Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 10

message: A plague has been spreading across the Indian cinema articles, and I gather it has its source outside. Editors have been putting a list of "Notable roles" in actor infoboxes. I've been removing them, on the grounds that it's personal opinion as to which roles are notable. I'd be OK with putting up a list of "Five most popular films, by box office totals", which is verifiable and not a matter of opinion, but other editors are resisting, on the grounds that they "know" which roles are notable. Truthiness, in a word.
I've been online for twenty years and I'm familiar with many BBS/Usenet/blog discussions of the "X best Y", all of which go on endlessly and are never resolved. I don't think "best", or "most notable", can ever be resolved by discussion; you have to have a metric to which everyone agrees. 
I would appreciate it if we could have a binding policy on notable roles. Either drop them, or have a metric that isn't subjective. Zora 07:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of notable roles has gone on several times on the actor infobox talk page. It would probably be more appropriate to bring up the issue there, since it is more of a biography wp issue.--PhantomS 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One possibility is to use the biographical content of the article itself to determine "notable roles", and use that part of the article and a quick index to film links.  So if an article contains a small section about an actor playing a part in a particular film, then it would be reasonable to put a link to that film in the notable role info box.  On the other hand, a film that isn't mentioned in the biographical text but that instead only appears in the actor's bullet point list of works would not be suitable. This gives you one relatively objective method of using information within the article itself to determine how to fill in a "role" box for the article. Just a suggestion. Dugwiki 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .... and a very good suggestion , too.  If a role is notable enough to be mentioned in the prose of the article, as 'stable prose' which has been subjected to standard consensus editing procedures, then it stands to reason that such a role is notable, otherwise the mention should have been removed from the article.  This doesn't apply to lists, though, just because a role made it onto a filmographic list of roles is not a good criterion.  I agree with Dugwiki, above. User:Pedant 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable roles 

message: The article Jesus of Nazareth (film) (poor Franco Zeffirelli's) needs as many tags as it can get. I don't know where to start. Excellent film by the way. Hoverfish Talk 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeez! 

message: Is there a good place to find box office and budget info?  This info is hard to find, and it would be great if we could put it into wikipedia so it's easy to find for once.  I know you can find new box office receipts, but I'm thinking of stuff like Shanghai Knights. - Peregrine Fisher 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB has this type of information for many films. If IMDB has it, it will be located in 'Other Info->box office & business'. --PhantomS 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it considered a reliable source?  Anyways, thanks a lot for that info.  I've been looking for it, and it's right in front of me every time I go to imdb. - Peregrine Fisher 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how reliable it is, but it is what is typically used for the infoboxes. --PhantomS 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source for box office info is Box Office Mojo. They don't have info for older movies, especially anything before the late 1970s and more obscure films of 80s and 90s, but they're a reliable source. Volatile 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if this is the case, and it sounds quite reasonably true, we should discuss about removing this field from the infobox and letting it up to some section to mention budget, so it can be sourced or openly doubted. In the infobox it looks like an undisputed fact. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, removing budget from the infobox is a good idea, or else qualify it as "estimated" or "reported" budget.  I agree that the infobox has the look of undisputed factual information.  For an external reference, the website www.the-numbers.com which is dedicated to reporting on such things says this: "Note: Budget numbers for movies can be both difficult to find and unreliable. Studios often try to keep the information secret and will use accounting tricks to inflate or reduce announced budgets."  On a tangent, it's also curious to note how one source might list a film like Treasure Planet as the biggest financial disaster in film history (having lost a reported $125 million dollars by some people's accounting), but the same film might not make another source's list of the 20 biggest money losers because it actually had a pretty big box-office and the selected criteria ignore factors such as marketing costs, etc.  Figuring how much a movie "cost" is as nebulous as figuring out how much of the box-office money found its way back to the "production company," especially considering the complex business relationships between multiple production, distribution, and marketing companies which may cooperate or coexist under the umbrella of one or more "parent companies."  Foreign distibution really adds to the confusion, as does the phenomenon of international coproduction.  Heck, it's ultimately mindboggling. zadignose 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue and budgets 

