Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 5

message: What is WikiProject Films' policy on cancelled or unfinished films?  I recently nominated Batman Triumphant as an AfD since it's already mentioned in its own section at Batman & Robin and doesn't seem to need its own article.  People who have voted against deletion have said that it is notable enough, and I'm not sure how a Batman film that never took off from pre-production is more notable than any other projects that failed to take off. --Erik 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that is a case-by-case issue.  In the case of Batman Triumphant, since no footage was shot, I hardly think its worthy of its own article.  But with a film such as 1937's I, Claudius (an aborted Alexander Korda version of the Robert Graves novel with Charles Laughton and Merle Oberon), actual footage was shot, but the film was never finished.  There is enough backstory behind that film to warrent a full article, which is NOT the case with the Batman film.  --The Photoplayer 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancelled films

message: I don't know the exact number, but it seems to be alot here: :Category:Unassessed film articles. This needs massive work. I'm going to start going through some today, but the more help... the faster it will go. RobJ1981 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good a comrade in arms! I've been working through them for the last few weeks and the following letters are done: A-E, J, O, Q, U-Z. The script that Shane wrote has been a great boon (I think there's a link to it above). Also the exact number of unassessed articles is as of now 6,941 or 57% of 12217 total film articles. --Supernumerary 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be sure to capitalize the class when you rate. Otherwise it will display on the discussion page that it is the class you rated it as, but it will still be left in the unassessed category. Oh and don't forget that sometime we'll have to go through and rank them all by importance.--Supernumerary 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked out a lot of the films that I've seen, added a rating and will be working on adding more information to them.  As of right now, 6,440 (53%) of the 12,236 film articles are unassessed.  Keep in mind that the T-section is probably the biggest because of all the films that being with The, so that letter will need the most work.--Cbrown1023 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found that the quickest way is to use the sections of films by quality, which takes you to the article page and not the talk page. This eliminates one click, which doesn't sound like much but after a couple hundred it accumulates. Also this script (developed by Shane) is an immense timesaver. Since I didn't know how to use it, I'll give the creator's directions. Copy everything from that file to User:your user name here/monobook.js (if this is the skin you are using or change it). You don't need the other java script files so don't copy them. Save and do a hard refresh. Happy tagging!--Supernumerary 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to point something else out. I've noticed many times on the talk page of articles: there is several projects listed. One project has a class, and the other doesn't. To save time for other editors: RATE for all projects. If it's stub class for films, then it's stub for the others. Pretty simple. RobJ1981 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right that a film stub for WikiProject Films means that it's a stub for all other projects dealing with films (WikiHorror, Indian, Korean, French, etc), but certainly not for film and book articles or play and film articles, which often go into much more detail about the book or play.--Supernumerary 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently being worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Article Grading. Cbrown1023 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A big task, anyone up for it?

message: What's the purpose of the future class assessment? -Acjelen 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole reason for the class system is to show how much the article needs to be expanded.  The future class means that it can't be expanded that much at this moment because of lack of information. Cbrown1023 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a project class. Not part of the 1.0 system. Shane (talk/contrib) 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future class 

message: What do we do about articles that cannot be assessed as Future, Stub, Start, B..., such as lists (List_of_Disney_direct-to-video_films), should they not be labeled as WikiProject Films? Cbrown1023 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would project pages have to be assessed?  Is the print/static version of WP going to include the list articles? -Acjelen 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer to your question, but just becuase Wikipedia may be turn into a print encyclopedia, it is still Wikipedia and won't be like most encyclopedias while it is on the internet.  However, my question was refering to the part of the assessment that states who much more information the article needs, not its importance.  I was wondering about those pages because they are in the :Category:Unassessed film articles. Cbrown1023 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought both ratings were just part of the 1.0 project. -Acjelen 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they were used for that and were also used to assess work that needs to be done on the article.  Of course, the list articles do not need to have work done, but should still be tagged with WikiProject Films and if they don't have an assessment they will show up in :Category:Unassessed film articles (we are working on rating all the films in the Unassessed film articles category.) I just want to know what to assess them as, to just leave them unassessed, or to remove the  tag. The only reason I ask is because I came across them while I was rating articles using the information from that category. Cbrown1023 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was solved earlier with the introduction of  to the template. Cbrown1023 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UnassessABLE film articles 

