Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 4

message: I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/theme ride would be in order? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone care to discuss this? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a great idea to me! Since the films have basically the same cast, crew, characters, and story, it sounds like a great idea to include all that on one summary page. I suggest you just go for it (Be bold!), or post messages on the discussion boards of the specificially Pirates of the Caribbean-related pages (page for the ride, pages for the various movies, etc). See what people think, and go for it! --Gpollock 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise]] proposal 

message: But I am back and ready to work! For my abtance and hasty departure, I am going to help create a cool new "project" homepage. I sorta did this with my own project that I started. So.. if anyone wants to help, I am going to be working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sandbox Design. So any bit will help.  Shane (talk/contrib) 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Program mostly and grunt work tagging. I also created a new design of the main template banner here: Template:FilmsWikiProject/Sandbox Design. This is based again off my  template. The only problem is I don't want to change the main page of the WikiProject Films page without most of the groups consensus. That's why I been working on the "Sandbox". -- Shane (talk/contrib) 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template has been updated. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long time; No work 

message: This project seems rather complete, but what about film ratings?  IMDB gives ratings in various countries.  It would also be nice to cross reference the reasons for a particular rating as well.  Could a ratings section be added? Electronic.mayhem 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed to death. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive2#Ratings (but don't comment there, as it's an archive). The JPStalk to me 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ratings? 

message: Hi there... I have just joined the WikiProject Films, I found about it while I was creating some articles. I'll be working on Argentine Films. 
Im having a bit of a problem with the infobox images, my first article was Un Argentino en New York and the image works great... the problem is in La Fuga and El abrazo partido. Where the image is suposed to be, that transparent background with a red cross sign in the corner appears. It might be my computer that at the moment isn't getting the image; or might be a server problem? The thing is when I click on the image file, the image appears perfectly... it just doesn't works on the Infobox. Am I doing something wrong?
I would appreciate any help... Thanks! --CROWDUDE 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It works perfectly on my computer! Dont know what the problem really is , Sorry if I can't be anymore use! Empty2005 09:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh well... it is now working fine for me too, it must of been some weird temporary thing that went on with my computer.  Thanks for checking it out anyway! Cheers. CROWDUDE 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image - Help! 

message: A lot of the movies have all very different style "cast" sections. Now.. a lot for the FA movie pages have them in non-table format and just plain text.
# Should we standardize this with Tables
# Go with the look of Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith#Cast.
I am really in conflict, but if I had to choose a style, I go with tables. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to have to change the current description to accomidate a wider variety of formats.  The table format really wasn't that encyclopedic in the first place, as it was pretty much like a IMDB cast list.  It was gradually replaced mainly because it was difficult to include character specific plot/production information into that section.  This is not to say, that the new system is the only system to use, but that it is another option for articles, especially for articles that have detailed character info.  That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer we "standardize" on a simple list -- that's all that 90% of articles need (and even then, only the most notable characters or actors, we're not IMDB). In special cases, tables might be able to add something, but mostly they add visual clutter. Only in certain epic storytelling cases like Star Wars is the "character sketch" approach useful (sort of like sprawling novels that have a dramatis personae list). --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast Listings 

message: Hi, could someone confirm that this picture  is indeed Willem Dafoe. If so, since this is a free image, I will photoshop and add it. I put this here since the Talk:Willem Dafoe is not used so much, better chance for a fast response here. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like him to me, though only the photog knows for sure. Anyway, it's an attribution license, not a "free image", so be sure to tag it appropriately. I'm assuming you would crop out the other guy, but you'd get an odd picture that way, is the other issue -- not the best for a main article image. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant 'free' as in Free content though. It's better to use this image, than a fair use image. See also Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1. Thanks for checking. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well..I replaced it. I think it looks ok. Considering the original... Garion96 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willem Dafoe 

