Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bladesmulti (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 5 January 2015 (Undid revision 641101159 by Johnmylove (talk) Don't remove others discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Citizen Kane article question

A lot of work has recently been going into the article Citizen Kane. It was already over 155k bytes a few weeks ago and I personally think it will be well over 200k bytes by the end of the month. I have suggested to another editor the idea of creating a new article entirely about the writing of the film's script and the debates and controversy about the script's authorship over the years, as well as historical sources used in the film. In other words taking section 3: Pre-production and section 4: Sources and creating a new article, perhaps titled Citizen Kane script, and then summarizing those two sections briefly in the Citizen Kane article. The other editor I've suggested this to, User:WFinch who has been working on this article longer than I have, disagrees that this would be necessary. Keeping that in mind, my question is how likely would it be for the article to be promoted to Featured status when leaving sections 3 and 4 intact? I can't imagine that there's any official rule of thumb regarding "how long is too long?", but I am just anticipating requests for a lot of cuts when and if the article is nominated for promotion. Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIZE may have some answers. But more to the point, how do people know his last word was "Rosebud" when he dies alone...? Lugnuts 08:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I've heard that one before. He also dies twice, once (symbolically) when the light in the window goes out, once when he drops the globe. I guess I'm just looking for a few people to chime in about this and make suggestions or just say yay or nay.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there — Can you add a section regarding this to the Citizen Kane talk page, as well? Other editors on the article might offer some suggestions, and it'd be helpful to get some consensus. — WFinch (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone?.........--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just measured the readable prose and it stands at 110k. It should be split per WP:SIZERULE, and for the guideline to be waived you would need to successfully argue that the article is indivisible. Personally I would not accept such an argument because section 4 ("Sources") can easily be split off into a sub-article without it detrimentally affecting the main article. At this point I would oppose splitting off section 3 ("pre-production") because it is much more integral to covering the film, and if section 4 was split off it would bring the readable prose down to 90k. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing that should be added is that the sub-section "Post-Production", some of the sub-sections in "Style", the section "Themes" and the sub-section "Influences" all need expansion, and I am personally gathering material to expand some of them. The article will probably be longer in a few weeks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And I believe User:WFinch has expressed interest in expanding the sub-section "News on the March'.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if it's still undergoing significant expansion perhaps it would be better to collect all the material first and then decide what needs to be split out. Generally I would consider a "themes" section as secondary to a "pre-production" section so I would be more tempted to split that out, but it's hard to say until we know how much content there is. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the matter; I'm persuaded that the Sources section can stand by itself. I created a Category:Citizen Kane with this in mind, and I'll contemplate how much to leave behind at the Citizen Kane article when I create another, named Citizen Kane sources. — WFinch (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I just ask, why is the citizen kane article not a featured article yet? Surely it would be the one film if not any other us in the film community would love see attain a featured article status? I think there should be a tasak force in itself that aims to write the Citizen Kane article in a way that makes it a featured article.Anyway, just my small thoughts!.--User:FilmLover91 — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, December 20, 2014

@FilmLover91: See Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Systemic bias in coverage. Basically, you can't force volunteers to write (or expand) articles about which they are uninterested. We live in a postmodern world in which trashy, direct-to-video films and classy art-house films both potentially receive the same amount of coverage in Misplaced Pages. To some people, this is an abomination. To others, it is as it should be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to do some contributions yourself if you wish. Personally I'd like to see the article as Today's Featured Article on May 6th, Welles' 100th birthday. Hopefully it can get into shape by then, mostly through WFinch's great work.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Interview disambiguation discussion

Interested project members can comment at Talk:The Interview (2014 film)#Requested move 24 December 2014. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending AfDs

Tobi (1978 film) was posted for deletion on December 10th, and the discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to evaluate and comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 20:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Principle, which has been open since December 14th. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion input

A discussion regarding the A Christmas Story#Dating the story section for the film has begun here Talk:A Christmas Story#1940 decoder pin. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Eastmancolor "article"

I've created a semi-article/semi-dab-page for Eastmancolor, as it seemed very unsatisfying that there wasn't a single place, let alone article, to find out about it, despite its importance.

In particular, I didn't like that Eastmancolor and Eastman color themselves (formerly) redirected to a section *within* the Technicolor article. That is, of course, a nice overview of Eastmancolor in itself- but it's within the context of Technicolor, and limits scope for expansion or links to other Eastmancolor-related material (since the Technicolor article should only be covering Eastmancolor as far as the latter is relevant to the main subject).

On the other hand, I haven't rushed into creating a proper article. I don't want to risk duplicating content elsewhere and/or reorganising or removing it from its existing context (e.g. within Technicolor).

There's a lot of information scattered across several articles, and I think this dab-esque page is still an improvement in that it provides a context for them to be found, but it could probably be better.

Ubcule (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Film MOS page move

Hi. The MOS page was recently moved from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Films by Baqeri. I moved it back to the current title, as I believe this requires more input. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese box office

An editor has been restructuring List of highest-grossing films in Japan by converting dollar earnings at Box Office Mojo (which were converted from Japanese yen at different conversion rates in different years) and converting them back to Japanese yen at 2014 rates, and thereby changing the amounts and order of the chart. The upshot is that by converting the dollar amounts back to Japanese yen using a different conversion rate to the original you get a completely fictious number. The editor isn't backing down so I would appreciate a couple of opinions at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Japan#Alterations_to_the_chart. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who chipped in. It seems to have done the trick! Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Disney Legends at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts 19:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Misplaced Pages by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD for North Carolina Film Critics Association

I have nominated North Carolina Film Critics Association for deletion. Please comment on the nomination here. Sock (tock talk) 17:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards organizations' notability