message: When assessing articles, you add in Class = <whatever> and Importance = <whatever>. Now, that's all fine because, depending on what class you use, there is a label printed onto the template. But when you add in the importance, nothing appears to differ in the template. So, (yes, I am aware of the new template design), but is there any point in doing it until the new template comes into force? Iolakana•T 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance also does not show up on the statistics page. This needs to be looked into by someone who knows what they are doing (i.e. not me).--Supernumerary 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some (many?) projects have actively chosen not to assess importance due to its vagueness. Importance to the project? To the encyclopedia? In general? There have been some recent proposals to change this to Priority and have it be based on the project's goals. I think that basically it's a holdover from the early drafts of the assessment process when it seemed more feasible. The other problem is that even editors within a project may disagree on an article's importance. Certainly in the Films project you can see the possibility that fans of Film X may assert that the article on the film is of top importance while non-fans may disagree. Or massively influential but generally unknown films may be given a low importance. And of course, the question is what you're evaluating importance as to begin with. Girolamo Savonarola 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current template has no way to show it. So that's why the stats don't show up. I proposed a new template, (look on the main page) a while back and we are still looking into it. I strongly suggest that we do this before adding it to the current template. Shane (talk/contrib) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of importance on the template

message: The article at the above title concerned only the 1956 film.  I created a stub about the 1988 film and turned And God Created Woman into a dab page.  In dealing with the redirects, however, I had only enough patience to distinguish the two films in the Roger Vadim article and to eliminate the only double redirect.  (I'm not heavily into films and came upon this situation only by accident, when a link took me to the 1956 film and that couldn't possibly be right.)  Some FilmProject editor(s) could:
* go through the other links to And God Created Woman and change them to link to the right article instead of the dab page;
* refine the stub categorization of the new article And God Created Woman (1988 film);
* improve that new article.
Good luck with the WikiProject! JamesMLane t c 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, try not to over-disambiguate. In this case, I don't think there's any doubt that the Vadim film is the "primary topic" and should be at And God Created Woman. Fixing this will require an administrator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience is that what's obviously primary to one person isn't always obvious to others, and that a dab page is the best solution if the question is at all close.  That said, I don't have any strong feelings about this particular instance.  Note, though, that neither work should be referred to as "the Vadim film".  They're both Vadim films. JamesMLane t c 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Egg on my face! Well, I never saw the remake. What a hack Vadim must be, to get stuck doing remakes of classics. ;-) In this particular case I expect you're right. --Dhartung | Talk 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''And God Created Woman'' 

message: It will be immensely useful for editors to be able to refer to Feature or A-class film articles. Could someone do something to enable this? I, for one, sure can't find a link on this Wikipage that takes me to a listing of film articles that are Feature articles. Of course, a Wikipage detailing the number of film articles that are Feature articles (and A-class articles, and so on) is available, but wouldn't it be more helpful if this table links to these film Feature articles? Splashprince 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a category for each assessment level. Articles are automatically added to their proper category after the class tag is added to the project banner on the article's talk page. See :Category:FA-Class film articles and :Category:A-Class film articles. I agree that it would be a good idea to add links to these categories somewhere on the main page. --Gpollock 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put links to all the class categories at the bottom of the WPF pages in see also (here). Cbrown1023 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Film Articles that are Feature or A-Class Articles 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: I've looked at these two important articles, and they look very similar so I think a merge is warranted. But I'm not sure which article title should be used if a merge takes place. Any feedback appreciated here or on the relevant article's talk page. Madder 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would favour World Cinema. Foreign is subjective, although most of North America, Australasia and the British Isles all speak the same language, to each other they are "foreign". I think World Cinema, as in non-English language, is more accurate, especially in an English language encyclopaedia. Mallanox 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been solved and the merge of Foreign film into World cinema has occured. Cbrown1023 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for merging [[World cinema]] and [[Foreign film]]