message: Why have we decided that spoiling the end of a film is a bad thing? If, for example, I come to wikipedia and read the article for Mulholland Drive (film), I am going to do one of three things, for one of three reasons.
1. Read the cast and director information, and the brief summary, in order to decide if it is a movie I would like to see.
2. Read the entire article, because I have already seen the movie and hope to garner a greater understanding of it.
3. Look up a particular piece of information about the film because I want to know it before I watch or I missed it in the movie.
In the case of 1, it is unrealistic and counter-intuitive to think that I would read the spoiler information and HOPE that it only reveals the parts I want to know and not the parts that would spoil the movie. In the case of 2, the parts I need a greater understanding of could very well be in the ending, especially for psychological films like Mulholland Drive, as this is often the most convoluted portion. And in the case of 3, if we are truly to be an encyclopedia, we need to include as much information as is reasonably possible. How does it reflect upon us if a reader missed the last five minutes of a film because he had to go to work or some other distraction, and tries to use wikipedia because the movie is not accessable to him. Not well. In addition to these three points, leaving out the ending of a film effectively prohibits any interpretation or analysis, even those that are well established and ARE NOT original research.
An encyclopedia must be thorough. We must have as much information availble as reasonably possible. Why are we ommitting whole sections of a film?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaergoth (talk • contribs) 
:I believe that, as long as there is a spoiler warning, it is standard to include the ending. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films even says in its guidelines, "After [the spoiler warning], start a new paragraph going into more detail about the plot of the film, including the ending." I think this is generally followed. For example, the page you cited (Mulholland Drive) does include the ending in its 'Synopsis' section. If you find any films where any important plot details, including the ending, are not mentionned, you are more than welcome to add them in. Thanks! --Gpollock 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this is true, then why does Template:Plotnote exist? Have I misread the suggested use of the template? --Vaergoth 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that is odd. My guess is it's not in common usage at all. Some quick research reveals  that the twist endings are revealed in (spoiler warning) Fight Club (which includes a whole section called 'Clues about Durden's identity '), The Usual Suspects (which includes a whole section called 'Plot Twists'), The Sixth Sense, and The Crying Game. I think the basic advice is to help create the best possible discussion of a topic, and that includes how a movie ends. --Gpollock 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On spoiling the ending 

message: Hi who ever is reading this!. Im having a trouble with the plot of a movie that im doing, it is a 3D animated spanish movie that it have just been realesed this July. Because it is now showing on cinemas, not many websites have the plot of it, or complete. And the best synopsis that I could find is in the movie's official website, which also happens to have it translated into English. My question is... is it ok to use official synopsis found on the film's website and copy them into the article? I might be able to re-make it a bit - But is it alright? CROWDUDE 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually frowned upon to lift text directly from another site, but in the interests of having complete information, it might be the best thing to do. My advice would be to quote the  official site's synopsis word-for-word, and then (and this is so incredibly important) cite your source. A general guide on how to do this is at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The alternative method would be to read the official site's synopsis, and then, based on that, try and reconstruct from memory the plot of the film. However, this can get dicey, as there's a good chance you'll end up quoting directly from the site anyway. And of course, you'd have to cite your source with this method too. So I'd suggest, unless you can write a synopsis without using any source other than your memory, probably just quote the source directly. But that's just my advice. --Gpollock 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About plot summarys 

message: Back to the image issue: I do mind too the images. I'm restarting the discussion as it seems to have got burried in the overlong discussion above. Needless to say, I do this because I agree that having Hollywood and Oscars in there is exagerately US centered. As already suggested, not all films target an Oscar; arguably only SOME American films do. Moreover, the Academy Awards are not necessarily the most important film awards; one could argue that Cannes is more important for instance.AdamSmithee 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas are welcomed. :) I wonder if a group of film posters making up the words "WikiProject Films" would look cool or have that as the background. 100 movie posters that make up a 75x75 pixel image. :) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we use a film real, it should look like  icon. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The film poster idea was probably a joke :-). In a small image in a template you couldn't really see that it is made up of posters. Besides, it probably wouldn't be fair use either AdamSmithee 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: yea! A film cell would look really cool. --Shane (talk/contrib) 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I got an idea in the drawing board. The Film real is still going to be ont he left, and the WikiFilms Films spoof is going to be on the right, but a different background. More to come later tomorrow. --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I realized that going through 11k "edit" pages for adding the class var is going to take a while... so I created a javascript that helps: User:Bugs5382/monobook.js/film.js. I am still working out all the bugs. So... that's about it. Once I figure out how distribute it I will get those instructions out. Peace! :) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom Javascript 

