Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/Archive 1

message: I'm not happy about the medium to large country, this will surely be viewed as a case of systemic bias. Of course it's not like Wikipedia is drowning in articles about Gambian cinema but still... Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you here. There are many films which are of a high quality being released in smaller countries. The above mentioned criteria should be changed. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording is borrowed from WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 2 which are footnoted There are, at present, no precise definitions of a "small", "medium" or "large" country in this context. However, a very limited definition of "small" will generally be used, excluding only a few of the world's smallest countries..  I'll add the note, but alternately the criterion could be scraped or rewritten.  The idea behind it is to demand actual release rather than "I screened my fan film at a Star Trek conventon". Eluchil404 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I'm not sure this is needed at all for films. Again, it will be easier to get support for a simpler proposal that has no weaknesses. Films are not songs: a song is very very unlikely to be a charted hit in Luxemburg only but the probability that a movie would be released only is Luxemburg is zero if only because even the cost of printing a copy of a film for theatrical release discourages such a limited release. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually most luxembourgian films are only released in Luxembourg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.34.154 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 November 2006
WP:BK uses the following released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters, but in no case less than 50 such theaters with regards to what constitutes a "major motion picture".  If that a better criterion?  Eluchil404 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I think the change to has been written about by in a non-trivial manner would cover that situation, since any popular movie should get at least a few reviews. Mark Grant 22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the rewitten coverage criterion should cover such cases.  On the whole I think the new fuller version is better.  There may be difficult cases in practice but the examples given should provide as fairly firm floor.  Eluchil404 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 1 

message: I thought the idea of the 50 rule was so that a movie wouldn't qualify just because it's been shown in, say, the single cinema in the Cook Islands? Mark Grant 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that that is what was ment, but it was rather poorly worded, perhaps adding back in the medium or large country wording is the best way to go.  Eluchil404 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 Rule 

message: If a film's been studied similar to the way a book has in multiple programs, isn't it notable?  This would be a similar point to the one already used by the books notability criteria.  ColourBurst 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something from books notability 

message: I don't think #4 is necessary, possibly not even #3. Any film meeting those will almost inevitably meet #1 as well, certainly if reviews count. Of course, if a major-studio release gets no publicity or coverage whatsoever that fact is probably itself notable. Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should have a deliberate, clculated pro-corporate bias. It's already primarily edited by the fortunate fifth, probably the fortunate fiftieth globally.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released films criteria 

message: By that logic, a film shown at Cannes and Toronto and Sundance, but nowhere else, wouldn't make it onto Wikipedia.  I know some of the other clauses would make up for it, but I think an appearance in at least one film festival is suitable. —the preceding comment is by Deltajuliet - 07:43, 10 September 2006: Please sign your posts!
:This is arguably a weakness, but such films will usually meet criterion 1 with reviews or 3 with awards so I don't think this is a major problem.  Are there any films which would be excluded that you feel shouldn't be?  Eluchil404 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The debate over the proposed deletion of Terror Storm is throwing up some interesting questions about notability for me because it is a film designed to be distributed by undergroud methods, such as being given away for free on googlevideo and youtube, so it will probably be shown at festivals but it won't get a mainstream cinematic release. I think it is notable, but most of its press is on the internet. If it gets awards then that solves the problem for now, but i sense that this could be the tip of a growing issue - internet distributed films will naturally be publicised more on that medium, rather than in the "reliable" sources of newspapers and magazines, thus we may have to revise the criteria of notability in future. Just some thoughts for now... Mujinga 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 Commercial Theaters? 

message: There are a ton of films that wouldn't meet these standards that are fairly commercial.  For example, Straight-to-DVD releases wouldn't pass these standards -- they aren't usually the greatest films but they are usually notable enough.  For example, most of Wesley Snipes and Steven Seagal's recent releases.  Dodgem4s 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them meet either 1 or 4.  Remember for 1 all it needs is two reviews from reliable sources not feature stories in Variety and the New York Times.  Eluchil404 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Straight-To-DVD Releases??? 

message: A lot of TV movies would fail to meet these standards as well.  I understand trying to add these standards -- but there are way too many holes in the proposed guidelines.Dodgem4s 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV movies get reviewed (e.g., in Entertainment Weekly, a reliable non-trivial source). I think many if not most would meet the first criterion, and possibly the fourth. Anyhow, the fact that some movies wouldn't meet the criteria isn't itself an argument against applying them; that's the point of having criteria, after all.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree that many TV movies would meet these criteria, it is not really designed to apply to them so may, at times, be a poor fit.  I also do not consider guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM to be necessarily binding or exhaustive.  A film might still be notable while technically failing the guideline, but you would still have to demonstrate that notability with citations to reliable sources rather than mere relationship to an otherwise notable person or production company.  Eluchil404 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't TV Movies fail these new guidelines, too? 

message: This page serves no purpose — there's no evidence that there is any sort of widespread confusion or dispute regarding the inclusion of film articles. All this does is create more bureaucracy, and its arbitrary rules are unlikely to help in any way, aside from facilitating the deletion of perfectly good articles. --SB | T 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, but, but, .... without an endless pile of rules and processes to fret over, whatever would we do? Think for ourselves? Derex 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless. 

