linked but if entire pages are majority red links like Australian and German films then black out the majority and leavejust a few which are the most notable linked  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for consensus on linking films without an article

message: I notcied that WiseKwai has reduced the size template for Thai cinema. I actually like it smaller and looks better at the footer of articles and has the editing options bar on it but I feel it is perhaps just slightly too small. Looks much less bloated tbough. What does everyone think as I'd like a standard templating for each country rather than all different sizes appearing here and there  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was something I tried out after I noticed another editor changed . I inquired about it and found out that there is a standard template template, Template:Navigation, which has the edit, history and hide functions built in, and is, well, standard. I think the Thai film icon is too small on the present set up, but at least it is there. There is the option of Template:Navigation with image, but those work best on navigation templates with lots of text. I tried experimenting and it was too bloated. Anyway, if other folks like, I'd be happy to work at gradually migrating the other templates to whatever new standard is agreed upon. — WiseKwai 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or (there should be an or), we could reduce the cinema-flag somewhat (30-34px is ok IMO) and apply it to all countries. Hoverfish Talk 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I played around trying to make the stripe wider but it won't budge. Modifying the template, you mean make our own? Ghm... Hoverfish Talk 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thai film template

message: Here is a before & after & alternative 2 of the Canadian list navigation. I prefer the "Before", but Blofeld seems to think the "After" looks better, so he is substituting it where there are decades listed. Anyone else has a preference? Hoverfish Talk 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List navigation formatting

message: There is a TfD on actor filmography templates taking place in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11#Template:Matthew McConaughey. The main reason for the nomination is their inclusion in film articles, which creates an additional problem along with the numerous footer templates used in film articles. This one is a particularly serious case because of the number of important actors that can be part a film's cast. It has been suggested that a more general decision is taken in this department. Hoverfish Talk 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor filmography templates in films 

message: As there shall be lists for films of every country, and as the navigation boxes for every country include links not only to films of a country but also for its directors, screenwriters etc., I suppose, that these people shall also have lists (and not only categories). Am I right with this supposition? Because I just created (copied) the List of Austrian film directors from de-Wikipedia to here. Is this OK? I am planning to create also lists for Austrian screenwriters, cinematographers, producers and of course actors. For these groups of film people exist links in the navigation box. But in the de-Wikipedia I did not create lists for all these people, but a list which includes all them, except the actors and directors, who have own lists (beacause there are so much of them). This "all together-list" can be seen here: :de:Liste bedeutender österreichischer Filmschaffender. It includes also film composers (there are very much of them!), production designers (also plenty) and costume designers (a few). Own lists for all of them would not make very much sense - so is there a way to create a list which includes these groups together? -- Otto Normalverbraucher 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  further lists