Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 7

message: It appears that WikiProject Films doesn't have it's own barnstar. I'd like to propose one, perhaps using  as a template. Something similar with 5 points would work. I attempted to make one but the real isn't perfectly circular and my photoshop skills are lacking. Anyone care to take a shot at it? RichMac (Talk) 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example. Cbrown1023 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was so elated about receiving that star, and then you crushed all my hopes and dreams by those two simple words. RichMac (Talk) 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we still need to combine the two pics.  I can't do that either. Cbrown1023 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this?Her Pegship 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! You rock! Cbrown1023 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (Late for tea) Looks great. Congratulations! Hoverfish 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good, wasn't quite what I had pictured in my head, I was thinking more of turning the reel itself into the star, as I've seen on a couple of other project pages, but it looks good non-the-less. RichMac (Talk) 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same picture in my head too.  But I couldn't get it to work and that's definately better than anything that I could've done and it looks great (I think). Cbrown1023 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The star looks great, but I would change the background to a lighter colour, such as #D3D3D3 or #C0C0C0, so that the text would be easier to read and the box would look less "intrusive". Prolog 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the background needs to lighten up a bit. Hoverfish 08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As seen in the examples above, I changed the background to LightGrey (#D3D3D3) now. I think it looks better. Prolog 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Films Barnstar 

message: V for Vendetta (film) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[V for Vendetta (film)]]

message: I suggested in Talk:2005 in film creating a subpage named 2005 in film/Releases in North America and placing there all the "Wide release films" and "Other films" with all the specific information there and do the same to all the years where such sections have been created. Please, discuss. Hoverfish 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a good idea? What's your criterion for wide-release? Why is it necessary to segregate these films from the general pile? Girolamo Savonarola 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wide-release would be correct here, if it represented a global or total of english talking countries. However here we have lists showing only North American records. Also the release dates given for films outside N.America are not the same as the films' original release dates. The general pile are top grossing (also specific), awarded, films released in year (original release year), and other information that can include films in general. "Year in film" is a global title. Sepatating it from data specific to N.America could create a sub-series of articles where this data could be presented. Hoverfish 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later years in film - subpages 

message: The WikiProject Films Award
		I, RichMac, hereby award Cbrown1023 the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For hard work and dedication, categorizing, grading and sorting WikiProject Film articles. As well as guidance and insight on WikiProject Films talk.
Awarded RichMac (Talk)
The origional reason I was looking for a WikiProjects Film Barstar ;) RichMac (Talk) 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 14:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured with the ongoing talk it was fitting. Will place any other barnstars in the appropriate place in the future. RichMac (Talk) 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and I totally agree with what you did (I did the same myself).  It helped with the discussion.  We just don't want new users coming around and seeing that they're here and wanting to put them here as well... Cbrown1023 13:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: lol. Shane (talk/contrib) 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still good this talk page got awarded. Looks good in the categories at the bottom. As for the page needing an infobox... Hoverfish 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presenting the WikiProjects Film Barnstar 

message: I have started a work-list (here) of links given as references to films, but which lead to articles where the film is either barely mentioned or has too little coverage to be considered a legitimate link to the film. Please, help to determine what should be done in each case. Hoverfish 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of (links given for) films only mentioned in articles 

message: Julia Stiles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Julia Stiles]]

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Hi, I've started a discussion  on the Infobox template talk page. Any comments will be very appreciated. Mallanox 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template discussion 

message: It's not only red again, but now the page also appears empty (last time it was red but most of the contents were there). Glitch again? Hoverfish 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is :Category:WikiProject Films participants. Cbrown1023 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Thanks Cbrown. Hoverfish 21:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on with Category:Participants in WikiProject Films? 