message: I just want to clarify: If a film is on the IMDB, does that make it notable? I think it doesn't. SolelyFacts 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, being listed on IMDb is not an indica of notability.  On the other hand, not being listed is a good indica of non-notability so IMDb isn't irrelevant to the discussion, its standards are just different than Wikipedia's.  Eluchil404 08:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I will tag "notability" on the so many articles that does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, according to the notability criteria. Thank you. —SolelyFacts 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask that you do not go tagging every film out there with a notability tag. That would just be unproductive. Pascal.Tesson 21:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty 

message: I object to the criteria for released films as they now stand.  I apologize if this has been discussed before, but there are a few points that I feel I should mention.
1. The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.
I think this should be changed to "one or two" rather than "multiple"; I know of a few fairly important films which nevertheless have not had much at all written about them due to them fading into obscurity as time passed.  Examples: The Adventure of Sudsakorn, the films of Quirino Cristiani.  One or two trusted and well-researched published works should be enough, because there are many noteworthy works of cinema which slip through the cracks until some diligent historian discovers them. In short, perhaps another criterion about being "noteworthy to the history of cinema" should be added, so that such films can be added even if there aren't very many published works about them (there probably were when they were released, but who can find them now?).  Also, what about films which feature notable people in their crew but do not have much written about them?
A final question: do reviews count?
2. The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters.
I understand that this is basically subservient to requirement #1 and thus fairly useless, but shouldn't something be written about direct-to-video and made-for-tv films at least?  The more important question is, though, what exactly does "released nationwide" mean?  If it's released in two different cities in a country, is that a nationwide release?
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
I foresee arguments about what is a "major award" and what isn't.  Why not just shorten it to "award"?
4. The film is a full length film released by a major studio.
Again, what is a "major studio" exactly?  And why should only "full length" (I assume feature-length was meant) films count?
Anyway, besides the problems that I've pointed out, I propose a 5th qualifier: "5. If a person who is judged notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is involved in a film, then that film is notable too.  However, an article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there (this last rule is designed to prevent heaps of pages about short internet videos)."
Esn 06:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection 

message: The proposal has been tagged as inactive and I have declined to revert.  There is not claer consensus on whether these criteria are appropriate or even necessary, and given the relative paucity of cites to this proposal in AfD, I am happy to leave it in abeyance until someone else feels that it is necessary to restart the discussion.  Eluchil404 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might as well point out that the criteria on unreleased films on this page are often brought up in AFD discussions, and the final decision often rests upon them.  For example, here.  My objections to the main policy above should not be so difficult to solve.  It just seems like nobody really cares enough to try at this time. Esn 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to keep track of how often this page has been cited in AfD discussions and haven't noticed that many recently, but maybe its enough to justify a guideline.  As for your objections above, I feel that most of them would inappropriately weaken the guideline to include many films of dubious notability.  I'll provide a blow-by-blow rundown of my thoughts since you asked but would want to get more people involved to reach a real consensus.  Note that this has been mentioned twice on the village pump, so I am hesitant to keep posting it there saying "Hey come comment on my proposal!" Eluchil404 09:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as Historical 

message: If this article has to stay as a historical failure, we still have to clear out what it was intended to do, or we will never be able to solve many of the recent problems that Project Films is facing. I know it's not simple, but we have to (re)start somewhere. Hoverfish 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria be of any help? Hoverfish 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.--Supernumerary 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think importance is, if not equal to, at least related to notability.--Supernumerary 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some other article that covers the issue then 

message: (for why I think that this is the best criteria to have, see the many discussions above as well as my explanation over here.  I think it is concise, reasonable, and would not require the deletion of a large number of existing film articles such as some of the other proposals above)
In general a film is notable if it meets one or both of the following criteria:
# The film has been released publicly at least once (eg. cinema, TV, home video) and has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.  
#* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
#** Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. 
#** Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the film name and where it is being shown.
# A person who is judged notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is notably (not trivially) involved in the film involved in the film significantly (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film). 
#*An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
Esn 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it may or may not be a loosening of the guidelines (the first criterion is made more exclusive than it previously was), it is in fact stricter than the primary notability criterion.  And, although I admire the edits that you're proposing yourself, I'm not sure if they are really so much more exclusive than what I proposed over here.  For a film to be released publicly at least once (eg. cinema, TV, home video) and to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works is not something that many small/obscure films can manage.  Although I generally agree with the guideline as it stands now, I wonder if my guideline would achieve largely the same effect while being simpler.  The major weakness of my guideline is that it doesn't address the notability of unfinished/unreleased films, and doesn't cover quite as many contingencies as the one that's there right now does. I don't think that they are fundamentally too different, though, in their implications. Esn 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My suggested criteria for released films - please discuss 

message: They would most likely be covered by new proposal - see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28artists%29#Overlapping_with_similar_guidelines.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of actors 

message: This page is currently up for debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.  The debate looks to be trending keep but there is also some support for tagging the page as historical/rejected.  I would prefer the historical tag rather than the rejected one which was recently applied since the main problem with the proposal has been lack of interest and percieved need rather than outright opposition, though the latter also exists.  I admit that  applies by its terms but think that the general practice is to use it on pages where there is a rough consensus to reject rather than those like this one where no clear consensus exists.  Eluchil404 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Morton you clearly illustrate the problems with not deleting this (a) you say you will just remove the tag, and (b) you are already using a proposed guideline in XfD arguments, when this has no validity.  Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected."  A clear consensus at the MfD is to tag this page as rejected, and there is no countervailing consensus to keep here. --Kevin Murray 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clear consensus is for Keep.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a little unclear.  The consensus was to keep for archival purposes but to tag for rejection.  Please review the criteria for evaluating rejection.  --Kevin Murray 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:MFD does not WP:OWN articles that it suggests should be developed along a particular route.  Any user is free to edit this page however he wishes, as long as it stays within appropriate policies.  MFD doesn't make policy. JulesH 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: This proposal does not have consensus. Recently, there has been a fight over whether to tag it as rejected. That is, as unlikely to ever get consensus. Rather than watch an edit war over the tag, I'm posting this RFC. 
Two questions: 
#Do you support this proposal as currently written? 
# Are you likely to support this proposal with modest modifications? 
This is not a vote; it is a solicitation of opinions. Feel free to explain what changes might persuade you to support.
*Neither. Derex 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: We have an already-accepted guideline about books. How about we decide that films follow the same guideline as books, and rename the latter to "books and films"? It may need a bit of tweaking to account for writers vs. directors and such, but the concept sounds workable. >Radiant< 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be pretty much fine as regards to the major criteria, though the rest of WP:BK is pretty irrelevant to films as it stands.  The bigger reason that I would prefer a seperate page is that I think AfD "voters" use slightly different standards when it comes to books and films.  In my view, the purpose of these notability sub-pages is to give general guidelines to the current climate on AfD so that people can quickly determine whether an article on a subject is likely to be kept or deleted or what information to include to clearly assert notability.  That's why I originally tagged it as an essay 8 months ago; it was ment to be purely descriptive information rather than hortatory instruction.  No matter the fate of this page--deletion, rejection, or redirect--people will continue use thier established heuristics on AfD articles about films.  They certainly weren't created by this occaisionally cited page and they won't be destroyed with it.  If the community feels that it is not a useful summation of current practice then it may well be swept up into the dustbin of history, but rallying against the content isn't very useful.  If it's an accurate description, you'll have to convince AfD "voters" who don't generally read this talk page; if it's not then you can (and should) simply change it and explain why.  Eluchil404 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a thought 

message: RE: :Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films)
Lets all keep in mind that the nominator withdrew the AfD nomination on the condition that this article be marked as  and kept for historical interest. 
Maybe it was a mistake for this page to remain on wikipedia. 
Ultimately, I would like this page tagged as a rejected policy, as per the consensus/majority (?)  on the recent AfD. 
That is my first choice, as was the choice on the first AfD. But since it looks like this will never happen without a prolonged edit war, I unfortunatly think this page should be deleted. Sorry User:Eluchil404.
User:Radiant! was the person who asked for this page to be protected. 
User:Radiant! was also the person who upgraded this essay to a proposal. Against the original authors orginal intentions? (Can you please clarify User:Eluchil404):
:That's why I originally tagged it as an essay 8 months ago; it was ment to be purely descriptive information rather than hortatory instruction. User:Eluchil404 12:00, 1 March 2007 
There was little if no discussion about this change, the talk page shows no consensus. Discussion started around Febuary.  
Personally, I think before a page becomes policy or a guidline there should at least be a strawpoll. Maybe eventually this should be policy, that before all pages become a policy, guideline, official policy, etc, there should be a month long strawpoll. Travb (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just had a "straw poll", it's called an Afd, and the "delete" position lost miserably.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Morton, you are far smarter than to misinterpret the results of that MfD as consensus to support anything other than archiving this page.  Read the guidelines for rejecting, clearly a tie goes to rejection.  And this behavior will be strong evidence at the next MfD for deleting and salting a rejected guideline.  You are postponing the inevitable for a few days here, but supporting my position for the longer run.  1/2 smart in whole. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should try to get more opinions on that RFC you posted from the general WPFilms community.  Currently the votes are around 4 in support, 3 against.  By the way, there's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview that may make all of this moot. Esn 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And at WP:N talk where the conversation is spilling into the validity of subpages and of notability as a valid concept.  --Kevin Murray 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to "spilling into other pages" see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It went from an "essay" to a "policy" by Radiant!, with to my knowledge, no discussion on the talk page. Travb (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD (Second) 

message: To end protection a decision needs to be made on a stable tag for this page.  I'll list what I see as options with some breif commentary :
::Works if there is no consensus.  I am honestly not sure if the useage and commentary support this (cf. Wikipedia talk:Notability), but it may be the best option in the end.
::Probably not correct given the level of discussion in the last few days, but maybe a compromise (cf. Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages)
::May not be appropriate given the content (was tag on original version of this page).
::If page reflects current practice it is a de facto guideline and should be so-tagged.  I doubt it is ready for this.
A custom tag such as
This page is not a policy or guideline of the Endlish Wikipedia but instead a description how the guideline on notability is applied in practice.  It may not represent the consensus of all editors but gives a rough guide to outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  This page is not actionable and should not be used as a reason in a deletion debate unless you believe that it is an accurate corollary of WP:N.  If the page does not accord with consensus you should edit it or inquire on the talk page.
::This would be my personal preference, and also for all the subject specific notability criteria.
::*Regarding this custom tag, "It may not represent the consensus of all editors but gives a rough guide to outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" is an oxymoron, "not actionable" is false, "should not be used as a reason" is both prescriptive (which is bad) and unenforceable (making it pointless), and you omit the fact that many other "subject specific notability criteria" have been accepted guidelines for years now, and several of those predate WP:N. >Radiant< 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's good enough for WP:SNOW.  :-)
*Okay. This is obviously not an essay, as explained earlier. It's also not inactive, given the traffic here. It is a proposed guideline, and the question is whether (1) there's consensus for what the page says, and (2) a need for this to be on a separate page. The easy solution, therefore, is to use the already-accepted criteria for BOOKS. Rename Wikipedia:Notability (books) to "books and films" and add a few lines to that, redirect this there, and we're all set. >Radiant< 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options 

message: I've added a merge tag to this page. Kevin has reverted that, because he considers the merge pointless. I believe it would be useful to merge this page to WP:BK, as suggested earlier on the page. At the very least, this could be discussed for a while. >Radiant< 10:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to come out with a strong opposition to this proposal.  As I said earlier, if it's a choice between merging with WP:BK and keeping it as it is, I much prefer it as it now stands. WP:BK is much more strict than this guideline and if you read the discussions that have been going on over the past two months you will see that most of the objections were about this guideline being too strict.  It was carefully toned down to make it more inclusive, but still not enough for about half of the editors, it seems.  Making it even more restrictive will accomplish nothing except making a lot of people very angry. Esn 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages.  I believe that given this is quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary.  However, if User:Kevin Murray feels that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on this talk page.  Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a ridiculous notion to say that this guideline has been rejected by the community -- that's a one-man campaign by Murray.  The guideline is well-regarded, and used in dozens and dozens of Afds.  There was a clear consensus for Keep on the recent Afd at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films).    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on the actual rejection.  My opinion was provided in response to an edit war over the text of the rejection message only.  Chris cheese whine 23:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it was at least appealed to frequently, most often by people who falsely called it a guideline despite a clear lack of consensus and an explicit proposal label. The Keep on the AFD was very explicitly not a debate on the merits of the proposal, and you know this perfectly well. Derex 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The consensus at the AfD page was to tag this as rejected but keep as archival rather than my preference which was to delete the page.  There was clearly no overwhelming support for adopting this as a guideline, and consensus for rejection does not require a majority.  --Kevin Murray 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom, can you site some specific instances where the "astroturfing" contributions would not be deleted based on WP:N? --Kevin Murray 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Tom Harrison here on the use of this proposed guideline. Here is my understanding of things happening here, and the direction this project is going. My overall concern is that Wikipedia (users and all) are slowly being conditioned to accept anything that is written outside this project, and that some users feel that it is time for a change. In other words, "It’s out there, so we should have it here." Really? This encyclopedia unfortunately is dealing with the floodgates ever increasingly opening with bombardment of articles of trivial movies, documentaries (especially the ones made up in school one day), etc. A true encyclopedia standard would not allow the trivial articles about non-notables to be included. By definition, we are an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for anything which has little or virtually no following. For AfD, we really need more stringent guides and policies. I am surprised Notability (films) isn’t a full fledged guide, or even better, a policy. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rom Harrison and Junglecat.  It is not a rejected proposal, notability guidelines should be strengthened across the board, it should be labeled a guideline or at least a proposal.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, please, must we trot out the same argument between the deletionists and inclusionists again?  You know fully well that your view is not accepted by everyone, so please don't act like those who favour looser notability standards are traitors to the project.  Wikipedia is a unique project, and is not be any means an encyclopedia in the traditional sense of the word (any more than eBay is a traditional auction).  There are some who view notability as being basically the practical limit to which something can be reliably verified (WP:V).  I'm not sure if I'm yet willing to go quite that far but, in the words of another user, "I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics".  I think there are very few people here who would favour the inclusion of every single film that someone made at school one day, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support for the opposite option (of only including major film releases) either.  My own ideal scenario would be something similar to the IMDB criteria (which also doesn't list "films made in school one day"), but I can live with the guideline as it stands now.  Even though Kevin Murray might well be raising a valid point. Esn 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's realy uncalled for, and inaccurate.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a PC kind of guy.  I'm sorry that you've taken offense, but I do stand behind my characterization of your actions and tactics.  If you are going to be deceitfully zealous in your actions, be proud of the title that accompanies the style.--Kevin Murray 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on very thin ice here, both in your interactions with me, and with your mischaracterizations of consensus.  There is no support for your perspective on this guideline -- you stand alone.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Denial or charade?   Do you read or just write? --Kevin Murray 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the protection should be removed. Tom Harrison Talk 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] 

message: There seems to be concensus from multiple people that this should be at the least a guideline. I retagged it. - Denny 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Thanks.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like many people here on this page support it? - Denny 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If there were broad support for what you want to do, you would not need to revert to impose your preference, or to modify Template:Rejected to include that preachy commentary. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gentlemen, spin this however you like, but there has been plenty of oppostion expressed in the discussion above and at the AfD, but it has not been as organized as your persistence.  --Kevin Murray 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess organization is key. Tom Harrison Talk 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, that was the first time that user Kevin Murray has contacted me about this.  The only other time he contacted me was to post a "courtesy notice" about this page's deletion.  As such, I don't think you can write off all of the opposition above to the existence of a cabal.  (Just saying) Esn 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Having read the guideline it seems uncontroversial and pretty much in line with what other topic-specific guidelines say. There should be information on films that cross any of the inclusion hurdles. It may not be easy to find, but it'll be out there somewhere. WP:NOT#When you wonder what to do says to "ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia". In an encyclopedia of cinema, I'd expect to find a short entry on award winning, critically acclaimed, and otherwise significant films, and that's what this guideline says we should have. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Angus, if it says the same thing all over again, then why do we need it?  --Kevin Murray 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why we have such a policy for everything else BUT films? - Denny 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Denny, I don't believe that we have a specific policy for everything else but films.  We have an excellent and improving guideline at WP:N, which adequately covers most topics.  I don't believe that we need more than that; and I would support eliminating some of the redundant or conflicting rule-sets.  I would prefer a well constructed general guideline, which I think is evolving nicely at WP:N and simplify the rat's nest of superfluous special case rules.  More rules seldom makes for more clarity.  --Kevin Murray 22:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask why you don't actively pursue depricating the fiction, books, and music guidelines then? Why focus on this one with such vigor? - Denny 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Denny, this was never approved before, and was tagged as rejected from proposed status.  It should not go directly from rejected to approved.  My stance has been primarily to prevent further instruction creep.  Right now there is a good deal of dissention about notability in general.  My efforts have been to retain the status quo rather than to roll-back what was already approved, although I think that is a good next step.  --Kevin Murray 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never rejected, that was just pure Kevin Murray fantasy.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) where it was 20 'keeps' and 3 'rejects' and 3 'indeterminate/undecided'.  Hardly a rejection of the guideline -- more like a strong endorsement.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bit of spin from Morty in consistent fashion.  The AfD was over whether to delete the page not to reject it.  The resounding consensus was to keep the page and tag it as rejected.  I felt that if the page was not deleted the controversy would never go away.  It was marked for rejection, but not deleted.  As I predicted it has been a perennial battleground ever since.  --Kevin Murray 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Reader:  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) and judge for yourself.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My God Morty, have you not one single shred of shame? The MFD had not one single thing to do with approval of the proposal, and many of those voting keep explicitly endorsed the rejected tag. 150.203.2.85 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: I do, seems like a good idea in principle and fair. It needs to be in line with the other guidelines such as the BIO and music notability, however. This one seems a bit more stringent than those for some inexplicable reason. Will edit that later. - Denny 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now standardized this guideline to be in line with long-accepted ones such as the music and book notability guidelines. This one can't be any more stringent or lax than those. Should be fine now. :) - Denny 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that stuff is too different. Billboard standings vs. coverage of a film vs. coverage/awards for books are seperate beasts. I think a general one would be good, but someone needs to draw up such a thing. In the meanwhile, I see no harm in the seperate ones. The ATT of notability for media? - Denny 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who supports this and why? 

message: See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:pnc]] nominated for deletion 

message: It seems that this project has died.  Should it be marked with the historical tag?
:I think another way to look it is no one has objected, so it should be moved from proposal to guideline.  Are there any objections to this, and if so what? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Rick's suggestion is quite reasonable. Of course the text can always be tweaked later if need be. >Radiant< 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems like reverse logic to me that lack of interest demonstrates acceptance.  I oppose this. --Kevin Murray 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know you've been objecting to this mostly on bureaucratic grounds from the very start. Do you have any arguments as to the content of the page? >Radiant< 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is one of the longest specific guidelines written.  It is verbose, overly complex, poorly organized, potentially confusing, and does more to add subjectivity than to cure it.  The simple advice from WP:N should be sufficient to determine whether a film is notable: has it been recognized by a significant number of other sources upon which we can rely for an indication of notability and for verifiable information?  Short of these we risk our editors writing personal reviews and/or just summarizing plots from the work (original research and POV).  This is a project seeking a need.  --Kevin Murray 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *That would appear to be your standard objection to every notability guideline. >Radiant< 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical 

message: This proposal has some merit, to make more straightforward of the keeping of notable films and the deletion of non-notable films in AFDs. I think including a paragraph in a more general guideline, and merging with a guideline for books would be better than a standalone guideline, because we have to keep changing the boilerplate in this as people edit WP:N and WP:A. That said, I see loopholes which would allow one or a few people to "game the system" and claim notability for films they like or which make some fringe political or scientific point, whether it is about 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, or whatever. My objection is that it turns over notability determination to any individual or small group one who organizes a "festival" without specifying the festival itself is somehow notable, neutral and well juried, or any one person who teaches a film course:
*"1)The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."
The "Moon is made of green cheese" society could hold a little-noted mooncheese festival and screen some absolute nutjob films which present evidence that supports their lunatic fringe beliefs (substitute any fringe theory). There is no specification in this guideline to distinguish a nutjob fringe festival from the Cannes Film Festival. This could then be cited to justify the film having an article.
*"4)The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."  The word "notable" helps here, because otherwise any instructor at a country's least known college could "teach" the aforementioned green cheese film and that could be cited as a basis for inclusion. This still leaves it up to the single most fringe teacher at any of the schools with "notable" film programs (a subjective determination) to decide on his own what film he will make entitled to a Wikipedia article. 
*My suggestion is to add some suitable qualifier to prevent the action of an individual who chooses the films for a festival, or an individual who teaches a film course, from having as much power to determine notability as this gives them. Newspapers and books are not "reliable sources" unless they have editorial oversight; that is why self published books, IMDB, and personal blogs are not reliable sources, since the one editor can say anything. The present wording of these gives one or a few festival organizers, or one film teacher too much power.Edison 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support a concise actionable guideline which combined with books. --Kevin Murray 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plug the loopholes 

message: Looking at this proposed guideline closely and from reading some of the comments above, it seems to be an attempt to change current practice at AFD rather than reflect established practice.  While I sympathize with this intent, I strongly suspect it is completely unworkable.  There can never be enough participants in a discussion about a guideline before it's approved to warrant instituting a new guideline that does not reflect current practice.  The reason to codify a guideline is not to change existing practice, but to make it obvious to all concerned what is the current practice.  Per the comment just above, I've added a criteria that applies to essentially any contemporary "major" release.  Attempting to exclude the bulk of contemporary films simply because they won't have enduring notability is (IMO) not appropriate.  Wikipedia is full of articles on all topics that will turn out to have been of contemporary interest, but lack enduring notability.  Perhaps a way to address this is to have different criteria for films more than five years old supporting the deletion of articles about the majority of films which do not have enuring notability.  In any event, I think trying to exclude contemporary films is wholely impractical. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the clarification, although I think that was already covered to some degree through the reference to the Primary Notability Criterion. -- Visviva 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New approach 

message: Could someone go through this to get rid of the "note this" and "note that" in the opening paragraphs and cut out the redundancy and verbosity?  This needs to be about 50% shorter and less subjective.   Whatever I do to edit it will be suspect, but this is really a pretty embarassing example of poor word crafting.  Then I really coudn't care less whether this becomes a guideline, policy or stone tablets.  --Kevin Murray 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the whole intro is a word for word copy from Wikipedia:Notability (books) which seems at best redundant.  I agree it's overly wordy.  I'll try to edit it down to size. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's significantly less wordy now (comments?).  I think various other sections could stand to be edited as well.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, great trim job on the intro!  Do we need so much instruction on the special cases such as "future films",  "reflection of existing standards", and contemporaray versus older?  How could we achieve the same purpose with less narative (or none)?  Maybe  we could give a similar pruning to Books. --Kevin Murray 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit for style and brevity 

message: Since this has been substanially reworked, I propose that this be accepted as a guideline; however, I strongly suggest that we continue to consider how we can merge books and films for brevity and continuity.  --Kevin Murray 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accept as Guideline 

message: Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun.
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per notability guidelines. --Kevin Murray 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That is more than adequate. Girolamo Savonarola 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're more than welcome.  Good to work with you.  --Kevin Murray 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This strikes me as a much stronger stance against future films than is currently enforced at AFD.  Under this criteria, I'd expect virtually all members of :Category:Upcoming films (and its subcats) should be deleted.  Is this really the intent? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus in AfDs typical go with "the information shouldn't be deleted", but if you view a proposed merger discussion that might take place after an AfD, you'll find a lot of the people that voted to keep an article also vote to have it merged with a larger topic. AfDs are usually the wrong way to go about anything, but it says you think the information itself should be deleted, when we arent' advocating that. We are advocating that the page shouldn't be created that soon, because nothing says the film will definitely be released and there usually isn't that much information on a future film unless it's getting close to production time.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying I favor articles about upcoming films, but for this guideline to patently be at odds with current practice seems odd.  Does anyone from the films wikiproject keep tabs on articles about future films and actually get the content merged (into, say, the article about the director or studio or actor or whoever's fan it is that created the article in the first place)?   Perhaps this guideline could say what to do in these cases (generally, merge the content into ..., and replace the article with a redirect).  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Magneto (film), Spider-Man 4, Superman: The Man of Steel (film), Jurassic Park IV are some examples of articles that were merged to a larger topic.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I keep huge tabs on future film articles.  See User:Erik/Future articles for headlines of projects that I watch until it nears production.  Also, see User:Erik/Link repository#Redirected projects for film articles that have been created too soon and have been redirected to a broader article.  Some have information, having done more than just announce it, but others have simply been announced and not advanced upon.  I don't believe there's an issue with creating redirects to a proper location in the broader article, like Bignole showed with his examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree that the guideline should state what should be done, as Rick suggested.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Star Trek (film) seems to be a huge exception to this guideline. It was a well-refernced encyclopedia-quality article nearly a year ago, and they've only begun to announce cast selections, let alone start filming. I think something needs to be added that if significant details about an upcoming production are covered in multiple reliable sources, then an article can be created before filming begins. In such a case, if the film is not eventually produced this fact alone would likely be a notable event. Also, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) would fail this criteria even though it was recently kept at AfD, and a failure to produce this film would be a significantly notable event. DHowell 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Trek (film) actually needs to be trimmed down massively; it has reported far too much indiscriminate information.  Due to the fan base of this franchise, I'm not surprised that there is so much extraneous detail (in the encyclopedic sense).  It's akin to this example of Resident Evil fans.  I do not know how the article would look after being shaped to be more encyclopedic (think long-term), but it may after all warrant a merge somewhere else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that HP6 or 7 not being made into a film would be extremely unlikely, it is irrelevant as well - how are we supposed to make an even vaguely objective decision as to the viability of a film in development making to production? Girolamo Savonarola 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, by all rights, that film article should have been merged elsewhere based on WP:NF, because production of that film is still years away.  The article is going to sit in that stubby form, with minor casting updates, while the focus is on the sixth film's production.  Someone should've brought up WP:NF in that AfD.  Maybe a merge should be suggested -- AfDs make people freak out and think their article will be gone forever. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is that some films are notable even if they don't make production, e.g. Star Wars sequel trilogy.  A film is notable if enough reliable sources have talked about it enough that an article can be written... i.e., we don't need any criteria beyond the WP:N primary criterion, in my opinion. JulesH 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Star Wars article is really more about a topic. If someone started making pages for the individual sequels, I'd be concerned. Many of the source materials for heavily-tracked upcoming films have been adapted into a wide variety of media many times, so the material may even have a page called "Adaptations of [x]". To recapitulate what has been said: no one has suggested deleting sourced content - just moving it to a subsection of its source material. Girolamo Savonarola 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A more compact guideline

message: # I recommend adding "highly-viewed" as a criteria.  "Highly-viewed" means an unusually high success at the box-office or though other means.  In the United States, the top-10 grossing feature films each year would qualify.
# I recommend adding "nominated for a major award" such as the Academy Award for Best Feature Film should automatically qualify.  A "major award" should be an award where even a nomination is truly an honor, not an award with thousands of nominees.
In almost all cases, films that qualify for either of these will qualify under other criteria.  These criteria can be thought of as short-cuts to establishing notability when notability is obvious.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "highly-viewed" and "nominated for a major award" as criteria 

message: This guideline needs to emphasize that just because a film meets one of the listed criteria doesn't necessarily mean it's notable.  Common sense should prevail.  A film that gets 2 national reviews the fizzles at the box office after less than a week never to be seen or heard from again isn't notable and will likely be successfully AfD'd a few months after the film's release.  Likewise, it needs to put more emphasis on the occasional exception clause - a film that doesn't verifiably meet any of the criteria may be unquestionably notable.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be clearer to me if you could illustrate some examples. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with GS that the issue seems vague without some examples illustrating a problem with the current guideline.  --Kevin Murray 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we have no idea what is meant by this in a real world application unless someone can mention some specific films or articles. His proposal is far too vague. And all guidelines are not rules in the strict sense of unviolable policy (of which there are very few, and some were project imperatives from above), but rather adhered-to practices, agreed to by community consensus, which should have good justification for any exceptions from the norm. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasize that this is a guideline not a rule 

message: Could someone involved in writing this guideline take a look at Rosalie Goes Shopping (of which I am the main contributor) and tell me if it meets the criteria listed here? I've listed three reviews there, and two of them (Roger Ebert and the Washington Post) probably qualify as nationally known, but I'm not sure their reviews qualify as full-length. I have not found any evidence of any notice being taken of the film more than five years after it was released, and the fact that it was first shown at Cannes doesn't seem to be a sufficient criterion, since that was before its general release, not five years after it. I'm not aware of it winning any awards, being preserved in a national archive, or being taught. —Angr 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has notable cast and crew, and as stated received reviews from notable publications or critics. It would be hard to argue against notability. The image should be removed in favor of a poster (if one exists) or a screencap from the film - the image currently used only would be appropriate for the article on the actress. (I gather that the picture was also taken years after the film, too.) Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to IMDb, it was nomated for "Cannes Film Festival - 1989 Golden Palm". The nomination is still something, so you could mention that, but I would try and find a reliable source to verify it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is free, and a poster or screencap from the film would be nonfree, so the current image should stay. I looked at the Cannes website and could only find confirmation that it was shown there, not that it was nominated for the Palme d'Or. —Angr 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Style guidelines for film articles dictate that the poster is to be used for the template, and there is currently consensus that it is an acceptable fair use image for these purposes. If a poster image or screencap cannot be found, then the infobox should not have a picture at all. In no cases, however, should a tangential picture be included, regardless of the licensing issues. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where style guidelines for film articles come into conflict with the Third Pillar, the latter should take precedence. If someone else uploads a poster and adds it to the article, I won't revert, but I certainly won't upload a nonfree image to Wikipedia myself just to make an article prettier. —Angr 05:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the "Great Image Deletion Wars" on WP:FU - but that is another topic entirely which seems to leave almost no one happy whatever happens.... Girolamo Savonarola 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an old veteran of those wars. But by refraining from uploading the nonfree image in the first place, we don't have to worry about it being deleted later. —Angr 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice requested 

message: I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The article previously stated, "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that a Best Picture Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included." I removed the reference to "Best Picture" because this language seemed far too cautious in terms of what films warrant having Wikipedia articles. This made it seem to me as though articles such as Little Miss Sunshine or The Queen (film) would be at risk of deletion because those films were only nominated for Best Picture, but didn't win; the only Oscars they won were in other categories. That isn't the standard we apply, and I don't think an attempt to delete those articles for lack of notability would be taken seriously. Therefore, the guidelines should reflect a broader understanding of notability. I am aware that the Oscars also include categories such as documentary and short subject categories where the films are more obscure, but the winners in those categories should be considered major award winners which are worthy of articles too. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. IMHO, any film that is even nominated for any of those particular awards is notable by the very fact of said nomination. Girolamo Savonarola 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major awards 

message: has constantly removed information of the amateur remake, citing that many fan films don't get as much attention as this remake of Raiders did? I'm too tired to sort him out. Alientraveller (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Raiders of the Lost Ark]] 

message: Having been pointed to WP:FILM regarding the AfD of a future film, I find that it doesn't point directly to anything useful.  I find instead a mess of circular referencing, involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films.
I suggest cleaning up the excessive shortcuts, and moving/copying all of the externally referenced rules/guidelines/criteria/recommendations to a single place, probably Wikipedia:Notability (films).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint.  Too many shortcuts.  Circular referencing 

message: Hello, fellow editors ... I was wondering if there is enough interest in the Flag templates to create a WP:FLAG-MOVIE to go along with WP:FLAG-PROF, WP:FLAG-FICT and WP:FLAG-SCL ... it would be trivial for me to update the  and  templates to recognize either Films or Movies as another (Guideline)... Happy Editing! —  20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FLAG-MOVIE 

