Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure how late I'm for the discussion, but incase someone is still listening, I'll like to address a crucial point, there has been no mention of a Wikiquote tag, I feel we need to stimulate more users to experience wikiquote so these tags are very important
: or 
should be used.
A minor thing, when saying the date of the film we should begin using 1976 film or simply 1976, Example: Taxi Driver is a 1976 film... (also see Taxi Driver at Wikiquote for a quick demo.)  
I am willing to contribute to this project in all the ways I can, PEACE ~ RoboAction 07:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about [[Wikiquote]]

message: I've never been a fan of displaying DVD covers as the corresponding image for films, as seems to be the general practice. The DVD covers, especially for older films, are usually modernized for reselling in newer markets and don't really contribute much to an understanding of the film itself. I much prefer to include important frames from the film (like in the 2001: A Space Odyssey article, which I think is quite good).  Original movie posters can also work (again, like in the 2001 article). Any thoughts?
Bungopolis 23:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the DVD covers, I don't personally have a problem with DVD covers since that's what someone would probably see on a shelf or be able to identify with.  If we can get the poster, that's cool but I don't think any less of DVD covers.  Dismas 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, but already I feel right at home.  This evening I joined this fine project, but I think it could use a little reform.  For one, I think we should make the project page a little more detailed and a little more like some of the other Wikipedia documentation, including explaining or links to explinations of formatting and use of Wikipedia in general (resemble things like Wikipedia:How to edit a page).  I think the thing the project page needs most is structure — hey, maybe we can even use the 'subpage' feature of wikipedia (Example: Wikipedia:WikipProject Movies/Formatting).
Another thing I think there is a lack of is specifics.  I think we should have a list of film categories to add our movies to (the current ones are sparse and many movies are in no categories at all).  Also, maybe we should recommend adding a list of reviews to the pages — I've done it to the last few I've updated.  An example of a somewhat well structured WikiProject that I've come accross is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports.
Anyways, if anybody is interested in any of these ideas, respond.  I'll have this page on watch. --imaek 06:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New here 

message: I've been writing some new film articles and using the movie template but I'm not 100% happy with it. I know there's been some discussion on this, but it was months ago and I'm not sure if any consensus has been reached on which template to use. The templates at the moment seem to list things like distributor and budget that aren't necessarily appropriate. It can be difficult to find budget info for older films, and its often meaningless to compare the budget of a 1943 film to a 2003 one anyway. Also, distributor is a bit of a problem because most films have different distributors in different countries. I've noticed people have often taken the distributor info from a DVD or video copy, which is inaccurate as many films (including almost all older ones) will have different distributors from their original release. Is there any agreement on what template to use, or are there alternatives?  JW 29 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)
:I think something quite basic would be best. That's what I don't like about templates like that, they have this "one-size-fits-all" mentality (not that a template can have a mentality, but, well, you know). One thing I dislike about the album tempaltes is that many articles have a "?????" in some of the entries, which looks bad. I think if something isn't applicable or known it should be left out, which is difficult to do with templates. Any info not included in the template can be put elsewhere in the article.
:I haven't been part of this wikiproject, but I'm thinking maybe I should join, as I do have some opinions on film articles. Mostly I just don't like the ones that are practically cut and paste jobs from IMDb. I've written a few that don't follow any real standardization, but I think they're pretty good in that they have some good information other than IMDb stats and plot synopsis. I think real articles on films should be encouraged. -R. fiend 01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie templates

message: There are literally hundreds of articles that are at Title (movie) or Title (YEAR movie).  These all need to be moved to Title (film) and Title (YEAR film), don't they?  Is there any effort at all to do this? john k 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "film" better than "movie"? I would sort of think so, but it seems movie is more prevalent (from my own limited experience). I'd be happy with either, but I think you're right in that they need to be standardized. I would think a bot would be the way to go, but as I know nothing about making bots I cannot help in this respect, however. -R. fiend 01:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I...I think "film" is better, given that we use film in every context except the article titles.  But it'll be a huge amount of work. john k 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles - Call to Action 