message: In the IMDb, Bloody Sunday (TV drama) is a film which premiered in TV and therefore lost its right to be nominated for Oscar. Does this make it a "TV drama"? Bloody Sunday (film), by the way, redirects to it. Hoverfish 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this really should be named as a film rather than a TV drama. The Academy are notoriously snobbish in their choice of nominees. It wasn't specifically geared towards TV (no cliffhangers for commercial breaks). Plenty of other films have premiered on TV and are usually referred to as TV movies rather than TV dramas. Just my opinon. Mallanox 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Sunday (TV drama) 

message: I have created a userbox for regular participants in the COTW.  Please critique it and put it on your user page (if applicable) using . Cbrown1023 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. I will use it if I become a regular. Hoverfish 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise. I have only helped with The Blues Brothers so far, so I need to help with a few more films before I add it. Was it ever decided if the COTW would last longer than a week? --Nehrams2020 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think so. (Wikipedia talk:Cinema Collaboration of the Week#Redefining Collaboration's aim?) Cbrown1023 23:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week|Collaboration]] 

message: I've bot-populated this from three stub categories (the film-stub root, the horrors, and the comedies);  there's currently about 150 in there.  (I'm just using the 'raw' category, though I'd tend to agree with the above discussion that there's no reason why a populating template shouldn't be re-introduced.)  Alai 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, I'm not technically minded enough to do stuff like that. It's lucky you're about! Thanks, Mallanox 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more than welcome:  the real thanks are due to the people willing to slog through and actually categorise them, of course.  I'm filling it back up once again now, following the recent database dump (and working may way through some more film stub categories).  Alai 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|uncategorised films}} populated somewhat 

message: If a soundtrack guideline exists I think it should be added to the style guideline. I would be nice to have just one format. I know I should be bold and do it myself, but I don't have the time right now. If no one does it, I'll have time in two weeks. Until then suggestions and information would be helpful for whoever does it.Pro bug catcher 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiproject Albums has a format for album track listings, and I think it would make sense to follow that. Also, when soundtrack sections are split off, the new articles' talk pages could be tagged with . — WiseKwai 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Wisekwai, you’re right, in that case I think the film guideline should have a few words, to redirect editors to the album guideline. Can I just add it myself?Pro bug catcher 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. :) Cbrown1023 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack guideline 

message: I've created that page and put in some new stuff (based off WP:WPBIO).  Check it out and please do anything you can to make it better. Cbrown1023 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach]] 

message: Could probably be split into two articles.  When I happened upon it, it was focusing on an unofficially announced movie announced only through an insert in a video game and didnt even begin to discuss the film currently in post production and being screened to focus audiences.  but it will eventually need to be split, i think.  216.165.38.230 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Later, when there is enough information to span two articles and the other one has been confirmed. Cbrown1023 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence "eventually."216.165.39.201 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prey (film)]] 

message: The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published.  You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.  Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FILMS Newsletter

message: I propose a Category:Heist pictures, to highlight films that have a bank robbery or other similar activity as a main theme of a film, i.e., Heist, Inside Man, Thief, Loophole, etc. Ideally, the category page would contain a list of the films so categorized, updated automatically when the category template is added to a film's article. Thoughts? Alan 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I should've told you earlier... there is already :Category:Heist films.  I thought you had something different in mind. Cbrown1023 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I do not understand the last part of your statement.  Isn't that what categories already do? (see WP:CAT if you are unfamiliar with them) Cbrown1023 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're right. I'm only vaguely familiar with the inner juju of Wikipedia.Alan 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category proposal 

message: I was wandering around the categories section to see what categories I have, and realized that almost none of the film-related categories have our tag on their discussion page- I mean our WikiProject film tag with the class rating.  The class rating is pretty easy to do, since they're all categories- since there are hundreds of these categories, I thought I'd alert people to this lack of tagging in the hopes of getting aid in tagging them.  The task is a little daunting, I must say.  -Elizabennet 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can chip away at it here and there. — WiseKwai 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging categories 

message: Hi,
* Talk:Alexandre le bienheureux.
See you there,
Ultrogothe 10:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worth expanding an unrated film article ?

