Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/List of films without article

message: Just looking at only one year, there's over 1000 titles you could add which have interlinking significance with directors and actors in Wikipedia. I think for this reason, the full list should be split by decade, and have a list of films for ever year. ie. each title would be Films in 1900s and that page would have links to each individual year 1900 in film, 1901 in film. This will also make it easier to update the movie release details in each individual year in film. This also allows the current list to be really bulked out for each year/decade. I've gone ahead and linked the titles but I don't want to tread on anyone's feet! Peter 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone doesn't know the exact year, they can add it to the main page "uncategorised" or each decade has an "uncategorised". So if you know of a film made some time in the 60s, but not the exact year, just put it in 60s/uncategorised. I guess each decade doesn't have to be split into individual years like that, it depends how many films are notable. As I mentioned, even just one year can have 100s of titles added, which would make it easier to add to the individual year in film when the article is written. You could also have duplicate lists sorted by year, but also by director, genre or nationality. Peter 09:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously the big list will be removed in favour of the individual lists. Not sure what you mean by keep the started articles in the new lists, I'm assuming it's what I've just mentioned then. I'll need to read the notability guidelines for a film as there are thousands of films but a lot of them may be too small to recognise unless it links with a listed director or actor/ess. Peter 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I found these instead. They could be equally enlightening: Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Notability. If I find the more specific one, I will add it below. Hoverfish 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I think the initial list was a good idea to have one list of Notable films. Otherwise there could be literally thousands of films, a lot being possibly not worth an article. IMDB for example has 6-10,000 titles or so for most individual years, some of these films possibly don't need a wikipedia article. I guess notability depends on a persons interests in era, director, movie genre, and how complete wikipedia should be. There does need to be some kind of label of "important" and "not so important". Peter 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page WAY to big 

message: Just to be clear, if I find that a title on this list is misspelled or otherwise doesn't match the actual article, should I delete it from the list, or strike it out, or make a note? Thanks - Her Pegship 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article has existed for a while under another spelling, it helps to delete the line, with a short note in the edit summary. Your Pegship is very thorough in tidying up, but for any other editor, please make sure the mistakenly spelled title has no "what links here"'s (apart from this list) before deleting. Additionally, since you are most thorough in categorizing, stub sorting and all, you are the one who knows best when a marked started article can also be deleted. Thank you for your help here. Hoverfish 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating list 

message: I'm not sure how comprehensive this list is intended to be.... but please see Harry Carey :) TheMadBaron 15:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wikipedia guidelines should be followed to make sure articles aren't created that have no use or a bunch of stub articles for movies. But if a movie is accessible, it does warrant all details about budget, box office, main actors/actresses, directors, writers, summary synopsis, posters/screen grabs. All Harry Carey titles in red have been added to the list(s) :). Peter 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I included the "No importance" mention in the guidelines. We could use this list to filter out some. Hoverfish 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How comprehensive should this list be? 

message: Here's some actors/directors that have a few films in their filmography that are either redlinked or could possibly be further linked. Maybe cross them off as they're added... Peter 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will indent the ones I plan to cover soon. I also have a waiting list of prominents to check. One thing: if a different date is given in amg than imdb, I have observed a huge percent of our articles align it with imdb. So unless proven wrong, let's follow imdb when in doubt. I hope we don't have to start a page for this list soon. From what I've seen around, this is a small fragment. Hoverfish 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is only a random brose of actors/directors to see some red/unlinked films. There are plenty more. I almost think a list like this might be useful to know what bases have been covered when adding red links to the decade lists. Otherwise people will be adding blindly. At least from these pages we know for sure that they're being linked. We can also make sure the link spelling is the same. Peter 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some lists to compile from 

message: There was this article about film notability but is now considered not followed. Might be of interest... Wikipedia:Notability (films). Peter 11:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting but I can see why it got deprecated. The most useful I found is the link to Wikipedia:Notability (people), which I find most enlightening. So, thanks for the link. Hoverfish 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film notability guidelines 

message: In actors' filmographies, some films are given as red links, where the actor is only cameo (or sings a song in the end). Such cases may qualify the films for Collection Criteria, but IMO they should not be red linked in the filmography. It may be subjective as to where the role is important enough, but I think in most cases it is obvious. If in doubt we could let it red and include it here with a note "in the cast" instead of "starring". It could be a hint for someone better informed to filter the list. Hoverfish 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the names I removed from the list above as "done", I have not included such films, although I have not removed the links from the filmographies. If this is any problem, I could go back and include them. Hoverfish 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors' filmography red links 

message: You could start a lot of these articles with a simple stub line, but you'd probably want to encourage a bigger write-up than that. So some of the newly created movies from these lists might just end up being stubs, so I think they should either stay in the list crossed out, or create a secondary list of films started from these lists that are still stubs. Peter 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with starting some stubs, especially when you plan to develop them. I just wrote this guideline to avoid the misunderstanding that all the films of this list need a stub and users start creating them massively. Hoverfish 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying.--Silverscreen 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new articles and stubs 

message: I've added a few pages for missing films that have been nominated or won awards. I would assume that these have a high importance as they have been acknowledged as good (or bad) films and the lists could also be used to compile further information on years in film pages for each major award. Because there are so many different film awards, some of these pages may be merged as there might be none or very few missing titles in some awards. Peter 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been compiling awarded films in the decades and marking them for awards. Yes, in this case we can merge awarded/nominated films. But if we create another listing only for missing awarded films, then we should change the names of the lists (ie. "Awarded/nominated films without an article" and "Non-awarded/nominated films without an article"), but we should sort both lists by decades, IMO. By the way, when we have the awarded ready, it can move or be copied to the missing notable films page. Hoverfish 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does complicate things I know! I don't want to create more mountains of things to do but I think awarded films definitely steer the list into getting articles created that have some kind of notability above any other film. The list once compiled can then be moved or copied to the main decade lists. Again I don't want to be treading on anyones toes or starting something that is irrelevant or steering away from the initial goal of the project. Peter 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of films without article by film award