message: I have been adding release dates to many articles and I believe we need (1) The release date in the country that made the film. (2) The release dates in English-speaking countries (because this is the English Wikipedia). Release dates in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand are not trivial to the many readers who may wish to know when it was released in their country. (3) In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it would still be interesting to know when it was released there). We do not need the release dates in any other country. That's my system! Thoughts? Cop 633 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to go! That's the WP Films system actually. I've seen some completely irrelevant country release dates here and there. I guess someone copies them from imdb if they happen to be there. They can be simply deleted. Just make sure the country was not a co-producer. What we get most often as "2" is US release. Now, if we add all English-speaking countries it may get to be somewhat too long, even for the sake of NPOV. And yes, I agree that if a specific country release has some historical or cultural singnificance in respect to the film we can add it (and hopefully we can pass on all the flagicons - see above). Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that would be a problem to add it. As I went through adding infoboxes, I did add as many dates as available to be broad enough for people of various countries to be able to see their respective country release date. I wasn't selective and tried to add all of the available theater release dates. Of course there is a problem of IMDB not listing every country's release date. I don't think it's necessary to go thorough and delete all extra release dates, but this guideline could be used for adding them in the future. --Nehrams2020 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Gladiator (2000 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.</small>
 Cbrown1023 talk 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CineVoter

message: B movie 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.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B movie FAR

message: I suggest we split class stub into "mini-stub" or "sub-stub" for articles created with only one or two lines or even just a cast section after them and "basic-stub" or just "stub". The reason is that for such mini-stubs it's not worth to spend our time adding infoboxes and images, unless someone cares to develop them to a basic stub. Also if the minis appear in a talk-page category of their own, someone can go through their lot and check if some could do with an upward push. Hoverfish Talk 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit on something that's immediately workable and useful here. It'll take some pressure off the infobox project and make that task less daunting and more rewarding. — WiseKwai 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would we need a new template or class for our film templates? The class system is for our own use in our project, right? So we can add another class that would somehow prevent adding infobox/photo requests until it has actually reached a normal stub class or above? Although our infobox requests have reached over a thousand (most of those my fault), I have sought the assistance of WP:Horror, Persian and Indian cinema, and Infoboxes. The WP:Infoboxes has created a section for fulfilled infobox requests, so if we develop that page more, we could probably start getting some assistance from there. I don't ever see having less than 50 infobox requests or something, but we should at least be able to get this down to below a few hundred. I think we've had so many requests in the last few weeks from new editors starting a lot of new films, foreign films being added, and revisiting older films. Hopefully this should slow down soon, especially if we can create the ministub/substub system to help cut it down to focusing on our more developed articles. --Nehrams2020 09:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mind the idea but I recommend reading over Template talk:Substub before doing anything.  The substub idea was rejected because "there are no longer any substubs".  This may not be true but the discussion has been had it and should be referred to before recreating it even on a single-project scale.  My biggest concern is that articles change and because something is a substub now doesn't really mean it won't be good later--and people aren't very likely to change the talk template as they expand it.  My suggestion would be that maybe you categorize according to importance.  Low important articles get different standing than mid importance one.  The only issue with that is maybe only 'low importance' films don't have infoboxes. gren グレン 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have here* a first draft. Please comment here below. Hoverfish Talk 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would this template apply only to films or to all similar small stubs in other subjects/fields? --Nehrams2020 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I have no objection but I think it still might be a waste of time... stubs by definition need expansion so the name isn't very telling and I could very well see it ending up on TfD (although, not by my hand).  I think you may be better off with a template for "WikiProject Films User-requested infobox"  Therefore users can request articles they find to be more important.  That's not a very good suggestion either, but, it's the first thing I could think of.  I understand what you're trying to do but I think in the end more time would be wasted adding the tag than each user judiciously choosing which ones films this wish to add infoboxes to.  My two cents--take it or leave and I hope it works out :)  --gren グレン 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting class stub, or... 