message: Just a heads up that the discussion at  for the proposed Overcategorization guidelines has a talk section dealing specifically with how to handle actor-by-film and actor-by-tv-series categories.  The goal would be to form a consistent policy guideline for which actor-by-series categories are acceptable, which aren't, and generally help editors decide when to use a category for cast lists and when to use a list article.  
If you're interested in this topic, head on over to that discussion page and give your two cents. :)  Dugwiki 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]] guideline discussion 

message: I would like to establish better guidelines for plot summary length. To me, 910 words is a plot outline, not summary. Here's featured fiction film article plot summary word counts for comparison:
Article                                   	Runningtime (min)	Wordcount
Blade Runner                              	115              	413
Casablanca                                	102              	708
Dog Day Afternoon                         	124              	630
Gremlins                                  	106              	842
Gremlins 2: The New Batch                 	106              	547
Halloween                                 	91               	484
Halloween II                              	92               	389
Halloween III: Season of the Witch        	96               	487
Jaws                                      	124              	941
Night of the Living Dead                  	96               	937
November                                  	73               	499
Ran                                       	160              	865
Richard III                               	161              	639
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace   	133              	840
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones	142              	863
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith	140              	989
Summer of '42                             	103              	1282
Sunset Boulevard                          	110              	584
Tenebrae                                  	101              	599
V for Vendetta                            	132              	945
Witchfinder General                       	87               	571
Based on this research, I believe the plot summary for the average feature length picture (to about 130 minutes) should be around 600 words. There seems to be a break at that point (notice there is are no summaries between 708 and 840 words) where we move into "blow-by-blow" style summaries. Any thoughts? – flamurai (t) 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad decision, but the problem comes where not all films are the same. Certain films have have more of a plot than other films. Halloween is pretty simple, kid goes crazy kills people, escapes mental hospital and kills again. V for Vendetta is a little different. It would depend on the material at hand. If the film covers a lot of detail (like the Saw films) then it would probably need a little more, to make sense, than another film of the same length. I do think that 900 words is pushing it in length, and plots should maybe be no more than 750 or so words, but you also have to take the time to read them. Some plots could be written so that they actually read fast; it's about your word choice. Bignole 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to make a list of questions that editors can ask about a plot summary, such as, "Can the summary do without this sentence?"  Films differ too greatly for there to be a specific word limit, no matter how hard one pushes it.  The plot fix-up process should be done by a number of editors sharing dialogue with a goal of making the information concise.  Just my $0.02. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. After editing the Batman Begins summary with Bignole I have a much better idea of what's necessary. (I'm impressed we got it down below 800 words.) The idea is to eliminate unnecessary detail (in many cases this means deviating from the timeline of the film) and use the tightest language possible, especially in long summaries. I just made the chart to get a general idea... I understand that not all plots are created equal. – flamurai (t) 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline for plot summary length 

message: Are any participants able to help me make this into a good article?? I would appreciate the help if anyone is able to. --SunStar Net 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look and IMO it first has to reach B properly first. Have you checked the project's Collaboration? Try nominating it and see if anyone else votes for it. Even if it doesn't get to be Collaboration of the week, you might find some editor to help you (off collaboation). Hoverfish 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flightplan]]

message: Hello to the wikiproject film editors. Recently an editor changed the series of ducunentaires by Michael apted that began with Seven Up! to the Up Series. Unfortunately they did a cut and paste rather than an actual move, thus losing the edit history. I do not know how to fix this situation so I am coming to you in the hope that you can correct this as well as letting the editor know what they did wrong so they won't make this mistake in the future. Of course, no redirects were fixed either so that kay need to be looked into also. Thanks ahead of time for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to try hailing an admin at the admin noticeboard. I'm certain someone can help deal with the issue quickly and effectively there. I'm not certain that "normal" users can easily rectify these types of errors. Girolamo Savonarola 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was taken care of (not by me). Hoverfish 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film series cmoved improperly

message: Most blockbusters today rely on special effects. I'd like to see in the infobox, even for a tiny credit like 'ILM', or even listing supervisors. Wiki-newbie 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the infobox is already really, really big, and while that's not a reason to rule out another addition to it, I don't think we should include special effects.  It should be included in the article, though, if it is a special effects-heavy film (e.g. Alien, Underworld, etc).  -Elizabennet 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox film - Special effects by 