message: I finshed all the "A" films today in :Category:Unassessed film articles, and just checking up on it  I noticed new movies without the "class". The editors could have easily addded the class to "stub". I don't think many editors realize that it's very simple to do. We need to get the template updated. I am sure people will intered to know how to grade articles once we tell them how. Another show is Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Film_articles_by_quality_log#July_19.2C_2006 @ the bottom of the date. They were added, but no graded. We will get no-where and we will still have 11k articles to grade if no one does it themselfs. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 06:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should get this done... 

message: I just got this idea while watching TV..... always seems to happen. We need "groups". Ok... what are the groups.
* Cinematographers
** tagging films!
* Exec. Prouducers (Future-Class to Stub-Class)
** keeping movies that are coming out up to date
* Screenplay Writers (Stub-Class to Start-Class)
** getting articles formated (Infobox Template, etc)
** primarily tagging articles and getting them ready once the movie is released.
* Producers (Start-Class to B-Class)
** getting articles to a point to where all we need to do is a "copy-edit"
** 2nd Largest Group (open)
* Starting (B-Class to GA-Class)
** doing the real gritty work to getting an article to GA class
** Largest Group (open)
* Editors (GA-Class to A-Class)
** Polishing up articles so they are almost perfect; keeping articles up-to-high standards
** If we setup a voted members of editors from the group, we can vote if articles make A class.
* Directors (A-Class to FA-Class)
** Only job would be getting articles to FA class; this includes all tasks required and following the recommendations from Peer Reviews and etc.
** Everyone, but we need a few specialized people in this field
That's about it. :) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Groups 

message: The existing stub types  and  are both very large, so I've proposed splitting both up, in various ways (mainly by decade/year).  If anyone has any input on this, or wants to help perform the split, please feel free.  Alai 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do  with the year being optionial, and then they go into Drama Film Stubs, 1999, but I am against splitting these up. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting existing film types 

message: There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC.  All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This project uses these tags like water. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 08:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ned, yep-- I'd posted that up above under "Spoiling end" or something like that... -plange 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, heh, didn't see that :) -- Ned Scott 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag Request for comment 

message: Hi. I need help on an infobox on Angels in the Endzone. I am a member of this Wikiproject, and would appreciate it if the person who fixes my problem could tell me what I did wrong by sending me a message. (I need to know more how Wikiproject films work.)
--walkingencyclopedia 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help on an Infobox 

message: I would like to add two new optional fields to the infobox.
*Based on book - if the film was based on a book, then the book would be listed on the right.
*Book tie-in - if a book was written after the film, then the Book tie-in would be listed on the right.
There might even be the rare occurance of both happening. I think there are a few out there.
This is part of the child project Films based on books.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would for sure help. When I run across articles that are tagged with our Films template, but they are actual book articles, drives me nuts. We could do that. I am in support of this. --Shane (talk/contrib) 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I support it too- do you want me to take a stab at adding the params? -plange 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, This is definitely needed, especially for Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, and other films, too. --walkingencyclopedia 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Adapted from: seems the best. --Shane (talk/contrib) 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new infobox fields 

message: Can someone put a ratings box on it?--D-Boy 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratingsbox for [[Ninja Scroll]] 

message: Just checking in from Wikipedia 1.0, is the bot worklist working out OK for you?  I realised too that I never got back to you here before, thank you very much for setting up the list. Walkerma 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going.. there is 9k articles still to tag, but I have a javascript file that is tagging faster :)  --Shane (talk/contrib) 06:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worklist and thanks 

message: Thunderball 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 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thunderball]]

message: Hi, I was wondering if it'd be cool to change the standard, to incorperate the IMDb rating into infoboxes on all films? Just like in the The Matrix and/or the The Godfather articles. I've been adding it to a few films (not many, about 4), mostly those on the IMDb's top 250, as I thought that was very notable, much more informative than "promotional poster", or worse, a repeat of the title or nothing at all. Is this a good idea? - Jack (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dislike this because (a) the IMDB ratings are inherently in flux (not always by a lot, but still they go up and down, especially new movies), and so unless you want to constantly update them every day it's never going to be perfectly accurate (b) Why are the opinions of IMDB users so special? Why not Yahoo Movies, All Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Empire Magazine, etc. etc? Where does this end? (c) Quotes from reviewers and box office figures are much more informative and useful indicators of a movie's importance or popularity. The Singing Badger 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're to have a rating, I'd rather use RT since it's more reputable and is based on reviewers not users. But I'd say it shouldn't be used for new movies, too variable. I think after a time, RT certifies a movie as fresh or rotten and so perhaps when that happens we just use that designation. It is a nice idea though to have something quickly seen in the infobox to give an indication quickly. -plange 03:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with having professional reviews actually. Good idea. Almost all articles concerning a product of the music industry have a rating, or many, from repretable sources (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has four); we have the star rating images for a reason. IMDb is usful, I find, as i have a lot of respect for their top 250 list. How about a professional review and (if applicable) a movies place in the top 250? Also, why is it that so many movies just have their budget listed, when very few state their gross? - Jack (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly against for reasons above, and support deleting field. The JPStalk to me 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't think it's a good idea for reasons mentioned. There's a link to IMDb in the infobox. And who is going to keep all the ratings for all movies updated? Entheta 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this brought up servel months ago and I am still oppose to this idea. --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose it for all films.--Cammoore 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose, per above comments. Prolog 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose, per The Singing Badger. -- Slowmover 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a crafty tip, using those star images to track the usage. There are a lot of deprecated and messed up film infoboxes around (like ones without the AMG link, for example; others that somehow have room for he MPAA ratings); whenever I come across one, I copy the latest version from the template page and replace it. -Wisekwai 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox IMDb rating 

message: I'm about to create a sub-cat of , , which would include reference works, history of film, Leonard Maltin, etc. Any thoughts? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books about film 

message: I just added an infobox and a general "film page look" to the page to follow the project's guidelines. Could someone rate it and add an assessment  as per the assessment scale. Thanks! Caf3623 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read the talk page. You don;t have to bring up every movie here for discussion and rating. Most of them can be found in the :Category:Unassessed_film_articles area, if you do not mark them. --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Anarchist Cookbook (film)]] 

message: I was just wondering why it is that the infobox does not contain the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings in the box. For those of you who are wondering, the MPAA are the ones who give films a G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ratings.
:You could try this:  -- Ned Scott 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what about the film's initial release.  How many of you out there are old enough to remember the GP, M, or X ratings?  Also "passed" by the MPAA or not? The Photoplayer 07:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it needs to be there.  There's already a link to the IMDb page, so Wikipedia user can easily go there to check out the MPAA rating (or the rating for their appropriate country). --Classicaltorture 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: MPAA ratings don't belong there, as this is not the American Wikipedia. Prolog 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. IMDB includes many ratings from different countries for each entry. To only include the MPAA would be ethnocentric. --Cammoore 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPAA Ratings? 

message: I see this category has been created and is being poopulated. What do we think of it? Could be useful? The JPStalk to me 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) a black and white movie?  It was Technicolor and sepia. Technically not the same thing.  The Photoplayer 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up for deletion now... The JPStalk to me 01:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Black and white films]] 

message: Anyone here willing to be a liason with WP Biography? We've reorganized and are re-energized and we'd like to collaborate more with related Projects. Thought it might be good to have some one from here a member with us too so that we can collaborate on film biographies... Also wanted to invite you guys over to where we are currently voting on implementation of task forces, one of which is Arts and Entertainment. If you'd like to see it get its own task force, vote now :-) plange 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liaison? 

message: See discussion of actors-by-nationality categories at Articles for deletion/List of British Actors. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article, category for deletion 

message: As we're talking about cats, what about :Category:English-language films? It's been around for a while and is so underpopulated that it's not doing the job that its advocate (on its talk page) thinks it should. The JPStalk to me 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:English-language films]] 

message: I have nominated two rationgs templates for deletion:  and . I'm struggling to tag the latter correctly, though, so could someone please complete it? Cheers. The JPStalk to me 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed. I'm not sure I understand the rational for deleting these templates. This seems more about the idea of not including ratings data at all rather than use of the templates? -- Ned Scott 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings templates for deletion 

message: The film Went the Day Well has a cast member, Valerie Taylor, whose name is now linking to the article about Valerie Taylor, lesbian romance novelist (b1913, d1997.)  There's also a Valerie Taylor, Australian Shark Hunter and a Valerie Taylor, Romance Novelist (b.1959) to contend with.Valereee 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Went the Day Well/Valerie Taylor 

message: I realize I have probably done something bone header in breaking the style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants.  Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide.  Head over there to tell me how bad an idea it was.  – Isogolem 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style Guide Subpage 

message: Speaking of the list of participants, I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I'm moving the list to here to the talk page.  I don't know how most projects manage their member list, but this is obviously not the way to do it.  I'm going for WP:BRD here, so if you disagree or have good way to do it, let's talk.  Isogolem 07:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might not be a bad idea to remove the participants list from the main page in order to reduce clutter, but I think the talk page is a bad place for it to be. Besides it being an odd place for a participants list, the list will likely be lost under the next 100 comments that are left below it on the talk page. It will also end up being archived (in the not-too-distant future, is my guess) and, shortly thereafter, it will be lost. I would strongly suggest doing what was done with the style guidelines: create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Participants subpage. I think I may in fact do that now (again, WP:BRD). --Gpollock 16:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I moved it here on the way to doing away with it altogether.  Do we really have 187 members?  Or has it become a place to drop your name even if you do no edits to film-related pages? Isogolem 17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we want to remove it altogether. It seems almost 100% standard for Wikiprojects to have members lists (maybe not guestbooks, but I personally like the idea). Even if there are a few people who aren't hugely contributing to the project, they took the time to sign their name, so I think there's no harm in keeping the list of names somewhwere on the page. I think you are right that the list is too long for the main page, though. It seems like signing up for a Wikiproject is essentially a ceremonial gesture, but it's one people like doing, so why not let them? --Gpollock 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, cool.  Subpage is good and everyone is happy.  Gpollock, nice formatting on the Participants section on the main page. Isogolem 05:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants

message: For some reason, somebody named Michael Barnhart has been credited by a contributor as starring in a major Broadway production of this show, as well as in several operas and other stage musicals. I was flabbergasted by this, since I am a major opera and musical fan, and have never heard of him. I have searched the web up and down, and can find no authentication of this, nor of the fact that Barnhart is a noted bass-baritone who has appeared in many stage musicals and operas. He has a biography on Wikipedia, where he is dubiously (IMHO) being touted as a major actor and singer. He is not even listed on the Internet Broadway Database, where he would logically be found, and a completely different Michael Barnhart is listed on the Internet Movie Database. There are other Michael Barnharts that I can find when I do a web search, but not the bass-baritone. I wonder if someone has their facts straight, or if this Barnhart even exists. AlbertSM
:It could be a hoax AdamSmithee 08:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax indeed. Quite funny though. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Man of La Mancha and Michael Barnhart

message: The infobox link featured here links to a non-existant anchor on the WikiProject Films. Can anyone fix this for others? --Thorpe | talk 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox link 