message: Essentially, I see this project as competing head-on with IMDB (). Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I just wanted to make sure that that is what is really happening. If so, this is a big task - not an impossible one but a big one. Comments anyone? Manning 00:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Further thoughts - IMDB has several advantages over MediaWiki in this area.
# Automatic back-linking: If I say Actor X is in Movie Y, then the page for Actor X automatically backlinks, and is automatically date-ordered.
# Date engine - all movie entries are date stamped, and all links are automatically sorted in this fashion.
#Fixed parameters - IMDB has a fixed range of parameters (Trivia, Plot Summary, Goofs, Awards, etc). We would need to manually maintain all of this.
Essentially, I can't see us competing with IMDB using Wikipedia. However, I CAN see us having MediaWiki modified to a fixed framework (and have the autobacklinking and date ordering included) and then creating a sister project called "WikiMovies"... Now that's a really big call, but it would achieve big things. We would need Jimbo's input of course. Manning 00:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Why do you think this is a competition? IMDB has its own benefits, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the film articles should deal with what the movie is, how and why it was produced, criticism and its influence or innovations if any. I think there should be more concern about making Wikipedia movie articles less like IMDB. MechBrowman 03:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:: If the objective is to NOT be like IMDB, then that is great too, but it needs to be well-defined. My assessment that this seems like a competition against IMDB is based on what I have read thus far and I'm happy to be wrong. I think you are correct in identifying that there is a need for greater clarity as to precisely what is trying to be achieved. Manning 04:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::I think the similarities to IMDB are because many of the film articles took the information directly from IMDB. I think a problem that WikiProject Films faces is that there are few resources readily available for many movies. I went to the Main branch of the Philadelphia Public Library and they didn't even have a single book devoted to D.W. Griffith! MechBrowman 20:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree that the Wikipedia Films project has a distinct role to play beyond  IMDb, and other web sites. The purpose here is to document significant historical events.  IMDb does not do much of that, especially with new films.  I see Wikipedia's NPOV as a very important role in documenting our knowledge, one that is distinct from IMDb.  My $0.02.  Steven McCrary 18:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
::I think it would be a good idea to have a wiki-based IMDB-like project.  Currently IMDB is owned by Amazon and its licensing allows using its data only for personal use.  It'd be nice to have a competing project that is user-powered and its data open for others to build upon. FarmerBob 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about IMDB...? 

message: Adding the tag automatically adds the article to :Category:Upcoming films, which is a subcategory of :Category:Future products. Note that :Category:Future films would propably be more in line with :Category:Future products, :Category:Future games and :Category:Future events. --The Merciful 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template {{tl|Future film}} for tagging upcoming films 

message: Horror film and Pulp fiction are currently listed on WP:IDRIVE. To be improved, the articles need your support.--Fenice 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I've noticed that many movie articles give the entire plot of a movie, be it condensed or super freaking long. Basically, I'm suggesting that we both shorten the summaries and not tell the whole plot of a movie.
===Support===
# A Link to the Past (talk) 21:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
===Object===
# ---- Astrokey44|talk 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Rossrs says. To me it seems that many people are eager to contribute to Wikipedia but have nothing more to add than superfluous plot summaries for film articles. The result is sort of like when kids resort to retelling the entire story when they are suppost to be writting a review. We can watch the film, we don't need to read the entire thing. Some examples are in the articles for Tarantino's films: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill; summaries which I feel need to be cut in half with a chainsaw. For a more ideal length look to Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Casablanca (film). --Cammoore 08:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening plot summaries 

message: # ---- Astrokey44|talk 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Object'''

message: #I support condensing the superlong summaries that discuss every minor subplot and provide obsessive levels of detail.    I believe our aim should be to be thorough and complete, so I object to the suggestion of not telling the entire main plot (unless you're also suggesting trimming off the needless subplots and sticking just to the main plot).  I think we should convey the main storyline briefly with a beginning, middle and end.   Perhaps the main problem is to establish a definition of the word "summary" for the purpose of discussing a film.  My interpretation of a good summary is one that does not exhaustively discuss every trivial point but covers every important one.   Brief and concise, but clear and comprehensive. Rossrs 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Rossrs says. To me it seems that many people are eager to contribute to Wikipedia but have nothing more to add than superfluous plot summaries for film articles. The result is sort of like when kids resort to retelling the entire story when they are suppost to be writting a review. We can watch the film, we don't need to read the entire thing. Some examples are in the articles for Tarantino's films: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill; summaries which I feel need to be cut in half with a chainsaw. For a more ideal length look to Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Casablanca (film). --Cammoore 08:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comment'''

message: Has anyone thought of creating a bot that scours IMDB for movies that don't yet have articles on Wikipedia, extracts any available information from the database, and creates an article out of it? This seems very necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-27 17:27
*Mmm, I'm not too sure it is that necessary. We're trying to be an encyclopedia, not an IMDB clone (though by the state of the majority of film articles you'll be forgiven for thinking otherwise!). We need articles (i.e. critical reaction, importance, etc.)! The JPS 18:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB bot?

message: Hi folks, Could you please take a look at Annie Hall. You'll soon spot the section I mean. It has been added by a new user (who does not yet understand the wiki philosophy). I'm going to need help cleaning that up, and making sure it stays cleaned up. You might like to check out my talk page too, to see the rather hostile messages he's left there. The JPS 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annie Hall - help!!! 