message: I'm putting together the navigation pages for Version 0.5 (a soon-to-be-released test CD release of about 2000 Wikipedia articles).  Note- the format on the Version 0.5 is to be changed.  We have always found films hard to classify - should they go under Arts along with paintings, or under Language & Literature along with plays/theatre (as I am doing currently), or under Media (under "Society") (by association with TV & newspapers)?  Personally I think the Theatre connection is strongest, and this is clearly seen if you want to include actors/actresses in the same section, which seems sensible to me.  I even think TV articles should go there, because good TV is often like theatre & literature, and is often closely linked to film (as with Star Trek).  But I'm not an expert on this - where do you think Films should go?  (Note - I will include links that say, "For film listings see XXX"). Thanks, Walkerma 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree that theatre is film's closest relative (and indeed TV as well, who remembers Armchair Theatre?!). Although there are links to art and media, the purpose of film, to create an emotional response in the viewer, is essentially identical to the purpose of theatre. Mallanox 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that, traditionally, film is most closely associated with theatre (hence the reason that they're called movie "theaters"), so I agree with Mallanox.  -Elizabennet 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Mass media" seems prima facie correct, never mind the 'by association' argument, and "Literature" much less so (film is not primarily a literary medium, and is much less so than theatre).  If anything "Media" would be broader than "mass media", so why would that suggest a reclassification?  Alai 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that films don't just happen, they have to be written. They are scripted the same way as theatre. Mass media covers news, magazines, the internet. All manner of things far removed from film. Mallanox 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're claiming the term mass media doesn't cover film and television, you're using it entirely differently from most people -- not to say the wikipedia article.  That something 'is written' does not make it most appropriately classified under "literature".  Alai 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The orignal question was which place best fits the requirements. I think it fits in best with language and literature because of its shared purpose. Mass media has many purposes and is not always intended to entertain nor invoke an emotional response. Mallanox 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see we're not alone in being torn between things!  It is hard to pin down, I think really it resides in all three places to some extent - mass media certainly does cover films and television and actors, but so does theatre.  Based on the above I think I'll leave it in Language and Literature next to theatre, but there will be a very obvious "redirect" on the Society & Social Sciences page (in the "media" subsection) and I'll also include a similar note in the arts section.  I think as long as it's clear it won't matter too much where the information resides.  Thanks for your input. Walkerma 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General classification of films 

message: User:Calton has tagged dozens of "Lists of <country> films" for afd; his stated judgment is that "Wikipedia is not IMDb lite." Will you folks please pitch in and save these lists, which seem to be both useful and encyclopedic? See the afd discussion here. Thanks - Her Pegship 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are very unwieldy and often potentially uncompletable. Surely this is something that categorization can do far easier and better? Girolamo Savonarola 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if they are maintained, they are very useful, especially if the films in the list haven't yet had an article written about them. Categories only work if the articles exist. There are still gaps of information. — WiseKwai 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a relatively limitless number of films from any given country which don't have articles. That's not a good enough reason. You can use that to justify just about any unmanageable list. Girolamo Savonarola 12:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we may end up with huge amounts of films very hard to manage and especially very hard to tell which films are notable enough. We should not duplicate a database. But if someone like Wisekwai has an idea of a country's notable films, notable directors etc, why not try to integrate the information somehow? Hoverfish 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There and countless films that have been made and lost to time and will never appear on the list. There are other films that have been made and appear on a list and probably will never have articles written about them. But they are there on the list, if someone is looking for the information. And, perhaps, one day someone will come along with the right information in hand to say, "Yes, this film is notable", and be able to write an article about it. The lists can be structured so that they are useful. Nothing is completely unmanageable. — WiseKwai 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list is setup good and well managed: it should stay. But if it's mainly original research, and poorly done and/or maintained...it probably should go. As much as I find lists useful, sometimes they are just pointless. A list of weapons for a movie (such as Doom) isn't that helpful. Many movies feature many weapons: it doesn't mean they need a list to point it all out here. Take that type of information to fansites or fan wiki's. RobJ1981 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Seem to be doing again, huh? Honestly, read the entire article for deletion page—the one you started—and you'll see that that issue has been addressed with the author and he's stated his intentions which are not at all as you have characterized. Doctor Sunshine 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film lists in jeopardy 