I have started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM about adding a guideline about including recognitions only from notable (in the Misplaced Pages sense) awards organizations to the "Accolades" section of MOS:FILM. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Research request

I'll state upfront that this is a busy time of year so I know that you may not have the time to research this anymore than I do. An edit request has been made here Talk:Fantasia (1940 film)#Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014. It sticks in my memory that this word was used by Walt in describing the sequence on TWWoD but I couldn't get google to turn up anything. Maybe some of you who are better at these kinds of searches then I am can find something and add it to the talk page and the article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone already closed the edit request, but I posted a few sources on the talk page anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film)

I have started a discussion about the scope of the "See also" section for Boyhood (film) on the film's talk page. Given the items listed in that section I don't see what any film series or TV series featuring child characters would not also qualify, but that seems silly. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. 99.192.56.139 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 99.192. See also (chuckle) this recent discussion on the same topic. Lugnuts 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts, WP:NOTREPOSITORY may also be cited. --Lapadite (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This could be the catalyst for a new list article. Maybe List of films shot over several years or something like that. That title doesn't sound very good, but you get the gist. Sock (tock talk) 20:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Complete agree with this. A list/category is best, as all films with a similar scope/approach are only collectively relevant or related to Boyhood; A 'list of' article should be linked in the See also section, but not each individual film. I think that list tile is fine (succinct). --Lapadite (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Free McFarland film e-books available through Misplaced Pages Library

Hello fellow film fans, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has quite a few film studies titles (Film, film noir, silent cinema). See Misplaced Pages:McFarland for instructions. Best, The Interior (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External link discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:The Thing (1982 film)#eBook about whether a self-published fan analysis should be included in the external links. Note that it is not proposed as a reliable source but only as an external link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Gone Girl

I think that the Gone Girl needs a page split. And a new page containing the list of accolades received by the film needs to exist. DtwipzBTalk 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of interracial romance films at AfD

Please find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Does WP:NCTV beat WP:NCF for a TV film? Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar (film) article

Other than myself, the only longtime WP:Film editor that I see in the most recent edit history of that article is Sock. I would think that more regular WP:Film editors would be actively editing that article. Right now, it's mostly edited by this IP; while the IP does some okay work at the article, he sometimes calls edits he disagrees with "vandalism." The IP, while familiar with some of Misplaced Pages's rules, does not appear familiar with guidelines such as WP:Said and so on. I'm not sure which registered editor the IP is, but I'm certain that the IP has a registered account. More eyes from this WikiProject would certainly be beneficial to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and parts of the Critical response section are needlessly redundant. I don't want to cut anything if I'm simply going to be reverted by the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I know that Erik was significantly editing the article; because of that fact (knowing that Erik was taking care of the article), and because of the constant debates I saw going on there, I'd decided that I didn't need to put the article on my WP:Watchlist. I also didn't want to have aspects of the film spoiled for me. I finished watching it for the first time earlier this hour, however. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I worked on the article but have not paid much attention to it for a while now. I'll review the situation, but I agree that the IP editor is throwing around the vandalism smear way too easily. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

First, it's awesome to be considered a long-time contributor. Gotta enjoy the little things about this place.

Second, and on-topic, I haven't been keeping up with my watchlist very well for the past few days so I missed a lot of this. However, I'll kick back into editing the article a bit, and hopefully we can get the IP to stop repeatedly crying "vandalism". Sock (tock talk) 12:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll also help with the article from time to time. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Parveen Babi

I don't see how more neutral I can be on this matter when I am dealing with an editor who has been overall disruptive. User:Johnmylove continues to disrupt this page and it has been already a couple of years that the editor is still edit warring. I don't think that we whitewash the infobox' fields, instead we only state the particular terms. Nor we distinguish between Indian actress and Indian movie actress.

Kindly watch, also it has been a long time that this article has received no significant changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has many major grammatical issues. First of all, You cannot include her occupation has "Model" the word model is term when applied has different interpretations. The correct word to be used is "Fashion Model" as it is widely used in western context. Coming to Addition of "Indian Movie actress" is to give a clear explanation that the actress has only acted in movies but not in theatre or any other field of art. To just include "actress" would not be appropriate. Actress means what? Did she act in movies or theatre or stage shows? The questions is What actress is she? She is an Indian "Movie" actress, as she appeared in movies and there is nothing wrong in adding that. The User:Bladesmulti due to previous edits I made on his disruptive editing on other articles has taken personal grudge on my articles calling me nonsensical and also threatening to block me when the user is not even an administrator. Kindly have a look into this matter and take a serious action against him. Johnmylove (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Quit exposing your deliberate incompetence. I have never said that "I will block you", I had only said that "you may be blocked." Now look at Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Rani Mukerji and others, just every other article of an Indian actress and you will see that the opening para describes them as "an Indian actress". Not the extended para that you are trying to introduce without knowing about the actual standards. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti and Johnmylove: While this content dispute seems quite trivial to me, and it is absolutely happening in the wrong place, I feel there is a much bigger issue at hand. Johnmylove, you are causing some serious problems outside of the content disagreements. You appear to be quite fond of personal attacks, given that you called Sitush, a respected editor, "a Hindu Fundamentalist, a garbage community of sort and Jobless man who edits Misplaced Pages pages 24 hours without any work" and claimed that "there is constant attack on Pages related to Christians of India by him". You appear to be so anti-Hindu that you removed sourced passages from notable scholars because you are "Not interested what a Hindoo thinks!" and remove notable Hindu critics from a Christian-based simply because you don't know "who the hell they are!" How your atrocious behaviour has not been brought to the forefront before now is baffling to me, and I believe that reporting you to WP:ANI would be an appropriate response. Sock (tock talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages