Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 2 February 2008

Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section

• ]
• WT:FILMS

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Help

Conversation moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Independence Day (film).

2008 Hollywood strike in "Cinema of the United States" template

I think 2008 Hollywood strike should be added to the template {{CinemaoftheUS}}. Please see the discussion at Template talk:CinemaoftheUS#Strike 2008. Thanks.

"international" receipts

It has been brought up here that it is inherently POV to use the term "international" when referring to box office receipts outside of the US and Canada. One editor seems to be against changing the use of the term, while a couple others think it makes sense for the term "international" to include all nations receipts. Has this project addressed this issue in the past? Murderbike (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One term that we try to avoid usage is "domestic" because this is the English Misplaced Pages. I imagine that the proper way to refer to nations is either individually or call them "other territories". For example, "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 in other territories." Hope that helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Other territories" sounds like "colonies". Keep common usage: "Film X grossed $100,000,000 in the United States and Canada and $30,000,000 world wide." Lets be realists. Shir-El too 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to earn less money world wide than you earned in two countries? "World wide" includes the United States and Canada. Just say "other countries", as we don't specify box office takes in specific states or towns, but countries as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. 'International' is how the industry uses it, it's how all the wikipedia pages that use it apply it, and it's fairly obvious to any reader who actually reads the pages. 'Other countries' implies selective counting, 'International' is inclusive of all non-singularly identified countries. We're not listing every single nation, there's no way a table could support that with a reasonable page layout. The categories are fine as is. This belongs on BJAODN or one of the other top stupid argument lists. ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious at a quick glance that "international" means something other than its plain English meaning, which is "across all nations". Whether this is in fact how the film industry as a whole uses it, or for that matter even the American and Canadian film industry, is a matter that has not been settled -- burden of proof is on ThuranX. If it is so, then this non-intuitive usage should be explained in each article that uses it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BUrden is on those seeking change to find good reasons to ignore the actual, often cited information and vocabulary. I suggest that instead you all write up an article on the applied use of 'international' so the heading can be linked. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that "international" would not mean non-US markets, but rather non-domestic markets. So US receipts for Amelie would be part of that film's international receipts, for example. As far as I'm aware, that's usually the meaning of international: non-domestic areas. Worldwide would be the completely inclusive term for all markets. Just my 2 pence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong with the whole table. As an example I shall use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a joint UK and US production.

• I get the worldwide profits in US dollars, fair enough.
• I then glance at the US/Canada column, again in US dollars. Nothing wrong with with that.
• Then I see the column international. Huh? I already saw the worlwide profits. I haven't got a clue what this column is supposed to mean, but oh well.
• I then see the UK column. Now this is weird. There's a dollar sign in front of the amount, yet the little note at the bottom says it's in British pounds, which have the symbol "£". Furthermore, it's not exactly easy to compare the different earnings in each country when they are in different currencies.
• I finish off with the Australian column, the different currency throws me off again.

Here's my suggestion:

A summary of my changes:

• I deleted the "international" column. I don't see it as useful in anyway, it's just "profits outside US and Canada".
• I changed the abbreviations (US;U.K.) to fuller names (United States; United Kingdom)
• I changed the dollar sign to a pound sign in the UK column.
• I linked the currencies to their articles, before only the Australian dollars had been linked and it looked kinda weird.

If anyone agrees with this, we can put it in the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense. I'd prefer the USA and UK abbr. again since the columns are wide otherwise, and how about linking the currencies in the top film's totals only?:

-- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t21:37z

Actor templates redux

Do we have any guidelines under WikiProject Films that state that it's inappropriate to create a template for actors? I keep seeing a new one every once in a while, the most recent being {{Bale}}. Such a template is a bad idea since it has usually included every role, minor to major, of an actor in an entire career. This is in opposition to a director template, in which there is only one (sometimes two), and the director is consistently one of the most important people involved with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated {{Johnny Depp films}} at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 15. Is there some kind of precedent we can build into MOSFILM regarding this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just propose it at MOSFILM talk; I can't see it facing terribly much opposition. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The conversion of films materials is something that I've run across on a few pages, which requires a bit of work to revert to a filmography table. I'm not sure who started that precedent but it is something that has been brought up at the sister project Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I revert them as I find them. I'd actually be most grateful if anyone who finds these templates would notify me so I can salvage the material, which did take a bit of work to compile. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Film Portal