message: If there are no opbjections in due course I will be drawing up very useful navigation boxes for Films by genre (redirecting to categories), films by language (redirect mostly to categories and maybe the new lists which some should be kept), Actors by nationality, Film directors by nationality connecting to categories of both so new lists will NOT be created. I will also attelpt to do the same in the world of global television with yearsd in telelvision countries in telelvision programmmes, tellevision actors and directors by nationality to ensure global telelvision is covered too? Each box will be managable and concise and will attempt to comprehend film and telelvision as global rather than purely American . Who thinks this is a good idea? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Navigation boxes

message: This editor is creating 'this day in film' articles. Laudable, but each article consists of just one event, which isn't very illuminating. I've suggested he does one day at a time and lists lot's of events, rather than doing lots of days with one event. Additional help/input is probably a good idea. exolon 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just getting the articles started so they can be expanded. My main area of interest is the AFI 100 (and to a lesser extent the BFI 100) and Hitchcock films. I have no birth/death data. I'm sure there are books of the "year in film"? But I don't have one. :-( Still, I personally want to be able to look up any day in film. I have a small personal db of films I own on DVD and am xferring that as best I can (I'm only one person). But the beauty of Wikipedia is that others can start to help! Thanks for posting about this here, I wasn't sure where to mention it. —02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you have noticed what is happening currently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films. As for starting something new and hoping that others will help, I think one should talk about it, wait to see IF others will help and then start. Hoverfish 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an idea with possibilities, and, if anything, it could made the linking of release dates in film infoboxes useful. — WiseKwai 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Apart from year, precise original release dates are not given in a big number of infoboxes. Also in non N. American films, the date given is most often that of the release in N. America. Hoverfish 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt you when it comes to the "big number of infoboxes", but many film articles I've contributed to are exceptions. North America is not the center of the earth in my eyes and the important release date to note is that of its country of origin. — WiseKwai 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've seen what's happened to some of the lists. But in those cases the category system could easily be used. In this case, the idea is to mirror the date articles, which are arguably getting to be too long. I suppose one could add a film section to every day of the year in those articles, but they are getting too big. This will allow film related births and deaths to be removed from those article. It's the way of the future as those articles get unmanagable, we will start to see December 7 in science and December 7 in politics, etc. because that will be the only way to manage the data. If these film articles get deleted now, I'd be willing to make a bet that such articles will be the way things are done within a few years. —Hanuman Das 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The other arguments are interesting, but nothing says every film has to be listed. Yes, release dates are not known for all films, yes foreign films should be dated by release in the country of origin, if know. Perhaps a separate section titled "US release" should be added. I am quite open to discussion of how best to do this. I am simply being bold and starting with a proof of concept. —Hanuman Das 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I am slow to get what you mean, but in relation to, say, 2004 in film #Events, #Births and #Deaths, wouldn't your work overlap? Hoverfish 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, IMO, one thing that may help in your new series is if you include This article is a work in progress.  Feel free to expand. (or something similar) at the top, until more info is entered. This might save you some frustration in case anybody else thinks they are useless. Hoverfish 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Days in film]] 