message: It seems that genre is not routinely mentioned in wiki film articles. the infobox would seem to be a good place to include it, I think. any thoughts on this? High Heels on Wet Pavement 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: If you spot a filmography, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per WP:LOW, or tag it with the template . This template looks like this:
:It seems we have a lot of work to do here. Hoverfish Talk 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject is undergoing spirited discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography. — WiseKwai 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Upside-down filmographies

message: FYI, I've listed all LGBT films without infoboxes at WikiProject LGBT studies, so we should be helping to tackle it there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we've eliminated 42% of our articles without infoboxes so far. YAY! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI infoboxes... 

message: I don't know if this has ever come up here before, I usually don't work on film articles. I would like to see film ratings for major English-speaking markets (US, Canada, UK, etc.) in the film articles, either in the info box or in a dedicated section of the article.  I would prefer it to be in a dedicated section to explain why the film garnered such a rating (a film rated PG-13 in the US for realistic war violence is much different than a film with the same rating for adult themes, nudity and sexual inuendo).  I know WP is an encyclopedia, not a parental guide, but the film rating is a big part of marketing strategy with directors and producers often aiming for a certain rating depending on their intended target audience.  It is an important part of all films and in that sense is encyclopedic.  Any thoughts?--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . Cbrown1023 talk 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the style guidelines are just guidelines and are a minimum, which is why they don't include this.  You may include whatever information you would like in an article, provided that it is sourced (most movies have the reasons listed underneath the rating). Cbrown1023 talk 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Ratings 

message: I think we should all work from the beginning of the alphabet at :Category:Articles that need a film infobox, that way we can see the progress as we go through the A's, then the B's.  That's what I've been doing, and I can see the progress I'm making.  I think the sense of accomplishment that would result would help motivate this endeavor. - Peregrine Fisher 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:LGBT has eliminated a third of its share by picking articles at random, so I guess different things work for different people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As part of WP:LGBT, I work at random. =) — Emiellaiendiay 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox project 

message: Does anyone know of a really good quality documentary article, similar to Trembling before G-d? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Triumph of the Will is a featured article.  - Bobet 13:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: k, thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary article wanted 

message: Where does wikiepdia get the pictures for the DVD cover or video cover on film related articles, they look like too professional too have been taken with a digital camera as you can always make the small text out, does any one know where there from?? Thanks.TellyaddictEditor review! 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where???? 

message: Hi there. What the consensus on whether made-for-TV programmes should appear in the national lists of films? A Canadian Christmas TV special named Christmas Two Step had been categorized as a film, and hence appears in List of Canadian films: 1970s (see 1975). I don't think it should be there. While all films play on TV these days, I believe there remains a distinction between a film and something that's expressly made for TV. What's the consensus? Thanks. Shawn in Montreal 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also curious about this, having run into BBC "films" and such, since the standard film infobox and template doesn't seem to apply to them.  Perhaps we should have a separate template/infobox/etc?  Do they fall under WP Television?  María: (habla ~ cosas)  20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The television wikiproject has . --PhantomS 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we talking about just passing the infobox requests over to WP:TV, or completely removing any television films from our project? I've only been adding the film template after I had seen it with other television films before. If we removed it from our project, that would drastically cut down on infobox/image and expansion requests. However, it is debatable that television films are still films, just presented on the television instead of the big screen and some usually end up on VHS/DVDs eventually. --Nehrams2020 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And what about The Year Without a Santa Claus, which is also a Xmas special, like the one Shawn mentions? Hoverfish Talk 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV specials/programmes in a film list?