message: Just FYI, this is going on over at Categories for discussion, in case you want to put in your nickel's worth. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are deleted, obviously (the red links). Cbrown1023 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Cinema of Foo]]" to "[[Fooian cinema]]" discussion 

message: Please be aware of the discussion for renaming for reason explained in the nomination. Thanks. Mallanox 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been renamed. Cbrown1023 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Category:Universal films|Universal films]]" to "[[:Category:Universal Pictures films|Universal Pictures films]]" discussion 

message: The page is a mess, the main text is basically just a list of who is in it. I've added wikify and cleanup to it, and it always gets removed. Can someone keep an eye on it?  Vandals keep removing the tags with no reason at all. RobJ1981 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem at [[Zombiegeddon]] page

message: Nintendude has been creating some categories without discussion, which isn't really alarming yet, but I'm not sure they're really useful or encyclopedic. For example, , and creating an umbrella category for , which might be useful. Just a heads-up in case anyone feels strongly about either. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Films by rating isn't needed at all. I'm putting it in CFD, along with rated R movies. On the article for the movie, it usually says what it's rated.. doesn't it?  Being redundant isn't needed. RobJ1981 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New categories 

message: I created a new template at :Template:Infobox Television Film.  I felt it was needed because the television and film infoboxes didn't cover the merged category.  Take a look at it, see if you have any suggestions or if you may want to add it to the links on the main article.  Thanks. -Shannernanner 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Television films

message: I'm trying to find where to discuss standardization of film articles. I'm pretty sure I'm posting in the wrong place, and would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
To be specific, I have been working on the Three Kings article and am having trouble deciding how much info should be placed in the "Plot" section. Should it be a small summary? Should it be an exahustive scene-by-scene description? Have these issues already been discussed? Where should I go for this type of discussion?
Thanks in advance, and by the way, I would like to offer my full support to WikiProject Films. I would be happy help in any way I can. Feel free to recruit me for any tasks that would benefit the project.  —Nate Scheffey 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is a good place to post, the answers to most of your questions can be found on our style guidelines page.  As for the plot summary, it should definately have one.  But the size usually varies, you can have a short one ("Synopsis") or a long one ("Plot").  You can also have both, a "Synopsis" and a "Detailed Plot Summary". Cbrown1023 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization  

message: This should help with the grading, the articles that use a  are automatically assessed as stub, just like WP:BIOGRAPHY and WP:SONGS. Cbrown1023 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it saves time, but the article still remains in unassessed films category. Then you still have to add the class to the project tag, just to make it assessed. The template says "if you agree with the assessment, please remove the template". When I went to edit the talk page, the template isn't even listed. I noticed this at the talk page of Forces of Nature. I rated it like I normally do, and saved it. The template remains on the talk page.RobJ1981 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the automatic rating has another flaw in it. The Blues Brothers (film) is somewhat beyond a stub, yet it was listed as a stub by the automatic rating. I'm just going to assess like I always did, since the automatic assess doesn't seem helpful. RobJ1981 21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not working well, so I just removed it.  If you can find some way for it to work so that it only automatically assesses unassessed articles then please add it correctly. Cbrown1023 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Script, automatically assessed as Stub-Class 

message: I was wondering if you could add some syntax into the template to automatically assess articles as stubs (if they do not yet have an assessment) on the assessement scale if they use a stub template... I've been trying to do it and can't seem to find a way, any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you populating your category in AWB with the articles in that stub category? --plange 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I was wondering if he could use something like the  template for our project.  I can't seem to get it to work, when I tried it, the template would not remove itself from the pages and it was added to articles that already had a rating. Cbrown1023 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way would be to add an auto=yes parameter, like in  and several other templates. Then load my plugin and load the "Film generic template.xml" file. Click auto-stub in template properties to tell the plugin that the template has an auto=yes parameter. Then to rate articles as stub class automatically, click auto-stub in the Configuration box. It will only add class=Stub and auto=yes to talk pages which don't already have a rating. --kingboyk 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP! (all)

message: I've found it a bit disconcerting to see silent films in, for example, :Category:English-language films. Most silents were made with intertitles and vast numbers were released equally with intertitles in several languages. Of course these films had nationalities—a German silent is generally a very different matter than an American silent—but they didn't really have languages. 
I'm not particularly interested in getting deep into this project—I have way too much else on my plate—but I'd suggest that this would be the best place to form a guideline for dealing with this, and hope someone does so. I won't be watchlisting this page, but if someone wants me, feel free to get hold of me. - Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that :Category:Silent films could be added as a subcategory to :Category:Films by language, as well as adding a disclaimer to the top of the latter page explaining to put all silent films there regardless of nationality. That's my crude stab at the problem. Of course, you could simply just say that no silent films should have a language category, only a nationality one. Girolamo Savonarola 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Signor Savonarola on this. An elegant solution - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also support the above proposal unless someone comes up with even a better solution. I would compare silent films released with different language intertitles to Italian genre films of the 70's. These were released with different language dubs and no sound was recorded during filming. Prolog 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well - that's a very good solution.  However, I think that maybe we should still fill out the language section in the infobox with the language that it was originally made in, eg. "English (original titles)" or something similar.  Some silent comedic films relied a lot on witty and hard-to-translate intertitles, strange as that may seem.  Also, you can sometimes make out what people are saying by their mouth movements (in fact there were some scandals when lip-reading moviegoers realized that an actor had actually said a swear word). Esn 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Silent films had language: titles, text, credits. Doczilla 04:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These were usually shot multiple times with different languages for the international market. Girolamo Savonarola 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My personal opinion is that "Silent" dictate the language.  That way, the reader can infer that since it is a silent film, subtitles throughout are interchangable from country-to-country.  The user can then look at the country that made it and assume that the native language of that country is the original language of the film.  If it's the exception to the rule and it's not, simply mark it down when you are writing the article on the film (ie.: "although this was an American production, it was made for an Italian market and was orignally produced with Italian titles").  The Photoplayer 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, silent is the language. Cbrown1023 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent films and languages 

message: I added classes for Templates ( class=Template ), for Categories ( class=Cat ), and for Disambiguation pages ( class=Disambig ). I already added the Template-Class to pages that were in :Category:Film templates using AWB.  Any other help is greatly appreciated with adding these new tags to other pages. Cbrown1023 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look through my contribs and tag the disambig pages that I removed the Film tag from. --Supernumerary 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Template Ratings

message: Apologies, this should have been put on here sooner. Just in case anyone has any feelings either way.Mallanox 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The voting has finished and the consensus was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29#Category:Monster movies|CfD debate re Monster movies]] 

message: Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story is a huge mess. As I looked at the talk page, I noticed it's a former good article. Just take a look at the article, and you will see it's almost a complete article of bulleted lists (pop cultural references of many types, and trivia). I've only seen parts of the movie (on the edited version), so I'm no expert on the film. Any help is needed, the page needs alot of work. RobJ1981 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A movie page in need of serious cleanup (or even a rewrite)

message: Can we use http://www.ugo.com/ as a source for reviews on actors, etc.? --plange 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you main like actors, that is a part of WP:BIOGRAPHY (and a possible future project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors).  But if you mean their perfomance in various films that would be added to film articles then, it should be okay (I'm not really sure what you mean by reviews). Cbrown1023 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, what I was wondering is if in your experience as an editor for this project, if that source is considered reliable for articles written about films and the actors in them or is it just some blog maintained by a guy nuts about film. I guess I could as over at WP:RS. What I meant by reviews is their assessment on how the actor portrayed their character, etc. --plange 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: I'd love some assistance with The Burmese Harp - the link points to both the film, and the musical instrument, and the film article (stub) reveals two different Japanese films with that title.  How do we split this all up? --Davidals 08:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Request 

message: Are you sure you want this article on your list? Although related to Donald Duck, the subject is a graphic novel...Septentrionalis 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it was added in error.  Thank you for pointing that out, I removed it. Cbrown1023 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pah-Peh-Rheo]]

message: I've been doing some major expansion of the old stub for Nuberu bagu (Japanese new wave cinema), and would like to invite some discussion.  I've taken off the "stub" tag; it's now "unassessed."  At this point it has been expanded & sectioned; with an intro, overview, history, sections for key filmmakers (and themes), and a chronological list of selected titles (organized by year, alpha by director within the year).  It has been referenced; I will be adding further references over the next week or so.
In the meantime, any organizational suggestions would be good - it has gone from a very small to a rather large article, and I would like for it to be top-notch, but not cumbersome or unwieldy.  I've also listed it with WikiProjectJapan - I want any cultural references and allusions within the article to be accurate, and I think there are still some weak spots.
Overall, I think I'm going to niche-ify and focus of Japanese film; getting things improved and expanded as needed, and seeing if we can get a few additional high-quality J-film articles.
--Davidals 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! Maybe you should consider applying for peer review with a view to getting it to WP:FA. Is there a reason for not wikilinking the key films? Even if this would turn out as a lot of red links, the articles should definitely be created, if the films are key AdamSmithee 08:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work towards that - you are the second peoson to suggest wikilinking them.  The vast majority would be red links, but gradually I want to create articles for them, and I know a few other people will probably add to them as well. --Davidals 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nuberu bagu]]

message: As Hoverfish said at Template talk:Infobox Film, we should look at the other language's film infoboxes and "try to be as consistent as possible". Cbrown1023 11:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox in general

message: They are talking about including this at Template talk:Infobox Film#Awards & AMG in infobox. Cbrown1023 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But here is a comment: See , , and .  They all include links to IMDb. Cbrown1023 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb

message: The Romantic comedy category is very large and I would like to subdivide it. I've tried to think of ways to do it without ending up with hugely long names such as :Category:Musical romantic comedy. I've thought about doing it by decade or by language. I wondered if anyone else has any ideas? Mallanox 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with by decade.  It is the same as the s and s way of sub-dividing. Thanks for future and current help. Cbrown1023 01:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romantic comedies: Sub cats needed 

message: Would anyone here be interested in helping to maintain an "Uncategorised films" category? There are a large number of them in the Uncategorised articles category. If so, please reply here and I will create it. Aelfthrytha 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definately be willing to help maintain the category and I'm sure some others will.  If you do create it, then we could put a link to it on the main page (in one of the Activities in Progress section), which would give it a better probability of being maintained (just like our Article Grading section). Cbrown1023 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the novels wikiproject has done the same thing and it seems to be working for them. Her Pegship 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on sorting out cats on articles that have already been (in some cases just about!) categorised. I'd love to help with uncatted film articles. Mallanox 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorised Films 

message: If anyone would care to give this a copy-edit. As of now it's pretty amigious and I don't think I'm getting my point across very well. Note: the script I've setup grabs imdb pages, main and cast and creates an filed in infobox, it doesn't post to wikipedia and any of that will have to be manual. Also, it is based on phpimdb RichMac 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what you're asking for. Do they require you to register before scraping? I know that a number of auto-scraping projects over the years have run into problems because of the lack of structured data and frequent changes to the HTML on IMDB pages. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as per discussion above: 
"Please also remember that imdb's terms of use state that "You may not use data mining, robots, screen scraping, or similar data gathering and extraction tools on this site, except with our express written consent as noted below." - Bobet 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I made this edit directly to the email above to correct some grammar and capitalization. Although, looking at IMDb's Can I use IMDb data in my software? it might be hard to get a permission. Prolog 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for copy-edit of email to imdb: infobox script 

message: Hi there!  I'm looking for any help I can get in cleaning this up for a possible FA run, and, although this is about a film producer and not a film proper, I'm hoping a couple people might be able to take a glance at it and see if there's anything they can help me with in terms of changes or anything.  Worth a shot, I suppose.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kroger Babb]] 