message: Presently I am compiling a list of Bulgartian films because there are none in the category. THis is for information purpoese. However I have started with A researching each one and I have found many unotable which have been removed e.g short documentaries and 8 minute cartoons etc. In the end we will have a narrowed down list of missing notable Bulgarian films which can be added to wikipedia. However with other country lists I have no objection if you rather let me compile them behind the mainspace e.g List of Austrian films. Once again lists will be added and then researched removing the non notablre articles again with a list of full missing films for the country to add to wikipedia. Please trust me on this one. The Bulgarian films are being compiled in the mainspace for temporary encylopedic reasons. If somebody wnatede a list of bulgarian films there would at present have only been one or two films See Category:Bulgarian films.
I propose a major new organization of missing wikipedia films by country and date Starting with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing Argentine films
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing Austrian films
This way lists can be accessed from imdb or british film instute but again can be researched so that a finely tuned list of missing films by country will be created chucking out the non notable films. THis will be gradual though so we can manage existing red links in relation to the entire Wikiproject. E.g I am willing to work on one country at a time rather than going ahead creating red links. 
I also propose a major change in films by year. I believe in the same way lists can be compiled on different Wikiproject pages by e.g 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1896 films
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1897 films
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film:Missing 1898 films
etc. Again full lists can be compiled but then researched to remove the titles which are not notable leaving really worthy articles which may be created. The process of researching each year and country could be gradual but I fell this way be make sure that every film of notablity is covered with the crap removed by inital research. Then once these articles are created fully then of course we will automatically have a finely tuned list of films by every year and country which are not only lists but actually provide information on every one which is what my goal on wikipedia is all about. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject missing notable films by year and country

message: I propose that changes are made to List of films by country. Rather than delete them I think each country should have the list of notbale films in order by year of release rather than an A-Z that the categories will eventually create anyway. This is far more useful which I believe Thai films and that have already done. Alos the format could be changed to a box  With year and date of release in chronoligcal order and director of film by country. I notcied debate over the dates of film releases. If lists were drawn up of films by year then the same could eventually be done, from Januray 1st to december the 31st by year. This will not only be an expansion of the main pages e.g 1947 in film and Cinema of .... but will give more specific infomration about date of release in chronological order. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I went through the series of Cinema of (European country). In some countries, not very developed text-wise, there are lists of notable films, directors, etc. In several class start and B, lists are given separately. A series of List of notable films of (European country) would be rather helpful in keeping a consistent presentation. About lists by date of release, there are such listings (given as tables) for Wide-release (in N.America mostly) films in the later Years in film. I think such lists by date are more specific, and hard to spot films in. I would give priority to a series of complementary lists in alphabetical order, which give some notability details (of international recognition) for each entry (something that cannot be done viewing the listing of a category). Hoverfish 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of films by date of release

message: If redirects will be too much of a strain on the system I won't do them its just wikipedia has thousands of new visitors every day and List of ... films is far more probable than Category: which they wouldn't know about. If the redirects weren't there you would type in List of 1947 films and it would seemingly not be there. Iknow the access is on lists of films which people will go to. The new navigation boxes then will just go directly to categories.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: redirects

message: Seattle International Film Festival#Golden Space Needle winners has enough redlinks to keep someone quite busy creating worthy articles. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 17 out of 22 is a prety good score you have there. I will be contributing soon in including all "reds" in the lists of films without an article, where awarded films are presently marked and from where the list of missing notable films will be updated. Hopefully articles will cover your list soon and they won't even reach there. Thank you for compiling the list (table). Hoverfish 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trove of worthy topics 

message: Until now I have concentrated on Film Festival awards to compile notable films. There is also the Significant Critics' awards, up top in List of film awards. Shouldn't these films be considered notable too? Hoverfish 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, probably... There could be further information at Wikipedia:Notability (films), but I'm not sure. Cbrown1023 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting link. Deprecated? I think this article needs urgently to be properly developed and to reach guidelines status (or if this should be kept as a souvenir, then "Notablity in films" or something). It would be The Light we are all looking for lately. Or is there something like Wikipedia:Importance in films? Hoverfish 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you would like it, that's kinda why I "dropped" the link. :-) Cbrown1023 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of film notability 