• Template:FA-icon -- Update: Portal:Film has recently become a Featured Portal. There is also a featured version at the French Misplaced Pages, called Portail:Cinéma. All of the articles at Portal:Film in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of Featured Quality Status. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material! Cirt (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Wow, Cirt, congratulations! You really did a great job putting it all together. We're all very proud to have such an excellent portal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Couldn't have done it with out all of the great Featured Content to utilize in the portal - so much of the thanks goes out to the WikiProject Films participants. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I'm a newbie: other than cudos what does this status entail? Thank you, Shir-El too 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, and it gets listed at Misplaced Pages:Featured portals. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

The President's Daughters is up for deletion.

Title says it all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to mention every AFD for every film article. A good place to look for this listing is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. Maybe we could make this a part of WP:FILM somehow? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to it on the the project front page. Could maybe add to the side menu, along with the possible AfD links. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a great fit. Is the template easy to edit to implement this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its just straight text. I was bold and popped it in there :) Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add it to the watchlist then, what's the name of the page? I'm tired now if I won't get answer by the time I wake up I will look for it myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the deletion sorting? Erik gave it a few responses above: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

• Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
• Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature Problem

Back in late 2005-early 2006, the term Film was stabilized as Wikipedian for both the medium and the product with which this WP is dealing, with "Cinema" referring to the place of exhibition only. Yet I am finding innumerable article names, category names, and text references all of recent vintage, which utilize "Cinema" for the film product, and also "Movie" or "Motion Pictures". Obviously, text is open to revisionism of terms which anyone can edit and revert, but how are improperly-worded article and category titles making "end runs" around the administrators and jumbling up the section, especially since these "end runs" can only be interpreted to represent either functional illiteracy about Film at Misplaced Pages, or deliberate, POV-based ignorings of the rules by those who create and save them to the site? Only certain people can fix these article titles and category names, and there is clear need to form a janitorial team to clean up the rampant revisionisms and a security system to prevent others from committing future breaches. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.52 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could cite some specific examples, we could address the issue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Western actors up for deletion

Apparently it's already been deleted once. Post comments for keeping/deletion Here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Project

A new project Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Terminator have started. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the WikiProject guide first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created the project as per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Saw. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. There's absolutely no good reason to run yourself into the ground with project admin overhead for the small quantity of articles the project would cover. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Terminator series have various articles, and it is a ground breaking film in film industry, in the history of film. The series is going on, many new suquels are coming. This project will help to co-ordinate all terminator related articles, articles on the characters in a good manner. The project will be dedicated for betterment of a specilized subject. Please add your membership (it would be good if you take the responsibility of project co-ordinator there) in the new project. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, he was just trying to be helpful in pointing out that the amount of work which goes into coordinating a Wikiproject can be overwhelming, especially if only a few people sign up for active participation. You'll be creating work for yourself, taking up time which could be more usefully directed towards making improvements to the articles. I wish you luck, however. Best regards, Steve 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have since edited your comment to ask Girolamo Savonarola to take on that responsibility. Seems a bit cheeky, but you might get lucky I suppose. Steve 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. So if you don't think that the project will not be so helpful, you can delete it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am taking your arguments. Now how can I delete the project? By MfD? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No-one is being an arse about this; we're just trying to help. Should you wish to continue with the project, that's up to you, and I genuinely wish you luck. Steve 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The project have been speedy deleted in request. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian task force

I would like to announce the creation of a new Australian cinema task force. All interested editors are encouraged to sign on as participants, and article tagging is currently underway!

Some editors may also have noticed that this task force was created without a request. This is because the "en." encyclopedia is already biased towards English-language cinema; I have no doubts therefore that the task force will do well. I will also likely be creating task forces for Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and US in the coming months. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC re previous discussion about revealing unsubtitled English translation in Plot section

Pasted from Talk:Once (film):

A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section. Would it be inappropriate to include the phrase I love you into the plot because the phrase was spoken in Czech language and was not subtitled in English but a reliably sourced translation has been found. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic has been ongoing long before the above editor joined the conversation. Please refer to the long discussion above and to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F, where editors reached consensus that the information, if sourced, should be included in the article, but outside of the plot section, since the English translation was intentionally withheld in the film (other Czech dialogue was subtitled; this was not). The non-Czech character being spoken to and the non-Czech-speaking audience of this English language film would have received a completely different meaning of this scene and the movie itself, had the English translation (of "I love you") been provided. But it was withheld by the filmmakers and therefore should not be presented in the Plot section as if those words were given by the film. It is in the article, but in the Production section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, I think that it'd be inappropriate to detail the Czech phrase, which would require specialist knowledge to know. I've seen the film with English subtitles, and it does not translate the phrase. For whatever reason, it's not a detail intended to be readily acknowledged by audiences. I think its placement in the Production section, with the citation, is sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the article's talk page, I disagree that a clear concensus has been reached in the above mentioned discussion. Furthermore, I do not think it to be innapropriate to insert a unsubtitled phrase in a language other than English if a verifiable translation can be cited, which it was, so long as it is clearly stated that it was unsubtitled. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My issue with this is that there is an established division between the plot summary and real-world context across film articles. The plot summaries are primary sources -- the film themselves -- so a plain description is always used to avoid subjective and interpretative language. If scenes need to be analyzed, like with this certain phrase, then it can be done so in a real-world context section using independent coverage from reliable sources. The scene can certainly be explained briefly in relation to the phrase used in the real-world section, but I'm not sure if embedding secondary sources in the plot section is the best idea. Including one seems to take us down the road of analysis, which should be reserved for the other sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was probably unsubtitled because it was an ad-lib on the part of the actor, who also tried out other ad libs in that moment, and the director didn't want the meaning of his film radically altered by that ad-lib. As it is, it's kind of like an Easter Egg for Czech speakers, which is fun. --Melty girl (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Easter Egg for Czechs. But the main point I was trying to defeat was your statement that if it's not presented on screen in English, it's not a part of the plot. I disagree that the plot is different for us than it is for Czechs. It can be verified, and, therefore, it is a part of the plot. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone knows the Czech language. This is the English-language Misplaced Pages, so we can easily assume that people who come here will be versed in the English language. However, take a look at WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source." The sentence is indeed verifiable, but if we're looking at the primary source only, Czech language is the specialist knowledge needed to understand that. I think that implementing the secondary source in the article starts changing the section from a basic description of the film to what the film means. For what the film means, that content should be covered in real-world context sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is much more suggestive of explaining what the film means to say that a line of the film "must" be kept out due to "intended ambiguity" on the part of the filmmaker, which is what was suggested before, then to list it translated and verified, clearly state it is unsubtitled and not delve into what it could have meant. Hypothetically speaking, if, indeed, the film makers wanted to keep a secret or be creatively ambiguous, why wouldn't they have worked in their own version of the final scene from Lost in Translation rather than put something out there that can be understood by an estimated 12 million speakers worldwide? Of course, if that information is to be made available on Misplaced Pages, it has to be sourced and verified. However, from a point of view of a filmmaker trying to keep a secret, one would know very well that the secret couldn't be kept due to the number of people who both speak Czech and have internet access to parlay to the rest of us what was said. Hence, if a secret is known to not stay a secret, it ceases to be a secret. SWik78 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think leaving out the translation would be suggestive. Here's how it's broken down:

1. Everyone can acknowledge in their viewing of the film that the Girl utters a Czech phrase to the Guy that she won't translate.
2. Those who can speak Czech and watch the film know what she's saying on the account that they are familiar with the language.

I don't know anything about Lost in Translation, so I don't know what to make of that example. What I mean to say is that #1 is agreeable on a descriptive level for all filmgoers, even those who know the Czech language. #2 is not as applicable because of the specialist knowledge of the Czech language. A lot of things could be pointed out by independent sources in the plot section, such as the fact that the Guy's flat was the actor's flat. I know what you're trying to say, but I think the way to approach elements in the film that are not universally clear is to leave it to independent sources. This observation just isn't clear-cut for all viewers, IMO. There's no hiding that's being done because the plot summary is intended to complement the film article. The real-world context is the meat of the article -- it can exist with or without the plot section. It's just that the plot section is included to provide a stronger background to the entire context. Now, I think I've really argued my points (and have repeated some, sorry about that), and I hope others can weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being very honest and fair by saying what you just said so I will do the same and let someone else have a say on this. Thanks for the input. SWik78 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the article talk page. I'd like to request all interested parties to continue the conversation there. (Re-copy and paste as need be.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Juno: Canadian? American? Canadian/American?

I'm a novice at determining the nationality of a film. I see all over the web that Juno is Canadian, but seems to have been funded by Americans. The director is Canadian, the writer is American. It seems to have been shot in Canada. Etc. How is the determination made whether it is Canadian, American, or a co-production? Where should I try to find the information. Variety wasn't helpful, and IMDb lists it as USA/Canada/Hungary! --Melty girl (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Canada/USA to me. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on your criteria. Nationality of director/writer/producers, where the money is coming from, where it's filmed, etc? There's no hard answer for this, but since we also don't require there to be a single country per film, there's no reason to be overly restrictive, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks y'all. Seems like Canadian/American is the proper adjective for the lead. --Melty girl (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template change request

There has been a request to change the {{Infobox Album}} that I think needs a bit of input before it's done. Your input at Template talk:Infobox Album would be appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this was meant for the Film project? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help in fixing an item

This is a request for help in fixing an oddity that I have come across. Please take a look at the infobox for Alison Steadman where you will see this {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} in the spot where the role and performance should be. When you go into edit mode the correct info is there. I am not computer, or wikicommand, savvy enough to know where to go to fix this and I don't know if it is affecting other pages so any help that can be given will be much appreciated and thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that there is no infobox parameter for the Olivier Awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I take that back - there is no discussed parameter in the template instructions. But it is there in the template code, so I suspect that the code may contain errors. Perhaps worth asking there? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes GS. I will copy this discussion and put it on the talk page for the template. If there is somewhere else that I should do this please let me know or feel free to copy it there yourself and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of film templates

There's a discussion going on here about the deletion nomination of a number of film templates. I've added in my thoughts as well, since I personally find them useful. Esn (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on application of trivia guidelines

I was reading through the guidelines on trivia, and was wondering if I could get an experienced opinion. A few months I reverted some vandalism for EuroTrip, and found it on my watchlist a couple days ago. When I saw the trivia section, I tried to remove it, but it was reverted by an anon. I read through the policy here on trivia, and with the exception of the first two entries, nothing appears to hold any encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the entire trivia and errors section appears to be OR and unsourced. I spend my time with video games, and have dealt with trivia before there, and I was wondering if I could get some opinions on what to do. I was thinking of removing all but the first two, put those two in a "production" section (to discourage trivia in this amount from returning and encouraging more development of a section like that) with a fact tag. This is not really my area of expertise, but I can spot a bad article when I see one. Thanks.--CM (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it and the errors section. Both are unsourced, OR and have no place in the article. For the two good items, move in as you suggested and give a few weeks to be fixed. The anon user who put it back gave no justification and doesn't do much editing so they hopefully didn't realize it was inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Collectonian's suggestion above. This article could use some form of real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of my original plan, but any help watching out for the inevitable revert by an anon would be helpful. Further problems exist, however; I have never seen this film, so I lack the ability to adequately summarize the overly long plot, and you already mentioned the lack of real-world content. Could I get some help with the formatting of the cast section? It appears to contain too many characters, but I am not familiar with how to properly structure it.--CM (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

lists > categorization_categorization-2008-01-20T22:07:00.000Z">

The template {{americanfilmlist}} contains links to pages that are nothing but incomplete lists of American films for given years (1890—2008). As I mentioned before (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 17#.7B.7BAmericanfilmlist.7D.7D), these lists will (a) probably be perpetually incomplete, (b) be better served by categorization, (c) are magnets for non-free media violations, and (d) so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (i) some of the articles listed within (ii) {{americanfilmlist}} itself (iii) various internal Misplaced Pages pages (talk, WP:, etc.)

I intend to create the categorizations pertinent to replacing these lists (i.e. Category:American films of 2001), and making them subcategories of the apropos film year category the articles may or may not already be in. I bring this up here for further discussion than there was before, before I boldly go. Thank you. — pd_THOR | 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)_categorization"> _categorization">


comment ABSOLUTELY NOT. Given time they will be filled in and completed and will be showing details which categories will never be able to achieve. Terrible idea. And are you kidding me that you don't think pages like American films of 1936, American films of 1960 etc aren't useful?; many of the lists are more complete than you are making out. These lists are supposed to serve a purpose which categories can never do. Given time they could even each be written into articles with text summarising the years in American film and then the detailed tabled lists underneath. Aside from the fact I've put in an enormous amount of effort in setting these pages up they are only incomplete because not one single person from WP:Films aside from Andrzejbanas, Rossrs and Nehrams with 2007 has bothered to even think about helping out. We made a WP:Film consensus about a year ago that to categorize as PD Thor has suggested would be gross over categorization -remember I initially started with this and people quickly made a decision it wasn't a good idea and lists would be the best alternative. All they need is people so make some sort of effort to chip in with them to get them completed. The fact is that if each of the "400" film members put in even ten minutes work on them each it would be done in a few days period ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)_categorization"> _categorization">

These tables give much more information than categories do. Categories only give you the films name. These tables give directors, actors and genres - along with a spot for notes. Thus a reader can go in many directions while perusing these as opposed to a category page. If a new consensus needs to be reached regarding these my vote is to keep them. MarnetteD | Talk 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tables are a great idea. Sure, some of them are stuby and lack detail, but only for the reasons Blofeld has given above. They do serve a purpose and are handy for identifing important gaps in missing articles for films, directors and actors. Lugnuts (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above in support of these lists. Categorization isn't much more than a navigation tool in this regard, and I think these lists are already quite useful, and have the potential to be even more so. It seems to me that gradually they are being improved and added to, and they just need some more time and attention to begin to mature. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Granted, the lists aren't complete, but then, nothing on Misplaced Pages is ever technically completed. The lists grow as articles are created, and that takes time. Categories don't contain the details that a list can and should. I can, and will, certainly start checking to see if individual films are contained within these lists as I am working on filmographies for actors. It's a simple matter to take that one extra step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Agreement here as well. Categorization here would only be useful in a navigational sense and would give only the film names. These pages work not only for navigation, but also as a guide to what needs to be done (missing articles). There's also a good parallel to the similar work being done for other countries, which gives some consistency to the project as a whole. SkierRMH (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the tables would be more appropriate than categories. A) Misplaced Pages itself is perpetually incomplete, B) Tables, like others have said, can go in better depth than categories, C) Standards can be set for using non-free images, if at all -- there are lists that don't use any images, and D) The linking in this context seems appropriate, as these aren't articles that would necessarily be wiki-linked all over the board unlike a specific film or actor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or try to use only free images. For films pre 1960 the commons has many trailer shots which are free images. With film I do feel that limited images are very useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)_categorization"> _categorization">

In broad agreement with everyone else here, though I would just like to say that I slightly resent your implied criticism of the rest of the project's members, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their own particular corners of this vast project. That few have chipped in on your particular area should not be grounds for such criticism, just the same as your lack of participation in other editors' areas should not grounds for criticising you. There's enough work to ensure that one can spend weeks on something project-related without ever encountering another member. All the best, and I wish you luck in your continued improvements. Steve 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, vehemence, that was unexpected; I only had one comment/reply the previous time I brought this up. The chief problems with these pages are their insular nature and the prevelance of unnecessary decorative copyrighted images in them.

If this project ultimately has plans for integrating these pages into the whole of Misplaced Pages, I don't intend to piss in your Cheerios. Since this collection of pages are almost wholly insular, I thought they were the abandoned chaff from some previous project initiative. My only input on them would be to name them as lists as the majority on Misplaced Pages are; i.e. List of American films of 2001, w/o the "list of" differentiation it might be construed to be an encyclopedic article discussing the whole of American filmmaking of that year. Capiche?

Many of these list articles (how many, I didn't check) have a copyrighted image heading the list as representative of whichever film won the Academy Award for Best Picture; that is wholly unnecessary and failing of WP:NFCC#1, #3a, and #8. If the project is going to remove them, I'll leave them to your auspices, or if you're obliged, I'll remove them. Cheers. — pd_THOR | 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)_categorization"> _categorization">