message: This category is in sad shape. There appears to be a lot of vandalism from User:198.189.198.2 dating back to Dec 15, 2005. Betty White? Tallulah Bankhead? Please...
Also, many of the actors who portrayed specific roles, e.g. Danny DeVito as the Penguin, have suffered because subcats were deleted instead of merged. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect that the Superman-related actors have also been unceremoniously dumped as well. CovenantD 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Batman actors]] 

message: I am currently doing a lot of hours in the List of films by year, checking out which films mentioned under "top grossing" belong to which year, adding them there (if they are missing), making a comprehensive list of each year's film. In other words, from 1940 till 1970, the sections "Other films" have become "Films released in 19--". Also I have placed this list under Awards and before Births and Deaths, wherever it wasn't already. On my way I have fixed many links and pipes and have marked films that are "only mentioned in the article". I am going backwards to the 1930's, until where it was done as this (comprehensive lists for each year). Also I upload a few missing images to infoboxes. As in the years from 1970 on, it is consistent that births and deaths are always over the list of films. I wouldn't like to create problems by changing the order, unless I have full agreement with all involved, practicality discussed, etc. My aim is to bring to the List by years a consistent, "ergonomic" form, so that I can then start crossing entries with the List by name (alphabetic) and add missing entries to and from both. I am aware that in the last decade, tables are used for the particular lists (awards, top grossing) and I have no plans to "homogenize" anything there. I don't ask for consistency in anything else than for a comprehensive list in each year and if possible its position in the article. Hoverfish 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work on List by years underway

message: Does anybody else think this level of categorization is maybe not such a good idea? CovenantD 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too and thought about bringing it to the groups attention. I think we should have cats for winners only. Mallanox 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can make an exception... for the most well-known awards, like the Academy Awards (see ).  Nominees are also okay, but like for that category, it should just be under  and then two sub-cats,  and . Cbrown1023 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form]] 

message: I've noticed :Category:Articles with large trivia sections has many film articles in it. While trivia isn't totally against policies at Wikipedia, they certainly shouldn't be so large. Put the important information in the article itself, not in a trivia section. If it's just a small unimportant note, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little note to a movie that might interest you. RobJ1981 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  The reason behind the overly large trivia sections for most film articles is because users normally just copy it form IMDb, wikify it and post it all in a ==Trivia== section.  We need to work on that. Cbrown1023 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is considered plagiarism on Wikipedia, if I recall correctly.  These facts should be double checked (many times they're WRONG) and then incorporated into the background/history portion of the article.   The Photoplayer 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that is why some editors just delete the whole section when they come across it.  Also, IMDb is sort-of a wiki like us (their users can edit/add info), which is why they're wrong a lot also. We also mustn't foget that it should be in prose... I've added these items to  and to the style guidelines. Cbrown1023 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too much trivia in movie articles

message: Is there a general consensus as to the size of images in the infobox? I've just started adding new images and the contrasts in sizes are a little unappealing. RichMac 20:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is supposed to automatically re-size images to the right size.  What you are describing should only be occuring if the images you are putting in are too small... can you give examples to better understand your question? Cbrown1023 20:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out Template talk:Infobox Film#image size too big for some posters and the template states in the syntax 200px. Cbrown1023 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out in that discussion, there's an image_size parameter in the infobox (I seem to have missed that being added too). I don't really know why it's there, since it will probably lead to people adding bigger images to their favorite films. - Bobet 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very useful for tall posters to prevent the image from taking too much place. See The 10th Victim. Prolog 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox image size 

message: I'm developing a template called  that has most or all of the functionality of the dedicated yearly navigation templates. I've already replaced  with it. If it is suitable for your project, I encourage you to use it (or tell me what it needs so I can fix it up). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you CyberSkull, I will do the replacement when I get the nerve to go through all the list again. Hoverfish 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat year nav 

message: Hi all, just to bring [] to your attention. A category has been created for Chick flicks, I have proposed its deletion but as ever I leave it to the community to decide. Mallanox 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting has ceased... result was delete. Cbrown1023 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat for deletion