message: Dear friends: Recently I looked at Monkey Business (1931 film), and I notice that there are no sources for the facts there. Any of the facts. But let me choose just one and perhaps you can explain why this "fact" is allowed to be included within the article, considering the idea that all of the info in WikiP must be "verifiable." When Groucho and Chico hide under the table in the chart room (before their encounter with the Captain) Chico has a cigarette in his right hand. He didn't have it before diving under the table. Who said? Do we have a source?
Just trying to understand how this and similar material is handled within the WikiProject Films, yours sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of things in film articles that are only verifiable by watching the film itself, mostly for plot summaries and trivia sections. In them, quoting from secondary sources is almost never done, mostly because an eminently verifiable primary source exists (the film itself). Those sections are mostly fluff in an encyclopedic sense, the plot summary exists to provide context for further sections for people unfamiliar with the film, while the trivia section just exists because some people like adding or having them. In the specific case you mentioned, there actually is a source, it's cut and pasted from imdb. That also means that I had to remove it from the article. - Bobet 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, no, it couldn't be left there, since it was a word for word copy of the trivia section of the film on imdb. Quoting it doesn't make it fair use. And your comments on the rest do belong at the talk page of WP:OR, forking the discussion here isn't productive. - Bobet 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This project seems to be exclusively for articles on specific films.  What project(s) do film-related articles (e.g., Sven Nykvist, Cinematography, Cinéma vérité, Italian neorealism, etc.) fall under, if any? Jun-Dai 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I answered my own question.  Italian neorealism is already listed in the project.  I guess individual films just dominate the project. Jun-Dai 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There also seems to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, which would cover some of your examples. - Bobet 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film-related topics 

message: Hello all,
I'd like to ask what the scope of WikiProject Films specifically is. I was under the general impression from previous discussion that the project solely concerns itself with film titles, with the exception of a few umbrella articles which mainly encompass these titles - such as genres. Certainly this alone amounts to a gargantuan task already. A separate project was even proposed, with support, to cover the articles of cast and/or crew. I notice also from the discussion just above that this isn't entirely clearly defined, to the point that some confusion may occur.
The main reason I bring this all up is that, though a great supporter of this WikiProject, I happen to spend most of my energy now on WikiProject Filmmaking, which has a scope solely on the technology and concepts in the process of filmmaking. Clearly there are some articles which may overlap between the two projects, such as, well, film. In these instances, I believe that this is a good thing, as it brings in more editors to eyeball the articles and develop them fully to (hopefully) featured status, which is what every project aspires to. And certainly, in the case of film, for example, there is no way to get the article to featured status without in-depth discussion both of the art (the films) and the science (the filmmaking) of film. However, I'm not certain that it is appropriate, for example, for Talk:Cinematography to have a WikiProject Films template/assessment tag, as I just discovered. For one thing, it would appear (to me) to be clearly a topic for WP Filmmaking, not Films. Furthermore, if our overlap becomes too excessive, it has the potential to create article assessment conflicts en masse in numerical calculation. It would be nice to sort this out before WP Filmmaking begins the assessment phase in the near future.
Therefore, for the sake of making less work for everyone, I'd like to know where the scope of the project ends, and I'd like to request a formal definition on the project page which is less ambiguous than "film articles". (Understandably, most of the WP Films project page was written before the start of WP Filmmaking, and thus did not take the project into account.) Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be nice to have an umbrella project for film (cinema) as a whole, something that would work well in conjunction with the film portal.  But I'll stop adding the film project tag to things that are not specific films :-/  Jun-Dai 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many WikiProjects have Parent or Descendent projects. (WikiProject Music is a good example.) The portal itself is designed to be an umbrella for all film-related articles (and WikiProject Filmmaking is connected to the portal too), while the projects are designed to coordinate work on particular types of articles. That's all. We've always been one big family, eh? :) Girolamo Savonarola 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project scope question 