message: I struggle to see the point of this, but if it's really necessary, can this please be renamed to ?  Or better, to , or merged into ?  (Or best of all, get rid of it entirely.)  Alai 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a :Category: Film templates; why not just create :Category: WikiProject Films templates as a sub-cat? Either way, I agree with Alai that the naming is kinda, well, confusing. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, pesky bluelink.  I'm fine by with your suggestion, but what exactly is the intended distinction?  Alai 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be moved... I tried it by updating the template, but they are still in the other category.  There may just be a lag in the server but somebody else check it out. (I moved it to ) Cbrown1023 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's slowly filling.  In case anyone is wondering why I just acted: I created the categories... so I figured no one would care if I moved it to the right place. Cbrown1023 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not me!  I've fixed the few links to the redirect (aside from some from talk pages), any objections if it's deleted?  (Category redirects seem more trouble than they're worth, especially for template-populated cats.)  Alai 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, delete... :-) Cbrown1023 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done and dusted.  Now, can we do something similar with ?  (Of which I notice that Category talk:Category-Class film articles is a member, natch...)  Alai 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, slowly filling (but at a much faster rate than yesterday).  Previous category marked for speedy by me (the author, db-author) and because it's empty (or will be; db-empty). Cbrown1023 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|Template-Class film articles}} 

message: I have a question on the naming guidelines of a film. The upcoming film Home of the Brave (2007 film), is set to release on limited release on December 15, 2006 and wide release on January 5, 2007. Should the film remain as (2007 film) or return to (2006 film) to include the limited release of the film? Just want to know so I can fix some redirects and determine if there is an established guideline for future similar cases.--Nehrams2020 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be 2006 - see Crash (2004 film) for a similar example. Also this guideline recommends using IMDB dates, which are always of the earliest screening, 2006 in this case. Cop 633 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the quick response, I'll move it back to what it was before. --Nehrams2020 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited release films

message: To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction]]

message: :Copied from User talk:Cbrown1023
I just received your Wiki-film invitation. I am glad to be a part of it, though my time is limited. I am Roger, and a film historian. I wanted to ask your assistance on an article that has been bothering me since I first joined Wikipedia American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. I was starting my volunteer editing for enjoyment and contributions. starting in the silent era. I ran across this article on this company that had been completely over "Cited" with conflicting information. I did my research and found out that even in the discussion of the article there were heated arguments that were utterly ridiculous. This company was an old film company that seemingly went out of business in 1928. In the 80's it was said to have been revived by a man who was in the Little Rascals and his son. As I perused the discussion page I was astonished. The people from new company were defensive, but the volunteer editors were to the point of verbally abusive. One of the statements was that they wanted to destroy the creditability of the company. I tried in vain to edit and correct, but my corrections were reverted and I was no less than harassed. I was even verbally attacked accusing me of being part of said company. I then went to other silent film articles, and discovered that "None" were scrutinized, and over cited as excessively as this article. Since the administrators did not assist at all I reluctantly gave up on much of my Wikipedia involvement, and now have a "Bad Taste" in my mouth for Wikipedia period. I am a suido film historian, and do the lecture circuit quite often. I am very busy and have alot of associates that are in my field as well as financers. After hearing of this plight, the word has gone out not to donate nor support Wikipedia. They have also reviewed this article. Hopefully if this and other discrepancies are corrected with this and other articles, then things may be different. I bring this to your attention because Wikipedia is a wonderful idea handled in the proper manner, and not used as a "Battlefield". Please let me know if you or the our asssociates at Wiki-film can help.  
--Roger the red 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need HELP! 

message: May I please ask for anyone interested to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wicker_Man#Move_to_The_Wicker_Man_.281973_film.29_.3F where there is a discussion about what to call the article. There are opposing viewpoints but not enough to achieve consensus. Any opinions are welcome. Mallanox 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wicker Man naming discussion

message: Australian film Deadly (stub) happens to have a talk page redirecting to another film, apparently not Australian. Can someone please help sort this out? Hoverfish 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I fixed it, take a look. I just deleted the redirect. The message on the talk page was for the actual film of the talk page. "Deadly" did not have anything on its talk page. --Nehrams2020 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What amazes me is that it was like that since mid-2005. --Nehrams2020 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper redirect