Oh yeah thats right, you're the loon who fussed about the Dances with Wolves image and ended up deleting it from the whole encyclopedia if I'm not mistaken. And now you want to "remove" the lot. You act as if there are twenty on each page. I personally think one single image of the Academy winning film or top grossing film of that year is useful, with film to disregard images completely seems implausible when film is about the visual. If possible I do think images can be replaced with free images if possible (earlier films more likely) e.g see American films of 1951 but remember each of the singular images have a detailed rationale for use. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Steve I always appreciate the work that others do across the project and didn't inend to imply as if nobody was doing anything. I am fully aware that many members of the film project are doing great things. What I was referring to was that despite a request on the monthly newsletter for people to add least help a bit nobody did anything. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

American films of 2001 is quite suitable particularly as I intend that we turn them into more than just lists eventually ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else have any further input on this subject? With regard to the use of copyrighted images in lists of films: I find them unnecessarily decorative, but if this project's consensus is for their retention, I'll bring the subject to WT:NFCC for their specific review. OTOH, If this project has no objections, I'd be happy to remove them from these lists myself.

And did anybody have any input on the subject of duly renaming these lists as such? blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs)'s ... reply gave no input regarding this on his or her (or the project's) behalf. — pd_THOR | 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)_categorization"> _categorization">

I would say that images should be removed, as there isn't much context for why one over another (and picking the Best Picture winner is tantamount to endorsement of the award, thus POV). Deletion would be a bad idea, I think, as it leads to the proliferation of excessive categories for a given film, assuming international co-production, etc. We've been trying to keep the categories to simple non-intersections, not only for category proliferation control, but also because it has been promised (although without a specific date) that dynamic cat intersection is going to be added to the wiki software shortly. (ie, one would request Category:American films of 2001 by asking for the common articles which are in Category:American films and Category:2001 films.) Additionally, recategorization is a time-consuming process, especially with the number of articles our project covers, so changes to category schemes generally are encouraged to proceed slowly and with a great deal of prior discussion and deliberation. As for the renaming, what did you have in mind, again? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no no. I'm not advocating their deletion any more, I originally thought they were a forgotten niche project of this WikiProject, since the last time I brought it up only one person had anything to say about them. If you guys want 'em, I'm happy to leave you to them, no biggie! I'm just now suggesting renaming them as "List of..."; for example renaming American films of 1970 to List of American films of 1970. Since they really are more lists than prosed encyclopedic articles, it would seem more appropriate titling than current. — pd_THOR | 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have an objection to renaming. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Knocked Up/Judd Apatow/Katherine Heigl

I'm sorry if this sort of thing doesn't belong here, but I've noticed something worrying about a small collection of articles all pertaining to the 2007 film Knocked Up. A single anonymous user has contributed a disproportionately high amount of content concerning supposed 'sexist'/'discriminatory' themes in Apatow's work; in Knocked Up particularly. The content is relatively well-written and well-sourced, although it seems that the sources are being misused: for example; as is clearly stated in the article, an "online survey of 927 individuals was performed by lifestyle publication Buzzsugar (a media product of Sugar Publishing) in which the majority (59%) of movie-goers agreed that Apatow's film was sexist or could be viewed as sexist (while 38% were not personally offended) and 37% of viewers saw the film as devoid of sexist aspects". I followed it up, and, well, frankly, the results are nothing like that.

Of course, I would like to Assume Good Faith. With 100% of his/her edits concerning this 'controversy', however, the user obviously wants to give this undue significance. The female characters in 'Knocked Up' were a bit uptight, but surely all this isn't as notable as these articles, as they are now, would have us believe. Knyght27 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the section is a back-and-forth between both sides about sexism or lack thereof, it should be re-titled to encompass both arguments. In addition, I notice bits of synthesis like the poll you mentioned, the unrelated aspect of Heigl being conservative, and the Queenan review that does not explicitly talk about sexism. I also see the same context copied over to Judd Apatow, and seeing the user's contributions, there may be undue weight as you say. The matter should be brought up at WP:BLP for Judd Apatow in particular -- actually, I'm going to remove it because it's film-centric, not director-centric. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards

The nominations are out, and can be found here, for those of you who are interested in adding the information to the relevant articles. I'll do a couple myself should I have the time this afternoon. Here's a quickie citation template to use:

• <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.oscars.org/80academyawards/nominees/index.html | title=80th Academy Awards nominations | publisher=] | accessdate=2008-01-22}}</ref>

All the best, Steve 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the setup! In case some people haven't seen them, there are also nominations by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, which can be seen here. Here's the template for it:

• <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html | title=Film Awards Nominees in 2008 | publisher=] | accessdate=2008-01-22 }}</ref>

I mentioned a while ago that we should focus on these nominees' articles due to the heightened visibility, and from what I've noticed, a good portion of them have pretty solid real-world context. Cheers to those who were able to contribute, and let's keep up the good work! I think some articles that could use more context are Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Michael Clayton, and Away from Her. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! --Melty girl (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC page?