message: Does this project encompass the need Wikipedia has for the more technical side of filmmaking? There are no articles on HMI lights, many of the honorary societies (I just added the ACE and MPSE), or the basics of cinematography. If not, is there another wikiproject or none? Thanks! Kushboy 06:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutly no knowledge of your examples, but my feeling is that they would be welcome on wikipedia. I now want to know about them! Do HMI lights produce a distinctive effect - and is there a fair-use image that could be used to illustrate it? This project focusses upon articles about films themselves, but is, I believe, the closest project to what you're talking about. (The wiki is full of surprises, though.) Well done on your two recent additions. The JPS 09:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's so much going on with the lights and all. I could take pictures of them myself to show what they do. Should I/we propose a descendant project? I haven't worked much with Wikiprojects. Kushboy 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Project 

message: Thanks to some exceedingly lame edit wars over on the various Star Wars articles, I think 'tis time to reach some community -- by which I mean Wikipedia-wide, rather than the five Star Wars fanboys who edit the articles there -- consensus on who should be included in cast listings for all films with Wikipedia articles.
Most important, in my mind, is that we use objective criteria, so people don't start complaining about "Oh, but you should have included John Doe, because his character is soooooooo cuuuuuuuuuute" or "But Bill Smith is t3h pWnz0r, he should be included too!" or that kind of crap.
My first inclination is to say we include the cast as listed on IMDb -- "Cast overview, first billed only."
However, I'm aware that this may create some issues. For example, taking the original Star Wars, IMDb lists the cast as:
Mark Hamill	 .... 	Luke Skywalker
Harrison Ford	.... 	Han Solo
Carrie Fisher	.... 	Princess Leia Organa
Peter Cushing	.... 	Grand Moff Tarkin
Alec Guinness	.... 	Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi
Anthony Daniels	.... 	C-3PO
Kenny Baker	.... 	R2-D2
Peter Mayhew	.... 	Chewbacca
David Prowse	.... 	Darth Vader
James Earl Jones	.... 	Darth Vader (voice)
Phil Brown	.... 	Uncle Owen
Shelagh Fraser	.... 	Aunt Beru
Jack Purvis	.... 	Chief Jawa
Alex McCrindle	.... 	General Dodonna
Eddie Byrne	.... 	General Willard
Now, I think most anyone who has seen this film will agree that Owen and Beru, along with the Chief Jawa and General Willard, are minor at best, and that Wedge, who is missing entirely here, is fairly important (being Luke's wingman and all).
So with that huge flaw pointed out in my only useful suggestion thus far, does anyone have a better objective suggestion for how we might go about listing movie casts?--chris.lawson 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you.  IMDb is great but it takes its cast lists from the movie itself (usually), so sometimes the cast is "in order of appearance" and sometimes alphabetical, but mostly it's correct.    My opinion is we don't need the full cast list anymore than we need the full crew list, just the main ones.  In theory I'd stop at 10 but it depends on the movie.  For some 10 would be too many, but for others, too few, such as those with ensemble or "all star" casts where there are a lot of people with roles that are similar in size or importance. (such as Memphis Belle, Magnolia, Boogie Nights.  Genuine "all star" films would be ones where the casting itself was a gimmick.  Think the Airport films, The Towering Inferno etc.  Notable cameos of course should be mentioned.  Marlon Brando in Superman, some film with Bette Davis where she is onscreen for about 5 minutes (can't think of the title) should be mentioned simply because of the stature of the person.   Someone who shuffles pointlessly across the screen and glances briefly at the camera should not be mentioned, unless that person went on to become Marilyn Monroe or Tom Cruise (or someone genuinely famous).   A lot of POV is going to come into it, like everything.   With the Star Wars example above, I'd stop the list at James Earl Jones. As we link most film related articles to IMDb I see even less justification for blindly duplicating their cast lists. Rossrs 09:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the issue of objectivity. It seems very clumsy to have to develop a consensus for how the cast should be listed for each of the thousands of films with Wikipedia articles. A generalised guideline would be much better.--chris.lawson 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's going to be very hard to come up with a standard approach for a medium that is so diverse, but maybe a guideline could say something like "cast lists should be limited to only the principal and supporting players, and listed in order of importance in the film.  For most films it should not be necessary to list more than (10?) names, however some discretion should be allowed for ensemble casts where a larger number of performers play characters of relatively equal importance.  In some cases it may be appropriate to mention the presence of a notable performer in the cast, for example early in their career or cameo appearances."   I think that no matter how a guideline is written individual contributors are going to view it subjectively, and that's when individual articles need to be looked at.Rossrs 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast listings: who's in, and who's out? 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable film articles?  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: As I'm doing random DABbing, I'm also sorting articles to conform to naming conventions.  Are there any admins here who could sort the following... The JPS 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming requests 

message: The following is a list of film related disambiguation tasks.
*American Beauty -> American Beauty (1999 film) mostly done The JPS 17:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation project

message: You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride! 
* What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
* When? June 2015
* How can you help? 
*: 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
*: 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
*: 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! 
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015|Wiki Loves Pride]]! 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Spanish cinema 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hi everyone at WikiProject Spanish cinema!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. 
Ideas include:
:*Improving coverage about Spanish women filmmakers, actors, directors, producers, and executives
:*Developing content about women owned Spanish film businesses
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! -- SarahStierch (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's History Month is in March 

message: You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride! 
* What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
* When? June 2015
* How can you help? 
*: 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
*: 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
*: 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! 
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015|Wiki Loves Pride]]! 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: I researched and improved the page Aroused (film) - let me know if you want to help out with further research, thank you! Right cite (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New improved article Aroused (film)