message: Is the Film portal in our jurisdiction (not sure if that is correct, but you get the general idea)? It looks like it needs to be updated for the month, which we're already almost halfway done with now. Should we set this up better to make sure that it is updated? Or is there some outside group that takes care of it? --Nehrams2020 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be maintained by both the Film wikiproject and the Filmmaking wikiproject. --PhantomS 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal:Film

message: Late last night, I decided to do a test page concerning years in the animation industry. It centred on one I've been thinking of doing for some time now, 1985.
Yes, Wikipedia has year pages dealing with film, but isn't it time someone did the same thing for cartoons?
This is only the start of a series that will aim to be a really good resource for fans of the genre. Please leave messages and opinioins here and on my talk. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this intended for feature length animations, or for short too? Hoverfish Talk 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both feature-length works and shorts, as well as TV shows, milestones, births/deaths and the sort. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toon years 

message: Is it discouraged to use the cast list from IMDb prior to a film's release?  I've stuck to actual mentions of actors and actresses in articles, as I've found issues with the full reliability of IMDb.  (A couple of examples come to mind: Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3 and Ed Norton as John Bauer for 24 Season 5.)  Is there a specific way to address this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the cast list, among other things, are submitted by users for IMDB. I'm sure they face vandalism just like Wikipedia, so you may see some incorrect inclusions. I would suggest for future films that you attempt to go by what is confirmed by other sources or what sounds reasonable (Aunt May as Carnage?). If a mistake is made, somebody can always fix it in the future when more details are known. Perhaps it is best to wait until the cast list is confirmed or after the movie is released before adding it. Just include the actors without their roles. It probably differs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the popularity of the film and the sources available. --Nehrams2020 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  IMDb is simply not an accurate reference in any form.  Use it as a starting point, but double check everything you find there.  I would stick with a credited cast.  The Photoplayer 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I think the cast list at IMDb is acceptable to use post-release because it's basically from the film's credits (I think), so it's not bits and pieces. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast from IMDb 

message: Does anyone here actually use the term 'motion picture' when speaking about films? I'm just wondering because I've been encountering it a lot in articles (e.g. "so-and-so is a 1998 motion picture"). To me it sounds incredibly quaint, so I always change it to 'film', but maybe I'm the one who's being eccentric. Thoughts? Cop 633 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say film is the modern word for motion picture, and there's nothing wrong with changing it.  I also think that motion picture is OK; there both fine. - Peregrine Fisher 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same note, I've been changing movie to film if I'm making other corrections, which I think is due to the WP:Films naming conventions of the title from something like Caroline (1938 movie) to Caroline (1938 film). I really don't think it matters too much as long as we try to be uniform. Most people know what a movie/film/motion picture is or that they are about the same thing. --Nehrams2020 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Motion picture'

message: Are there any guidelines for how much information we are putting in the infoboxes? Obviously the project will be completed much more quickly if we put the minimum amount of info in (as I've seen quite a lot recently) but is there much point in adding an infobox with just a title and maybe one or two names? Belovedfreak 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, yes that makes sense I guess. Belovedfreak 12:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice, however, some infoboxes with content much less than the article could offer. This is like we will have to go twice through the ordeal. Anyone concerned, please, do give as much information as the article permits. Of course where "starring", not more than 2-3 (max.4 if necessary) names. Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem I was thinking of. At least while films have the "needs infobox" tag, they will get some attention. Once that's gone, they might not get looked at for a while so I think it's worth putting as much as we can into it while adding the infobox. Belovedfreak 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info in infoboxes 

message: I think we should differentiate the needs for documentary assessment. The Great Warming, for example, couldn't possibly be expected to fulfill the same demands to become a Start. Hoverfish Talk 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub upgrading for documentaries

message: Per a request at WP:REQT, I have created  to allow for citation of sources accompanying a DVD release. —Dgiest c 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just modify ? --PhantomS 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is for citing accompanying materials in a specific release, not the work itself. There is less overlap in fields, and to use a CS term, it would be a "bloated interface".—Dgiest c 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Film citation template 

message: User:Luigi Bob has recently been creating articles on some notable film editors and has brought it to my attention that a stub category doesn't exist for film editors. As film editors are a part of film and help to rid of red links in films please lend your support or opposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. There are hundreds not stub categoirzed as editors and there are many many missing from wikipedia and I beleive they are an important part of the film making process. Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film-editor-stub category

message: I had to revert much of The Corporation's article back to June 2006.  It was basically an argument between a bunch of radical political anonymous editors that filled up the pages of the article, without any relevance to the movie The Corporation.  Can you experienced WikiProject editors please step your game up and watch this article?  It's a hotbed for breaking Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  I'm kind of dissapointed that it took someone half a year to revert them.  Oh well.  Please help!  Add this to your watch list, and enforce wikipedia policies there.--Urthogie 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, a lot of the members here always been stepping up for the many variety of tasks that our project encompasses. We currently have over 19,000 articles within our scope and are constantly improving large amounts of articles, so it is not uncommon for us to not immediately fix an article. Thanks for alerting us, and always remember to be bold when editing articles, which it looks like you were with this article. We do appreciate your efforts and please consider joining the project and continuing to help improve other film articles that need verification and cleanup. --Nehrams2020 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, thanks!--Urthogie 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man, you guys need to step your game up! 

message: A bit of a battle recently on the Audio Commentaries page regarding various forms of alternate DVD commentaries needs to be resolved.
There seems to be much confusion over what exactly an alternate commentary is.  The way the section was originally structured it only included fan-made commentaries - such as ones by MMM Commentaries, Renegade Commentaries, Podblast etc.
The meaning seems to have got lost now, withmany of the entries there aren't even alternate commentaries (merely official ones released in different ways ie. via the internet).  Apart from Mike Nelson's entry for Rifftrax there is no mention there of true alternate commentaries.
References to groups like MMM have been removed for not being notable enough.  I suppose I have come here to ask what does one have to do to be notable enough so an entry actually sticks on Wikipedia?  The community of alternate commentary creators is a very small one as it is so we fight an up hill battle to be "notable" to begin with.
In my opinion the audio commentaries page needs to have a new section - one which talks about alternate methods for film-makers and studios distributing their commentaries (Battlestar Galactica, Kevin Smith etc) and the existing one structured back to its original purpose of fan-made alternate commentaries.MMM Commentaries 9:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate fan-made commentaries 

message: The push to fill in infoboxes (while great) has left many users doing partial infoboxes.  While, for some movies it's almost impossible to find budget, etc.  A lot don't have producer etc. filled in.  So, is our next project going to be "completing infoboxes?" or how do we help to avoid this. gren グレン 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's next, but I've found it helpful to fill in as much information as I could find to start out with.  I like to leave an article in better shape than it was when I found it. Sometimes this has meant doing significantly more than just adding an infobox, because I'm also finding and uploading images, adding brief plot summaries and even  cast lists. As a result, I am not moving as quickly as other editors when it comes to adding infoboxes. This is just me and how I do things. I have no quarrel with the other methods being used by other participants in the project. It's all hard work, no matter how you go about it. Leaving some infobox fields blank does no harm because they won't show up if they are not filled in. Placing an infobox on a page is a significant step. By having it there, with some fields ready to be filled in in the future, it encourages other folks to join in and contribute. — WiseKwai 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also spending some time doing small improvements in the articles, mainly categorizing, adding directors, some images etc. We can always track the edits of some of the contributors who went a bit fast into it and add some missing data, or correct as per our guidelines a bit. I did this for a while, but I'd rather finish my letters first. Hoverfish Talk 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also have been going at a slower rate for completing the infoboxes to go through including as much information I can in the infobox and then fixing up the intro, adding appropriate tags, and helping to add the necessary cats. It would probably be best if we continue to include as much information as possible as we have already added hundreds of infoboxes, and we are almost finished with the ones we have tagged. I have been removing infobox and image requests from articles that are only one or two lines long, citing that they should be expanded upon first before requests should be added. If you come across any of these ministubs, feel free to remove the request until it is later expanded or if you want to add the infobox go ahead. This summer (when I have a lot of free time) I'm going to go through all of our assessed film articles and tag them for image, plot, and infobox requests, so we might attempt to setup a drive for several members to assist in this. After all of them are tagged, we'll get a better gauge on what articles need to be improved and in what way(s). But for right now, we should be able to finish off the infoboxes for now which should be finished in the next week or two based on the current rate of completion. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just mentioned this because I saw some users adding infoboxes with only titles, directors, and dates.  It will be hard to find these later and, I don't want to tell anyone who's helping to "help more" or how to help.  But, you're right.  This can and will be dealt with after everything has infoboxes. :)  --gren グレン 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically an infobox sums up data that is given in the article, so if the article doesn't (yet) state producer, cinematographer etc, we don't have to go after them (unless we want to). I would say that the minimal "compete" infobox, should contain what you listed above, plus imdb link (or if official site is given, plus also official site), minus image. For images we have another request tag, and it can wait for another round of maintenance finding them. By the way, if no poster or media cover are available, a screenshot with a short caption text will do. If later a poster is found, the screenshot can be placed further down somewhere. Hoverfish Talk 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete infoboxes 

message: Well... not really.  However, after going through :Category:Indian films and making sure each of them has an infobox or has a  I've decided it is a noble effort to go through each nationality and add the template.  It's better to do infoboxes, but, this is still necessary.  Below will be a "master list" of who has done what.  Just add the category and do a time stamp for when you finished it so we know how up to date it is.  If it's only me doing it then, that works too :) --gren グレン 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And since you (and whoever else) are at it, please make sure the  template is on the talk page of film articles. It's our most favorite tag! Hoverfish Talk 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has worked out pretty well.  We are down to mostly big categories.  Sadly "needs infobox" category was over a thousand... but, hopefully when this little endeavor is done then the needs infobox category will represent reality. gren グレン 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox undoers 

message: I just added an infobox to AC/DC: Let There Be Rock, but I don't know what country to use.  It's a concert film with an Australian band filmed in Paris.  According to an imdb user's comments, they were followed by a french film crew. - Peregrine Fisher 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where two countries are involved, state both. Imdb sais it's USA / France, but if the band is Australian, I don't see where USA comes in, so I entered Australia / France. Hoverfish Talk 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox question 

message: You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as The Maltese Falcon (1941 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.</small>
 PhantomS 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CineVoter (February 22, 2007)

message: It seems to me that lots and lots of Indian films have appeared on the infobox needed list. As you know the Indian film industry generates a huge number of films each year ((877 feature films and 1177 short films made in India were released in the year 2003 alone according to wiki) . Does someone on wiki check the notability of those world cinema films appearing on the english side? I ask out of sheer selfishness, as I can see this turning into a totally unmanageable task at this rate, with some notable films being neglected whilst others are serviced, and 'Im not in a position to judge notability in this field. :D High Heels on Wet Pavement 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we establish some sort of requirement that only articles that are somewhat developed should be able to request infobox/images? We were pretty close to finishing our requests and its doubled in a day. People are going to start drifting off after completing all of these sections if they see that they need to add infoboxes to articles that are two lines long. Do you guys think we should establish some sort of requirement of length/completeness before adding the requests? Examples of pages that probably should not have requests could be articles like Grace Quigley & Daud, but articles like Aao Pyaar Karen & Julie (1975 film) seem to have a small start. And if we did choose some sort or requirement/limitation, would we include that in the template itself or just let members of the projects know? --Nehrams2020 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I added without discrimination--even to the really bad pages.  You may want to try prodding some of the pages with no links, no references, no organization, etc.  In general we really don't have a good way to judge their notability, however. 128.175.50.53 04:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I am really against that.  It's much harder to find a film with no infobox than a film with a malnourished one.  I think you should try to add everything on the list above... or, at least everything available from IMDb / AMG.  But, it is your choice in the end :) gren グレン 05:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also think if we put infoboxes we "should" provide the minimal mentioned above. The discussion on notability as a factor of inclusion doesn't seem to be taking us anywhere yet. Any lines we try to draw are bound to be debated because of the one film or the other. But we can let some films to be taken care of by the editors who initiated them, or by the sub-projects they belong to. I have no problem the way it's going: we clean up all other films, India cinema takes over the request category. For me, when there are only these left, along with some titles in languages I don't even remotely understand, my infobox Zen has fully expired. Hoverfish Talk 08:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: infoboxes/world cinema/notability

message: I'm cross-posting this from wikiproject: Academy Awards - I'd appreciate some input.
The articles that list Oscar nominees and winners in the acting categories currently include little flags next to every actor indicating his/her country of origin.  I propose that this is unnecessary, visually confusing, and subtly POV-pushing because a lot of these people are multi-national with citizenship in various places, and sometimes you'll see TWO flags (like Daniel Day-Lewis), or the flag of a country of birth but not the country of primary life-long citizenship (like Jessica Tandy) and vice-versa.  Furthermore, some articles (like Best Actress) use the Union Jack for English actors, but others (like Best Actor) use different flags for England, Scotland, and Wales depending on what nationality an editor has decided to assign to an actor.  All of this, however, doesn't even approach the question of why the flags are there to begin with; they don't impart any useful or trenchant information, and in fact they are simply irrelevant to the articles at hand.  It seems like these flags should just be gotten rid of!  Thoughts?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, this is both ugly and simplistic. I particularly dislike the use of English flags rather than British ones. I say nuke them.Cop 633 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Further reasoning can be found at WP:FLAGCRUFT, which was cited here recently. Burn 'em all. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must strongly disagree - I find the flags to be useful and attractive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.93.205 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in Academy Awards articles 

message: *The Profit is one of only 2 films that is currently banned in the United States.  I will try to do some work on this article to bring it up to par and expand with existing citations - but there aren't that many recent secondary sources for information, most current info other than on the film's Web site is from 2002, when the injunction on distribution came down due to court actions by the Church of Scientology.  Smee 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[The Profit]]''

message: Hello to the members of the wikiproject film. Just wanted to let you know that some well meaning editor moved the film Local Hero from its original page to Local Hero (film). Unfortunately they did this by cutting and pasting rather than moving the page, thus losing all of the history. They also left the original page as a sort of disambiguation page, though it isn't named as such. I am not well versed enough in computer terms to fix this so I thought that I would leave a note here so those of you that know how to fix this situation can do so. Thanks to anyone who can help and enjoy the Oscars tomorrow. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the band seems to be non-notable and even if it was not, there would only be two entries on a disambiguation page, so  should be used instead, I simply reverted Local Hero back to an article about the film. Prolog 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Local Hero]]

message: Hi, I listed this article at GAC recently, which is about a person who write scripts for both television and film. Since this Project is highliy qualified in assessing film related articles, can someone objectively review this article and pass / fail? I wouldn't normally ask, but sometimes there seems like too much of a backlog at GA, and the primary author of the article is currently tweaking it at peer review so it can be ready for FAC. Here's a link to the GAC subsection . Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to give. LuciferMorgan 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nigel Kneale]]

message: The members of WikiProject LGBT studies have completed our subproject of adding infoboxes to all LGBT-related films that didn't have them. The last 3 films in our sublist were completed this morning. If you know of any LGBT-related films missing infoboxes, please let us know at our Project talk page and we'll add them to our To Do list. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT films

message: I inserted a DVD cover into Joan of Arc (1999 film) but there is a problem that maybe someone could fix. Thank you. Petre K. 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Don't include Image:JoanofArcFilm1999.jpg in the infobox, but cut off the Image: so you have JoanofArcFilm1999.jpg only. The infobox if formatted to already do it for you. Thanks for adding the image. --Nehrams2020 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, while we're not too strict generally about making sure a source is given for film posters (because, it is usually clear what they are and that they're fair use... it's always a good idea to link to where you got it / explain how you got it just so there will be no grounds for deletion. gren グレン 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image problem