I would like to suggest the creation of a subpage on this WikiProject that would display all film-related FAC processes. We already have an assessment subpage and a peer review subpage, and I feel that it would be beneficial to the community to have a subpage that shows active FAC processes. It could be modeled similarly to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film in having a brief description (especially referring to MOSFILM and general FA criteria) and the simple list of FAC processes. I'm suggesting this because some FAC processes seem to have come and gone without much community awareness. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I support 100%, a lot of hard-working people have goals on getting the articles of movies they love so much featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of articles undergoing the FAC process are Transformers (film) and The Simpsons Movie. There could be more, but I'm not aware of them. Thus, centralizing them would be a good collaborative effort by everyone so the articles can be reviewed by multiple editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and created it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Featured article candidates, which has three FAC processes listed now. I'm not sure how to go about possible bot archiving, though, like the deletion listing page has. Any feedback would be appreciated. In addition, if this subpage is OK, where in the table could it be inserted? It doesn't fall under a department, so I guess general information? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but I must admit unfamiliarity in this area. We have the announcement board, which seems to have some impact, but a dedicated and watchable page would be another good step. By all means steam ahead! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

• Feel free to let me know about successful results from film FACs, at Portal talk:Film. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland, Reese Witherspoon FACs

The articles on Reese Witherspoon and, even more significantly, Judy Garland have been nominated for FAC; both are in need of more decisive reviews, particularly Judy Garland, which has been peculiarly ignored. Both reviews are in danger of being archived, and I think that many people in this WikiProject may be veyr appropriate reviewers. Please take a look if you can. For examples to compare with, you can find a list of other actor FA articles at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Featured_articles. --Melty girl (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dagon James

This article has been listed for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dagon James. Pairadox (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

World cinema templates standardised

I noted the following back in July:

A user pointed out to me that 2 templates exist, Template:East Asian Cinema and Template:East Asian cinema. The former had only 2 linking articles (under special:whatlinkshere/) and the latter had 12, so I took the easy route and amended the 2, meaning the template with "Cinema" with an uppercase C can now be deleted.

However, I took a look at the other similar templates and they're not standardised:

• Template:Worldcinema - lowercase c, no space. This is the main World Cinema template containing links to all countries.
• Template:World Cinema - Uppercase C. Contains links to 6 continental cinema "parent" articles and the 4 sub-continental Asia articles.

• Template:African Cinema - Uppercase C.
• Template:Asian cinema - Lowercase c.

• Template:East Asian cinema - Lowercase c, different template format.
• Template:East Asian Cinema - Uppercase C.
• Template:South Asian cinema - Lowercase c.
• Template:Southeast Asian cinema - Lowercase c.
• Template:West Asian Cinema - Uppercase c.

• Template:Australasian Cinema - Uppercase C.
• Template:EuropeanCinema - Uppercase C, no space.
• Template:North American Cinema - Uppercase C.
• Template:Latin American Cinema - Uppercase C, different template format.

So are we happy with the format of these templates? Should they be standardised?

Gram123 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am happy with the templates. And, they should be standardized, both in design and naming conventions. I prefer the format that is used on the majority of the templates, such as Template:Southeast Asian cinema, with the light purple background. Lowercase c, with a space makes the most sense. Something additional to address would be a replacement for the film reel that was formerly in the templates, but went away with the deletion of the stock images. I had tried using a map image inside a clapperboard, similar to the flag icons that have been created, but I am displeased with the results and would urge a different direction, possibly finding another freely licensed film-related photo, like a camera lens or film reel. — WiseKwai 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered about this, and so have now made some amendments. I haven't touched Template:Worldcinema and Template:World Cinema, because I don't quite know what to do with those. However, I've standardised all of the other template titles, and fixed all redirects to each. So we now have:

• Template:African cinema
• Template:Asian cinema

• Template:East Asian cinema

• Template:East Asian Cinema - this is an old duplicate, and is now due for speedy deletion.

• Template:South Asian cinema
• Template:Southeast Asian cinema
• Template:West Asian cinema

• Template:Oceanian cinema
• Template:European cinema
• Template:North American cinema
• Template:Latin American cinema

Gram123 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how standardization could be a bad idea. Please do feel free to be bold and make the necessary changes (providing that everything stays fully functional and working). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a core list

The question of the importance parameter has been raised sporadically in the past. In lieu of this, a core list has been proposed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Core. I'll let you read the page instead of rehashing the details, but if you'd like to help out, your comments and questions on the list's talk page are welcome! Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation: Review Department now up and running; A-Class reviews

Well, taking the ball from the FAC page, I've decided to consolidate all of the review processes into one page, so as to keep it simple. Following on the model of MilHist yet again, A-Class review has been brought on board as well. This will allow us to distinguish between the informal process of general article guidance (Peer review), formal content review (A-Class review), and final, tightly-polished review (Featured article candidate). All of the relevant reviews are transcluded, so there is no need for editors to wander amongst several locations - this is the one-stop shop for all editors interested in film to go! :) Your comments are always welcome. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Film stubs

There are currently about 260 films in this category currently that need to be sub-categorized. Please take a couple of minutes to help empty this category! SkierRMH (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help - Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Please can someone help me with this - see the talk page for more discussion about the issue. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible III needs your assistant.

Click here for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please don't reply to this section, instead reply where it's leading you to. The reason for that is because this discussion can get mixed up with all kinda movie discussion by the time it archives, it's easier for the future if people can can just look at the movie talk page to see why the article was cleaned up, instead of having to look for it on the highly active WikiProject.

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Is the news section of IGN's "Rotten Tomatoes" considered a reliable source for industry news? -- Vary | Talk 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how the information is reported. I'm wary of movie websites over actual newspaper coverage. They usually go two ways -- a report from an anonymous source, or information upfront from the filmmakers. If it's the former, it can't be dependable. If it's the latter, then it'd be appropriate. Of course, I'd favor newspaper coverage over movie websites whenever possible, but sometimes the websites get more information than newspapers. That's how I've seen it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned in particular about a copy of a film's production notes from a press kit, which was posted by a contributor there along with a stack of stills and other promotional materials.

Rotten Tomatoes actually one of a number of online sources that have published the same document; that's just the link that happens to be in use at the moment, so I guess I should have said "sites like Rotten Tomatoes", as it's not really that site in particular that's the issue. -- Vary | Talk 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which article in particular is this relating to? Want someone to take a look at the source? Steve 08:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. They're the production notes for Cloverfield, posted in this article. I think they'd fall more under the 'word from the producers' category Erik mentioned above? -- Vary | Talk 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be unlikely to dispute these production notes unless someone really wanted to believe that the notes are susceptible because they're being posted on a possibly questionable website. I'm in support of the notes -- I've actually cited them in my revision of Cloverfield (creature) due to the AFD apparently not being successful midway through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Must concur with Erik here. (Speaking of which, we're probably due for a discussion regarding guidelines for film character pages.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, that would probably involve those at WP:FICT, since it has a lot to do with the issue of notability. The guideline's been revised, so I don't know if that would be genuinely applicable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more to be said, but I want to wait for FICT to settle down, first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deindent. Thanks for the input, guys. One more question: there's also been a discussion on the source at the RS noticeboard, which started a little while after this thread. Only one uninvolved editor weighed in there. He's said the problem with the source was that Giles doesn't give an author's name ("Documents that have no author are puzzling to cite.") Is it unusual for marketing materials like these to have no author listed? I was under the impression that when there's no author available, we should use the publisher. (I asked the same questions there yesterday, but the only response I've gotten was from an involved party.) -- Vary | Talk 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, publisher is fine (just leave the author field blank). Another example would be official press releases, which Misplaced Pages also considers acceptable sources despite lacking a named human author. Steve 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "2007 Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage: .
2. "2007 UK Domestic Grosses" (top 100), webpage: .
3. "Australia: Movie Marshal Total 2007" (top 100), webpage: .
4. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2007&p=.htm 2007 Domestic Grosses (top 100) U.S. & Canada].
5. 2007 UK Domestic Grosses (top 100)
6. Australia: Movie Marshal Total 2007" (top 100)