message: I've noticed the remarkable effectiveness that WP:MUSIC has had at stabilizing and generally clarifying the notability criteria specifically for musicians. Might it be worth putting together a proposal for similar standards for film articles? I feel that this is only going to become a larger problem with the recent proliferation of prosumer cameras and no-budget cinema, to say nothing of YouTube, fan films, and the like. Obviously some films within those fields will be notable, but perhaps it's better to clearly define the standards before the problem becomes worse. While the general notability guidelines are okay, they also suffer from the problem of having to cover widely disparate fields without being too specific regarding the differences in these fields. Surely a finer-grained set of criteria for certain articles is a good thing. And surely this project is the best-positioned to assess what these criteria should be. Would this be of interest? Girolamo Savonarola 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a page called Wikipedia:Notability (films) (which is currently an essay). It probably wouldn't hurt to have a clear guideline, but I don't think it's ever been a large issue. I've never seen an article about a film with a theatrical release get deleted. The only pages that do get deleted are, as you mention, fan films, school projects, and other instances where the existing policies and guidelines have proven sufficient, namely WP:V, WP:OR and WP:AUTO. - Bobet 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it worthwhile to create notability standards for film articles? 

message: A discussion which might impact other films is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cast of Saving Private Ryan. Basically, the question is whether an extended cast list belongs to Wikipedia or not. Follow the link to express your opinion. Thanks. olivier 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast list for deletion

message: I noticed on the Community Portal that a new wikiproject council had been developed to help provide guidance and suggestions for the running of wikiprojects. Particularly among the first fruits of this labor is a guide which suggests that for certain WikiProjects, it may be more effective and beneficial to restructure as a task force within the central project (in this case, WikiProject Films). I think this may be germane to both the Iranian and Indian cinema projects, because the general goals between the projects are no different - merely their geographic scopes are differently limited. I'd like to also note that this was written by Kirill Lokshin, who is the Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military history (one of Wikipedia's most successful WikiProjects). WikiProject Military history also is one of the most notable projects which features task forces, many of which focus on a particular time period or country within the large topic of military history. 
The benefits of being a task force would include higher exposure as an explicit subunit of the central WikiProject Films page, as well as a high degree of autonomy to continue to use specific talk page banner tags, stub templates, and open tasks, and for the members of the task force to define the task force's priorities and structure. Furthermore, a highly productive task force would also likely be well-noted among the WikiProject Films community and thus be able to command considerable respect and weight in the setting of overall film project discussions and guidelines.
I'd like to also note that I'm not a member of the Films project, although I do follow its discussions; my main interest is in filmmaking, which is where I generally work (WikiProject Filmmaking) on Wikipedia. However, I would like to see all the film-related projects succeed, and it seems (from the success of Military history's work) that combining the two projects' editorial teams while maintaining each project's identity would only benefit both parties, and thus make everyone look good.
There is nothing more I'd like to see than a good discussion. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion regarding restructuring - please discuss 

message: Wasn't sure how best to disambiguate this, so I've made it into a double stub for now, with both definitions attached. What should we do? Adam Cuerden 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Long Day Closes]]

message: I've done a number of atubby articles on 1920s films over the last couple of years, but am looking for some guidance on setting "importance" flag for the project in the project template. Can we assume that all Academy Award-nominated films merit (maybe only in certain categories?) at least a "Med" and a winning film merits a "High"? Or is that too artificial a way to do article importance? (That would make "Broadway Musical" a "High" for example, when perhaps it shouldn't be...) Thoughts? JRP 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a decent guideline except that it might be too American focused. --Supernumerary 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: I have been on a bit of a tidy-up mission recently which is ongoing. The mission being to ensure that articles do not appear in a category, and the sub-category, and the sub-sub-category and so on. Largely to make the cats manageable. I'm working on genres and have worked broadly on war, thriller and teen films. I did not realise until today that there is a wikiproject for films. I do not want to tread on anyone's toes so if anyone has any opinions about what I have been doing I would be happy to receive feedback. Thanks. Mallanox 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation