Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 8

message: I think we could use a film festival infobox- I created one at  and would appreciate y'all taking a look at it.  I'm not terribly familiar with the coding, so I just copied and pasted the film infobox, and changed the titles involved.  -Elizabennet 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you put it into a film festival article to show us what it looks like in action? Cop 633 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I just put it in the 8 Films to Die For article.  -Elizabennet 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about festivals that have hundreds of films? How would the use of the film field be specified/limited? I have posed other questions and suggestions about this on Template talk:Film festival infobox. — WiseKwai 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film festival infobox 

message: Here is just some: Batman & Robin (1997 film), Borat, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Toy Story. For a more complete list: :Category:Articles with large trivia sections. I've been doing my best to clean trivia whenever I can, but I could always use some help. Movies seems to be a main problem area for the category. RobJ1981 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the optimal amount of trivia per article? Also, if it gets to long, should it get its own article? Perhaps the film's references in popular culture could be added along with it (which are usually common in cult/popular films). What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, there would be none. Everything that's notable should be able to be incorporated into the article and everything trivial left out but that will never happen. Here's what Wikipedia has to say: Wikipedia:Trivia. Basically, get rid of all the ridiculous stuff, see everything in Robocop, and keep all the interesting stuff, see everything in Werner Herzog. Doctor Sunshine 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a trivia section must exist, it should be small, not insanely long and/or cluttered with useless notes. Also: I looked at the Werner article: way too long of a trivia section. Having a tattoo shouldn't just be crammed into trivia, same goes for alot of that. 17 pieces of trivia is too big. Look at just about any featured article (and probably alot of good articles as well): trivia sections aren't that huge. If the article is going to improve, the trivia needs to be put into the article itself. Cluttered sections don't help. RobJ1981 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Example:  in Frankenheimer's The Train there's a scene where the Burt Lancaster character is shot in the leg.  From that point onward he always seen to be limping.  That scene was written into the film because Lancaster hurt his knee playing golf (when not in front of a camera), so it provides an excuse for him to be limping in the latter part of the film.  I would consider that non-trivial trivia, since it directly impacts the film, so I would include it in the film article.  Had a young Tom Cruise been working in the commissary, and this had no effect on the film, I'd call that pointless trivia and would not include it in the article.  Any reactions?  Cryptonymius 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much trivia on many film articles

message: Does Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) apply in film articles' Plot sections? Hoverfish 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the fact that the text is in a section called "Plot" or "Synopsis", etc. covers the out-of-universe angle – although, I've started some with "In the film", "The story follows..." myself. The only exception I noticed that wasn't listed is that they can be of a fair length. I'd use existing WP:FA articles as a guide, Night of the Living Dead has a long summary. Doctor Sunshine 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In and out universe perspectives 

message: I have put some work into expanding the article on Tears of the Black Tiger. I believe it to be worthy now of at least a B-class rating, but I can't make that determination independently. So please feel free to have a look. I would also rate the film's importance as high, given that it has a "holy grail" reputation among world film buffs, but I'm sure there are folks here who would love to argue that point. — WiseKwai 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines on the importance assessment are nowhere to be found, so unless we take some time to define them, there will be only arguments (as criteria?) Hoverfish 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The film article looks like a full B to me. I can't give opinion for higher assessment. Hoverfish 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's undemocratic, anyone can change it. Even doing it yourself shouldn't have raised any eyebrows, Wisekwai. I'd say it's pretty close to a GA. I rated it Mid-level importance because, frankly, I've never heard of it and there's no "Reception" section to go by. A very well done article, though. Doctor Sunshine 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, folks. I appreciate the second looks. The reception section will come. Good point about that, though. I should probably start now on it. The film is finally getting a US theatrical release in Landmark theaters in January-February 2007. Go see it! It's a wonder to behold on the big screen. — WiseKwai 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And if you disagree feel free to change the importance yourself. As I haven't seen the film you're more qualified than I am. Doctor Sunshine 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Enough press existed a few years ago to drive me to search out the film, which I acquired on a VCD import from Malaysia.  I'd say the film's "Importance" is largely to do with the fact that it is a Thai film, and one of a few films to stir up an international interest in the cinema of a nation which previously wasn't heard from much.  This, and Nang Nak, basically made me aware that Thai cinema exists, and I guess the two of them serve different functions in introducing Thai cinema to the world... Nang Nak shows the big, commercially successful melodrama, and Tears shows the more self-consciously arty/post modern side of Thai-film.  The film is notable because of the press it received, and its semi-successful "breakthrough" status.  But honestly, if it had come out of a nation already prominent on the international film scene, it probably would have been deemed not notable.  So, I reckon a "B" for importance is all it can aspire to, and it probably fits the category. zadignose 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tears of the Black Tiger]] class rating, importance 

message: I've nominated all out A-Class articles for peer review to better understand how we can turn them into featured articles.  In case you do not know, A-Class articles are very close to featured articles and should be one of the main focuses for us.  Drop by on the following articles and participate if you can:
*Film
*GoldenEye
*Serenity (film)
*Star Wars
*The Lion King
*The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The links to the peer review pages are found at the top of the talk pages. Cbrown1023 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class and [[WP:PR]] 

message: The December newsletter will be released in the next week or two, so please add any relevant information, updates, or news that you want brought to all of the other WP:Films members. Also Cbrown1023 and myself would like to know what day the newsletter should be sent out to all of the members. Would you prefer the middle of the month or the end of the month? Please list your vote here, so we can continue to improve the newsletter to meet the WP's members' needs. --Nehrams2020 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could help in delivering it also, if you want to split the list of members in half or something. Also, if it is desired for the newsletter to be delivered at the end of this month, I wouldn't mind sending it out. --Nehrams2020 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: December Newsletter

message: *Support --Nehrams2020 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the Month

message: Is that date good for everyone this month?  I'm not gonna be at my computer from Dec 22 to Jan 2, so I wouldn't be able to deliver it if it was after then...  There are a lot of crazy options I have to put in so it would be easiest of I did it since I already have them set up.  However, if someone else thinks they can do it (I know you all can do it... I guess I mean want to do it), then you guys can send it out later.  If I don't get any "no" responses to this, I'm gonna go ahead and do it on Dec 21. Cbrown1023 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could help in delivering it also, if you want to split the list of members in half or something. Also, if it is desired for the newsletter to be delivered at the end of this month, I wouldn't mind sending it out. --Nehrams2020 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: December 21

message: I suggest we start a project subpage where films considered Top importance can be listed and discussed/debated. When it becomes clear whether they qualify or not, they can be removed from the list. Hoverfish 08:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do, it should be in the Assessment Department's space. Cbrown1023 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I just noticed this! Congrats!! That's a great subpage! I will put it in my favorites and will be using it a lot. You should definitely include its presence in the Dec. Newsletter. Hoverfish 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created and described in last month's newsletter... I wasn't going to put it in there this month because there isn't anything much to report.  I guess I'll remind everyone and tell them to go request an Assessment there. Cbrown1023 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Don't feel bad if you missed it in last month's newsletter, it was just a small link at the beginning and there was a lot to read! Cbrown1023 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top importance subpage 

message: Who's Quentin? is one of the few notable films of Luxemburg that we have. Subsections Synopsis and Production seem to be a copy from the official website . I did some general cleanup, removed the cleanup tag but some tag has to replace it. Hoverfish 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied text 

message: I'd just like to inform you that I have nominated I Not Stupid for GA status. You may wish to comment in its ongoing peer review.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[I Not Stupid]] has been nominated for GA status. 

message: Here's a little project I'm having trouble with. We should be using the common film titles among English language countries. I've fixed a few here and there but I'm also getting some resistance, specifically here, Talk: Pulse (2001 film), and here, Talk:Tirez sur le pianiste. The policies I've been citing are WP:NC, and WP:CN and WP:UE. Should we rewrite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) to include foreign title usage? There there are some films like The Human Beast which I believe should actually be switched to La Bête humaine. However, a lot of films like La Peau douce (The Soft Skin) and Bara no soretsu (Funeral Parade of Roses) are more commonly referred to by their English title. Generally, Rotten Tomatoes, amazon.com and google helpful in terms of evidence but facts don't seem to be enough in some cases. Doctor Sunshine 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the last discussion there has been on this issue: . I usually take it as it comes, but you may have a point we all need to discuss again. Hoverfish 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't even thing to check the archives. I really don't think people are reading the links I'd posted as policy clearly supports my position in both of the move request cases I've listed above. I'll see if I can't write up an addition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) at some point, unless someone wants to beat me to it. Doctor Sunshine 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already re-organized the page and created a new section for you to write it. (so I haven't written it yet...) Cbrown1023 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, thanks for setting it up. I went head and wrote the addition. Comments appreciated. Doctor Sunshine 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: How do we determine "the title more commonly recognized by English readers"? Granted, the vast majority of cases will be clear cut and/or common sense, but what about those films where a decision either way could be seen as borderline? What criteria do you suggest we use? As far as I can see there is still no clear consensus on this issue; is it wise to be writing guidelines without proper discussion? PC78 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This isnt vastly scientific but I've been checking amazon.co.uk and amazon.com for titles used on DVD releases. Any that I've found released with English titles I have moved to that title. Mallanox 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: I think it will be kind towards Ernst Stavro Blofeld's efforts, if some members care to leave a consensus comment 1) on the inclusion of graphic flags and maps and 2) on the horizontal or vertical arrangement of Asia. I also see the need for Middle East, since we have the article, but if we do not get any more of all these countries (Israel? Egypt? Jordan? others?), then it really hits the eye as incomplete in vertical division. Hoverfish 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No to the flags, but no problem with the arrangement on Asia. For the Middle East, there could be a category redirect for the missing countries, like Israel. That would help fill in some space. Or it could be left blank, which might encourage folks to start "Cinema of ..." articles. — WiseKwai 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *As per Wisekwai. Hoverfish 16:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes to horizontal arrangement for Asia. Yes to national flags purely for aesthetic purposes, though images for sub-regions / languages are very hard to see. Gram 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I really like the flags I think they are really needed for aesthetic purposes and make the box look really good. I do like Hoverfish's adjustments to the Asian sub divisions which is needed however I think perhaps India needs a line of its own referred to in South Asia cinema . I have minimized the flags but if you do decide to remove the flags please keep the images by the world and continents and they do look good.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree. The flags look a bit too cluttered and I think we can lose Asia and list all of the sub categories together in it's place for a consistent horizontal look. Doctor Sunshine 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that if we do this vertical split in South Asia, it will look rather strange under 800x600 resolution. Hoverfish 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a small thing but I'd lose all the black lines and then just highlight the backgrounds of the region list with the title bar colour. It's easy enough to follow the titles across, as seen here. Also, I agree with combining the Americas, if only to keep the height down. Also in keeping with the Kurosawa template, try putting the world map image in the right-hand corner. Doctor Sunshine 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Asia worked better the way it was before - horizontal. The way it is now omits Cinema of Cambodia, and South Asia's too cluttered. If I may comment again on the flags and graphics: I know they look pretty, but I feel this needs to be kept simple. The flags and maps add too much clutter and don't give any more information about film than simple names. For sure the poster images on Indian cinema do not work. They are too small to be useful. And one of them is a fair-use image, a big no-no. Also, if possible, the whole thing should be smaller. Can the typeface be smaller? — WiseKwai 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the navigation was much simpler and condenced before we started the vertical split on Asia. I am for moving back to that format. The way it is now, it's so bulky that it shouldn't go in article pages, or it will look heavy. It's useful if it stays simple and I am for going back one step. Hoverfish 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus comments

message: The question is in regards to the occasional situation in which a film has premiered in limited release in the year prior to its wide release date. For example, Amazing Grace (2007 film) has already premiered in Canada in 2006 ahead of its wide USA release date in 2007, similar to how Gosford Park premiered in London in 2001 ahead of its wide USA release in 2002. However, the two articles are using two different conventions in specifying their year of release. The corresponding IMDb listings for Amazing Grace (2006) and Gosford Park (2001) favor earlier release dates, but I wanted to check here before proceeding. -- Corsair Armada 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go by IMDb. Hoverfish 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, go by IMDB. Even a limited release film will be seen by thousands of people. Are we saying that Londoners 'don't count' and Americans do?!. Cop 633 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do limited release dates count?

message: :I'd go by IMDb. Hoverfish 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go by IMDB. Even a limited release film will be seen by thousands of people. Are we saying that Londoners 'don't count' and Americans do?!. Cop 633 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (limited release dates count for year of release)

message: We're running into some trouble at the guideline and need to have some consensus so the current guidelines can stay.  Please check them out and state whether you suport or oppose the changes by adding #~~~~ under the proper heading.  Thanks, 
Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)|NAMING CONVENTIONS]] CHECK 

message: #Cbrown1023 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *The naming conventions does not currently deal with films that have several English language titles, so I can neither support or oppose at this state. I have stated here why the guideline needs to clarify this matter. Prolog 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have set up a new template.  I don't want these country boxes to be too large so featured content of it must be kept to a strict criteria of super notability. E.g major international or cult films, and actors and directors world known or starred in over 30 films or something.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's going to be too many people for a template format. Except for countries with very small film industries there's going to be way too many names. Keep in mind cinema's over a hundred years old now and still going. Just take a look at the current list of auteurs and keep in mind that's maybe the top 1% of the most notable directors. Actually, what might work is the major film studios and festivals, more institutional listings rather than people. Doctor Sunshine 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little okay with your other template creations, but I have to put my foot down on these ones and show my POV.  Many people hate footer templates (actor, director, film series...) anway.  This template is HUGE and, even if you only put the notable things, it is still going to be huge.  If you are going to create them, just keep them in our space and put them in like notable items in the film industry per conuntry.  Plus, you could be linking one thing to another think that has no similarities.  Plus there would be POV issues on saying who/what is most notable. Cbrown1023 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: another option would be to just put it on the Cinema in page. Cbrown1023 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree that such BIG templates should be put only in the general articles. Not in films or biographies. Hoverfish 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall there being a question of changing Gram's boxes. I think they should remain in their present form and continue to serve their present useful purpose of providing a quick summary of the regional scenes. The skinny country nav box at the bottom helps folks see more about a country's scene without having to navigate categories. Then, there's whole wide world in the big box for folks that want to know more. — WiseKwai 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New country navigation boxes

message: How about the country template is just minimised completely by country to just include the main topics rather than articles e.g actors, films festivals directors , cinematographers , editors horizontally in one skinny box. I agree that in aeell written cinema articles the main articles featured in the box will already be linked and the box would be too big for most general articles. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinema country templates

message: I proposed this back a while, but I think we should have a council. We are so huge compared to most projects because we carry so many articles that we need a group of "elected" members with a chairmanship on things that matter to us. For example, the council would be able to set the polices on the rating system for movies, and form commissions for article ratings to and from certain "classes". (i.e. Group 3 could be the people who review GA-class articles to A-class articles, but have zero influence to the peer review system.) Anyway, that's about it. Shane (talk/contrib) 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies on rating systems are tricky. There are many who want it to stay subjective and debatable. I am for some clear guidelines, but not policies. Hoverfish 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not so much for the lower articles then, but the articles residing at GA level. A group of people that can predictably "vote" (concenus style) to see if the article has reached A-Class. Because to get FA class, it has to go through the normal WP:FAC process. Shane (talk/contrib) 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And to add more... me... for example... doesn't contribute a lot to the articles. People who like to write are in a different view because they might be inclined to say "Of course this is an A-Class article." With 13k something articles we need this type of check to make sure only the best get bumped to A-Class and fail WP:FAC because it should not have been A-Class in the first place. This group can also be the group that improves or promotes good health to these small number A-Class articles to help them get to WP:FAC status. Shane (talk/contrib) 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty good, I've already done that a couple of times.  I've looked through  and bumped up high-quality articles to A-Class.  But, couldn't it just be brought up on this page? Cbrown1023 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films Project Council 

message: There is currently discussion going on at Talk:Spider-Man 3#Rating (and down to "Importance scale") about how to set the importance scale for this future film.  Has anyone at WikiProject Films encountered this issue, and how has it been handled?  Please review our discussion and share any pertinent information to help resolve the issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The importance scale is used for the sole reason on this question, "How significance is the item pertaining to the project in question." Now the FBI Wikiproject I am involved with, the main FBI article is TOP importance and so is "Ten Most Wanted", but these are things the public usually hears about often. Some of the articles in the project are "Low" because they are about FBI agents that have some notability, but are considered quite low on public interest. At least this is how I see the rating system for "Importance". So I would keep "Unknown" for now, because the movie has yet to be released and we have no idea on the impact of the movie to the public. Shane (talk/contrib) 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that by definition an unreleased film shouldn't have an importance rating, as it hasn't actually been seen by the public. Girolamo Savonarola 12:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think for future releases to just leave importance out (unknown) is the right thing. Hoverfish Talk 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance scale 

message: :(this could have been a request on WP:AFC but that process is too heavyweight for such a simple request)
Someone created a stub under Alfred Green for the HWOF-honored director Alfred E. Green.  References to him are more numerous under the latter version of his name, so could someone please move the article (I believe the move creates a redirect for the original name).  Thanks.  64.126.32.51 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone move [[Alfred Green]] to [[Alfred E. Green]] 

message: The December 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.  Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff. Congrats AdamSmithee 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FILMS Newsletter

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Film Certificates}} 

message: Image:Hanukiyot.jpg|Happy Hanukkah!:
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|Merry Christmas!
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svgImage:Kwanzaa.jpg|Happy Kwanzaa!]]
Whatever you celebrate, Happy It! Cbrown1023 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Holidays! 

message: Cbrown gave me the idea to get the Films Categorization Department going and I can't be stoped now. But I can be persuaded to do it with others, so I hope all interested parties will rush to participate. Things I have in mind: 1. Giving an idea to new members on how to go about categorizing. 2.  Having a to-do work-list, where members can state what they are working on currently. 3. Having a place where we decide on categorizing matters. 4. Offering links to helpful general articles, like Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories and to some specific ones, like Cinematic genre. Hoverfish Talk 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the main thing that needs to be done is to evaluate the current structure and then come up with an organizational plan that keeps things as efficient and intuitive as possible. I'm looking at working on this through WP Filmmaking as well, so it would be good to coordinate our efforts. What I'm saying is - if we can create a very clear hierarchy structure, we shouldn't be afraid to massively reorganize and (in some cases) start from scratch. WP MILHIST's work - as always - is a comprehensive and inspiring example of one project's approach to this. I don't see why we couldn't do something similar. Once it's planned out and implemented, then the only remaining regular task will be sporadic oversight to make certain that articles aren't placed too generally. In any case, count me in. Girolamo Savonarola 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be very interested in assisting with this. I have overhauled several genre categories though haven't really had any feedback about it. :Category:Science fiction films is an example of the pattern I've been working to. Mallanox 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting our Categorization Department 

message: After a talk with Girolamo Savonarola, we think that the Film article definately needs some working on.  It is, after all, the basis for both of our projects (Filmmaking and Films).  We agree that the best way to fix this is to hold a collaboration amongst both projects much like our current collaboration, with hope of turning it into a featured article.  Any comments and suggestions are, of course, greatly appreciated.  Please note that this will probably not occur until after the start of the new year, but all replies before that time are very helpful. Cbrown1023 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and nominated for collaboration. Feel free to vote for it!--Supernumerary 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Multi-WikiProject Collaboration

message: I beleive that every American film should be categorized as American films but as there are so many tens of thousands how about the category is split by decade.
E.g my The Lawless Nineties would become :Category:American films of the 1930s. 
Category:American films would be neatly organized by decade rather than the giant giant main category. It could look like this:
*:Category:American films of the 1890s
*:Category:American films of the 1900s. 
*:Category:American films of the 1910s. 
*:Category:American films of the 1920s.
*:Category:American films of the 1930s. 
*:Category:American films of the 1940s. 
*:Category:American films of the 1950s. 
What does everybodt think? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in your talk page, I think this should wait for the blessings of the new categorization department. Hoverfish Talk 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO OF THE, please!  If we do do it... I think the MoS is to put 1890s American Films... (etc.).  It should also defiantely be for WP:FILMS/CAT to do and agree on. Cbrown1023 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting Category:American films

message: Do we actually need both List of Spanish films and the Category Spanish films (esp. when the former is empty)? Lars T. 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles "List of ### films" vs. Categories "### films" 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I've created an RFC to work out the details involved in making useful filmography sections.  Check it out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography. - Peregrinefisher 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography RFC 

message: Is there anything like a category for film release dates? It would be nice to be able to see, for example, all films that were released on Labour Day Weekend, and compare them with films released for Christmas. samwaltz 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories come as close as year and are not going to extend further down. There are some lists by (N.American) release dates in the later Years in film (2004 in film), if it helps. Please, see also the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization. We're just starting it, but soon we may have some clear categorization guidelines for films. Hoverfish Talk 11:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you compile a list for films released on Labour Day or Christmas, it might stand a chance. What do other members say about this? Hoverfish Talk 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea... Cbrown1023 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catgegory: Release Date?

message: Hi folks! Once again I'm putting in my 2 cents; feel free to take it or leave it. I came across :Category:Needed film articles and I see that it consists entirely of talk pages for articles which don't exist. In the interest of keeping database clutter down, may I suggest we not create these? My reasons:
1. The List of films without article is sufficient for anyone to check what needs creating, without proliferating little placeholders that may or may not ever get filled in, or that may need deleting later on (see #3).
2. Anyone who comes along wanting to contribute may get confused or bogged down in all the lists, categories, and instructions and become intimidated about the process. Remember, many of us are old hands here, but we don't want to discourage newcomers!
3. I keep coming across talk pages with the "needed" tag, where the article already exists under the correct title; I have already redirected Talk:Koyanaskatsi, Talk:Eating Out (movie), and a couple others. Please, if you are creating these talk pages (or any other film article), double-check your sources to get the title and caps right, use the "search" button instead of "go" to see if there are variations, and brush up on your film naming conventions. It will save everyone a lot of cleanup in the long run. Thanks!! Her Pegship  (tis herself) 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have AWB, Pegship? If so, please make a round in cat needed articles and remove the Film template. This was Cbrown mostly and TheMadBaron. In a previous discussion we've already persuaded them to quit and I think they did. Hoverfish Talk 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have AWB (I'm mostly using an 8-year-old iMac :)) but I'll be happy to do it by hand...then they will have to be deleted by someone who's an admin. I can do the nomination too if you like. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll delete them all, but don't remove the banner, class or it from the template.  This way, they'll all be on that one category to help me delete them all. :) Cbrown1023 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: All deleted. Cbrown1023 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of "placeholder" pages 

message: 1. Are there any review websites that you do not allow?
2. Do you allow reviews that appear on personal websites and blogs?
3. Should I ask permission for each review, or can I just go ahead and post the reviews as external links?
4. Can I post an interview of an actor that is in the film? 
5. Did anyone drink too much last night?
ImaGoodPerson 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you may want to see Wikipedia:External links. I hope it helps. No one gives permissions. What happens is that if unappropriate external links are found, they are deleted. Generally we use referneces to IMDB and AMG for various film data (but we do not give references to reviews by users). Instead we go to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for professional critics reviews. But generally any professional critic review is acceptable. Hoverfish Talk 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If yours gets removed by another user and they call it spam, take it to the talk page of the article discuss, and if it passes and is allowed by the frequent editor's of the article, include it.  If you think that it will likely be removed again, add a little editors message (surrounded by  saying that it has been discussed as worth of inclusion and give a link to the proper history page.  Please note that none of that will appear in the actual article itself unless someone views the article in edit mode. Cbrown1023 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I post reviews and interviews as external links? 

message: I want to propose a new template to assist in upgrading the quality of films within the WikiProject. Of our 17,000+ film articles, approximately 10,000 of them are stubs. I think it would be better for the project if the majority of these could be improved to start class or better. I would like to propose a template that would go on the talk page listing the characteristics of a start class and how to upgrade it from stub to start. The template would list the basic requirements of the project's guidelines and assessment requirements to alert users how to improve the article. I think the template should look something like this:
Stub to Start-Class Instructions
To bring this stub article to start class it needs the following requirements:
*Picture (movie poster, DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or a character from the film)
*Film infobox ()
*Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.)
*Plot summary
*Cast section
*At least two other sections of information (production, box office, differences from novel/TV show, soundtrack, sequels, references in popular culture, DVD release, etc.)
*Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))
Once this article has achieved these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template removed.
First of all, I would like to determine if this is feasible and desired for the project, and if so, how this template could be removed, if anything should be added/removed from the requirements. I think that by adding this to all stub articles, we can gradually improve them by bringing more attention to what guidelines the project follows. I know that it would take a while to tag the 10,000+ films, and I would not mind doing so. In the process of doing this, we would be able to determine if some of the stubs already meet these standards as some of the assessments of films were done months ago. I would like any feedback on this, and if it is decided to go forward with this, somebody would have to create the template since I don't know how.--Nehrams2020 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a great idea.  As you may have noticed in my addition of the "needs infobox film" paramter, you can easily transclude the template into the page.  The slightly complicated bit would be to allow this to only happen for stubs but to happen automatically.  I'm sure that Shane can figure it out if one of us can't. Cbrown1023 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can work. However, we need to determine the different stages for grading. I mentioned this before in a previous post, but no one responded to the topic. Shane (talk/contrib) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Different stages for grading", what is it you mean there?   should be of assistance if I catch your drift. I know you created it. :)  You just may have forgotten about it since you haven't edited it in six months. :) Cbrown1023 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be great if we could somehow transclude it with the films that are currently assessed as as stubs. Is the Film Grading Scheme created for WP:Films or was that established for the assessment department for the CD release of Wikipedia? Do you think that the requirements listed above are too high/low for start class? --Nehrams2020 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created by us for our use but based off of the CD releases (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team)...Cbrown1023 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, work is going on here. Hoverfish Talk 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like who the peer review is currently shown? Cbrown1023 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh?  The "more information" only shows up when one of the fields is inputted... so the collapsible would only appear if it was class=Stub... Cbrown1023 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New template proposal

message: To Wikiproject Film, I have one comment. You can find me at Wikiproject Aircraft, but I'm new to this project, my question may be answered, but its a user-friendly issue.
Many articles about composers (eg. John Williams) have music files allowing the user to listen to music the composer has created. I find that using OGG music files is unpractical, seeing that MP3 files or Windows Media Player is much more commonly in use. I am unable to sample any of the music, because I do not have OGG format installed on my computer. A funny browser also pops up when I click on any of the music files.
Why are the files in OGG format? ChockStock 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sound files on Wikipedia generally use the Ogg Vorbis sound format, and video files use the Ogg Theora format. These are roughly similar to other formats used to play digital audio and video such as MP3 and MPEG. The difference is that the Ogg formats are completely free, open, and unpatented." from here. If you follow that link, you'll find instructions on how to play OGG files as well.--Supernumerary 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankee ChockStock 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New