message: I just wanted to clarify on something: what the policy say specifically about films that have not yet begun filming, but have been confirmed by reliable sources to begin filming soon. The film in question is The Last Airbender (film) (currently redirects to Avatar: The Last Airbender). The film has a confirmed release date, but no information on filming, etc. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ message] email) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NFF still applies. There have been many examples of well-funded and notably-cast films which have still had the plug pulled at the last moment, after a considerable amount of pre-production work has been done. Since the film is based on prior source material which we have an article on, the text should remain at the source material's article until the film itself can be confirmed to have already begun production, and thus passes NFF (assuming it is otherwise notable). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no information on filming then it should remain at that parent article until release. Even films that have been produced have still managed to be shelved at the last minute. In such a case, there may be nothing to say about the film except that it was made but never released and you don't need an entire page for that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for your help. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ message] email) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some clarification 

message: I predict that there will be fresh discussion about the guideline in the near future; see user page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rally your troops if you wish, but you will be disappointed about a fresh discussion. travb (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoming 

message: I boldly removed this section from the guideline because it is redundant to the above discussion of inclusion criteria and falsely implies that only films which make a lasting impression are notable for wikipedia purposes.  Instead, even tempory "buzz" if it is covered in independent, reliable sources justifies an article.  The key criteria is recognition by sources or groups not affilicated with the films production, which can take time but can also come more or less instantly for a widely released film.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that removal will be controversial, but I for one am in favor of it, and it goes part of the way to address the problems I brought up in the section at the top of this talk page, where discussion quickly ground to a halt. In my view the section removed violated the spirit if not the letter of WP:NTEMP. If a small documentary film makes a splash on the film festival circuit, gets reviewed in a few major newspapers, and then isn't much discussed after that, I think it warrants a Wikipedia article. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 11:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal.  The section did not strike me as helpful; I am not sure what the original author(s) had in mind.  There are similar points to what is in the "Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films" section, and the points in the latter section are clearer.  (For example, that section says that production of a film has to be notable to warrant an article, which "Contemporary films vs. older films" says in more muddy terms.)  The content does not match the section heading... does anyone think we could possibly revise the section to focus more on how to write about older films?  For example, I know that there are some famous filmmakers who still have red links for some of their earlier works; some editors may create articles for these works based on that filmmaker's fame.  Is that a topic worth exploring?  (Pardon the tangential discussion!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old v. Contempory films 

message: Forgive me, I'm sure this has been brought up before, but what is the reasoning behind every episode in a TV series having a Wikipedia article? I understand the show may be noteable, even the season, but each episode having its own article makes about as much sense as every charachter in a show or episode having their own article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this page is for films, so I don't know if editors who watchlist the page have the answer.  I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Television episodes and its talk page to find it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well most shows that have articles about every episode (rather than bundling them into season articles) also have articles on every main character.  The main discussion of this issue has been over at WP:FICT which attempted to set a standard for both episode and character articles, as well as characters from books etc.  Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not the right place for the question, but as a member of the Television project, here be my answre: The short answer is: because fans made them and they often go overlooked. Every episode of a series is rarely notable, nor every character, but going through and cleaning them up is a long, tiring, and thankless bit of work. There are many that have been done. There are others, which are still in progress, and there are some guarded by the "rabid fans" of legend that generally will prevent any consensus for merging or deletion from occurring (or the extreme inclusionist editors who feel that every thing that exists should have an article). This is, unfortunately, compounded by a general lack of participation/help from the project itself. In some other media topics, such as Anime and manga, and often here at Films, the project members will help out in explaining why they are not appropriate, why they shoudl be merged, and participate in the discussions to ensure there are experienced editors speaking up and not just a few only interested in that topic and not Wikipedia guidelines. (is slightly bitter regarding some of that, hope it doesn't show too bad :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteability of TV Episodes 

message: Hmm.  is curious: what makes future films notable? Nothing on this page seems to apply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section about future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films.  The threshold is for a film to begin filming to have its own article, but it should be able to meet general notability guidelines, having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.  If there is notable subject matter or a notable director, then a future film is likely to have more coverage before its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes future films notable 

message: The criterion:
:The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
seems too wide. Perhaps:
:The film was featured as part of a notable documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
would be a better proxy for notability of the film itself. Support/oppose change to guideline? Bongomatic 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary, program, or retrospective 

message: A user keeps recreating A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), even after I have informed them that it currently fails WP:NFF. Per the future films guideline, the film must be in production and the production itself must be notable. At this time, all of the reliably sourced information about this film is at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Future, and none of that is production info, but casting and the announcement of a future film site. The user is throwing things out like "IMDB talks about it" to justify the page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted and gave him a 3RR warning since that was #3. Has this been deleted via AfD before under another name? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've basically stopped doing deletions because people continually create pages with title variations to get around. It always seems easier to just redirect, because then the redlink doesn't exist for them to create the page. This seems to be more of the user not understanding NFF, or our general acceptance for reliable sources (IMDB not being one of them).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was AfDed under another name, though, would be a good case for doing a RPP if this guy doesn't get it (or it keeps being a problem). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, there has never been an AFD for any variation of the titles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance... 

message: This user Collectionian is repeatedly deleting my discussion entries. That kind of Stalinist behavior is nothing but utterly disgusting and shows a total lack of respect for other people. He's actually trying to totally silence another person. Its contemptible to say the least. Stop it right now. Nunamiut (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is specifically for discussion of the film notability guideline in general, not specific instances in which the notability of a particular article within its scope is in question. Your concerns should be brought up on the article talk page, within an AfD (if one has been opened), or at WT:FILMS. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was deleted at AfD months ago, and apparently Nunamiut is unable to accept consensus and has recreated it some 6-7 times (at least). There is currently an ANI thread about him and the various names he has used have been salted. He's been blasting that same messages all over the place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable behaviour