message: What's the policy for films on whether the External Link sections should include a link to IMDb?  WP:TV#External links says to use the IMDb link in the infobox and not put one in the External Links section; is the convention the same here?
Jordan Brown 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links and IMDb 

message: Pertaining to the above discussion #Long synopses -- again, I would like to propose that we have sub articles for a film's extended plot. Is this acceptable and possible? The reason is that most occasional readers, shouldn't have to go through an extended plot in the main article, but some that are looking particularly for it could still get it. Surely that's not a priority or something to recommend, but if we have it, additionally to a good plot summary, we could find its righteous place. And surely everything must remain encyclopedic and details leading off the main plot should not be included, even in the extended version. Hoverfish Talk 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, I think it would work. A general, no spoiler plot, could go on the main article, followed by a link to it's subpage for a large plot synopsis. Like Hoverfish, I too come to Wikipedia to read the entire plot synopsis of films that I have no desire to see or want to find details about a particular scene. --Nehrams2020 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would accept this as way to deal with the evident strong desire of editors to write long synopses. I as a reader hate and loathe them -- they're usually very badly written and boring -- but having a 400-600 word synopsis on the main page and a long-as-you-please synopsis in a sub-article would make more people happy. (I had written "make everyone happy" and then realized that I have run into too many editors who feel that their extremely important information must be placed in the main article, in a prominent position, surrounded by triumphal arches and monumental statuary. But I digress.) Zora 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're an outlier, Hoverfish. I've never heard anyone but you claim to like reading long synopses. We could get some real data, however, if we moved long synopses into subarticles in a few high-profile films and then kept track of the clickthroughs. I could be the one who's an outlier. Real data would beat arguing. Zora 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing you can do is create a short summary section that's small and put the big one in an extended summary section.  Then people can decide for themselves what they want to read. - Peregrinefisher 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I myself see a strong distinction between going to get something, by clicking on it (that's my choice) and having to scroll through something interminable that I don't want to read. The first feels like checking out a purchase by googling it; the second feels like having to wait through commercials when I watch broadcast TV. But then, hadn't you already agreed that long synopses were not OK? It seems as if that decision were being revisited. Zora 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have short and long summaries, then you can click on either link in the table of contents and get exactly what you want.  I'm against super long summaries if that's all there is. I don't want to be forced to read a book.  For example, Welcome to the Hellmouth gives you the option of a quick read or a long one.  I think the reader gets what they want, just not wikipedians who don't like long summaries. - Peregrinefisher 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, after all the above, this wouldn't be useful anyway, but that's the answer I got on the question of "clicks": MediaWiki does supports page views but was, last I knew, disabled on wikipedia due to the extreme high traffic. It seems we will have to go by good faith. Hoverfish Talk 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended plot sub articles 

message: Hi, the title sais it all. If the movie is promoted with an english title in USA, should that be used or the original title? --Steinninn 11:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UE Girolamo Savonarola 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the English title. See naming conventions for films. Cop 633 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title in English or original title

message: Wikipedia is lately able to have tables sortable by column. All one needs to do is read m:help:sorting and give class="sortable" to a table. Hoverfish Talk 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! Important Hi-Tech Update ! 

message: You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as A Trip to the Moon (film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.</small>
 Cbrown1023 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CineVoter

message: There might be confusion with this request. See Talk:The Hitchers (band from Limerick). But then I could be crazy. But with only a few votes, more people should chim in. Whatever way they think. Peace out. 205.157.110.11 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted him and left a message on his talk page.  Please contact me if anyone does anything like this again. - Peregrine Fisher 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a related note from the film categorizing project: There is talk about giving category by studio of production to all films (where studio is notable). When this happens the deleted lists will be only partial duplicates of the cat, but we aren't there yet. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when their is a similar cat, I don't think these lists should be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've warned him that I'd warn him if he does it again. Cbrown1023 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Request that kinda sorta involves the film [[The Hitcher]]