Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Categorizations by decades and genres
Lugnuts and I have are having conflicting views on the categorization of films by decade and genre (like Category:2010s horror films). I believe that this category should only be added when the film is released, and then add the correct decade cat. Lugnuts believes that the category should be added even if the film is unreleased according to its approximate release date. What do others think? BOVINEBOY2008 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
De Minimis Safe Harbor Election Video
Creative Commons tricky question
I uploaded a Creative Commons image of Tobin Bell at Comic Con at Commons and now I'm thinking that since it shows the Saw 3D poster in the background, is the picture itself still a 'free' image? :-S If not, can I just crop the background poster out? Sorry if this is a retarded question or if I'm just being paranoid. Mike Allen 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
decltype (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 
Infobox discussion notification
There is an ongoing discussion about the film infobox's "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters. Editors are invited to comment. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Notifications of requests to move
- A Kiss Before Dying -> A Kiss Before Dying (1991 film) (discussion)
- Howl (2010 film) -> Howl (film) (discussion)
- Dead of Night (2010 film) -> Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (discussion)
- Austin Powers (film series) -> Austin Powers / Austin Powers -> Austin Powers (character) (discussion)
- Kids in America (film) -> Kids in America (2005 film) (discussion)
- Sgt. Bilko (film) -> Sgt. Bilko (discussion)
Above are currently requested moves of film-related articles; editors are invited to participate in the discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Fictional films about prehistoric life
Hello, there is a category of Category talk:Prehistoric fantasy films but I am looking for movies with less fantasy, like Quest for fire. It is for the German page de:Liste der geschichtsbezogenen Filme und Serien. Seemingly, there are hardly any serious movies (not documentaries) about prehistory? --Ziko (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of awards discussion
There is currently a discussion at WT:ACTOR#Awards pertaining to film and awards organization within articles. Chickenmonkey 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A Serbian Film
An anon editor keeps removing large segments of the plot on the article A Serbian Film with the rationale "UK distributors AND filmmakers would rather not have full details of plot spoiling the film for those who have not seen it". Please add thoughts and comments on the talkpage. And a pre-warning - sensitive types might not want to read the plot... Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
I have nominated Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
I have nominated Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Betrayal (1929 film)
Betrayal (1929 film), now a redlink, has 29 incoming links. Seems like an article is wanted there. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Genre of Harry Potter books & films
At List of films based on sports books we have the Harry Potter books classified as "sports books", and therefore Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) classified as a "film based on a sports book". There is some disagreement about whether or not this classification is correct so any opinions would be appreciated at Talk:List of films based on sports books#Harry Potter. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Wiki Film Aggregator
Hi there, I am not sure where to exactly propose this but I have an idea for creating our own Wiki aggregator for movies like Rottentomatoes and Metacritic. Using a template, it could be included in the Wikiproject Films template and then editors can vote on it and aggregates can be used for the reception section. The idea of aggregator movie reviews would fit in perfectly with Wikipedia. Any thoughts? --Theo10011 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC) (posting for Nehrams2020; helps to have a floating notification here)
Genre of Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li
There's a debate at Talk:Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li over the genre of the film. Some users are claiming that it is a crime film, while others (including myself) don't think the film belongs in the genre. Any additional input on the article's talk page would be appreciated. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist
Is the documentary Ink Music: In the Land of the Hundred-Tongued Lyricist of any note? The article, which strikes me as being written to reflect well on the achievements of its subject/star, claims that the documentary has been shown [wait for it] once, and then only privately. I'd never heard of it, or of its subject/star, till I saw both written up within the article on Shuntar? Tanikawa. (Despite my very recent addition of two FACT tags to the wretched article about him, Tanikawa genuinely is eminent.) A fair number of links go to this "Ink Music" article and I start to wonder whether WP is being used to drum up publicity for this film. The "official website" of the film is a Flash (or similar) nightmare (I lacked the patience to wait for it to load), but the IMDB entry for it again suggests that it, uh, doesn't actually exist yet. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've sent it to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Mystery Science Theater 3000 films category up for deletion
The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Film date
A discussion about the use of {{Film date}} in {{Infobox film}} has been opened here. Please feel free to comment. BOVINEBOY2008 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested moves
There are currently quite a few film related articles listed at WP:RM. If anyone has the time, these discussions would benefit from the input of more editors. Thanks. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Film series categories at CfD
Interested parties can find the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Saw VI has been nominated for FA
Please leave any comments you may have here. Thanks. :) Mike Allen 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
False company information in film articles
Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) is a just-blocked prolific editor who adds false company information to film articles. For example, he did this and this where there is no evidence whatsoever of the relationship. The editor typically adds company information to film articles indiscriminately, like here, making Unstoppable seem like a Spanish production. I reported the editor at WP:ANI as seen here (permalink), and the editor has been blocked for one week. Regardless, I ask other editors to keep an eye out for sockpuppets that edit in this pattern. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) continues vandalizing under the following IP addresses that I've found so far:
- 86.186.36.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 92.40.231.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Currently requesting for these IP addresses to be blocked. I ask for other editors to monitor for similar vandalism in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Some suspicious edits by *86.45.136.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); is this the same culprit? Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Update
Ben-Bopper (talk · contribs) is making a lot of company-related edits on film articles and without using edit summaries. A sample of his contributions seem mostly okay, though this was incorrect. There does not seem to be a relationship between the sequel and Mandeville Films, though there is one between the first film and that production company. I think the editor is Donald McKinney (talk · contribs), who tended to add [[Samuel Hadida|Davis Films]] to infoboxes. Ben does that here. Donald has a history of making company-related edits prolifically and without edit summaries, though I cannot recall a problem with his edits. I've suspected that Pricer1980 was a sockpuppet of Donald McKinney, possibly one to see how far one could get with false/abusive edits. They appear related in making edits to Pathé-related articles, especially with this article's history. I'll keep an eye on the current pattern, and I ask others to look out for similar patterns of company-related edits. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one:
- 86.135.172.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Lugnuts (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rotten Tomato ratings
Hi. User:RottenPotato is adding Rotten Tomato ratings to film articles, which is fione, but in the couple that I checked, he or she has been putting them at the bginnning of "reception" sections, rather than at the end of them. Since individual reviews and responses are more important than aggregator ratings, I've asked them to change their editing. I'm going to go through their edits and make adjustments, but I could use a hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Well with all that out of the way... welcome to Wikipedia Rotten Potato. :) Mike Allen 05:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, you seem to be utterly clueless. All good prose should start with a brief summary, and aggregator ratings are a simple way of doing that. They provide a statistical snapshot which tells you exactly what's most important about critical reception and what the readers need to know: how much did critics enjoy the film, i.e. what was their consensus of the film's overall quality. Aggregator ratings were probably added to the end of Reception sections because individual reviews were already there and many editors are afraid (or too lazy) to add things anywhere except at the end of the relevant section. Adding things at the beginning of a section requires knowing how important things are relative to each other, and some editors just aren't sure about that kind of thing. Aggregrator ratings obviously belong at the beginning of the critical-reception section. --Codrdan (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
American action drama category up for deletion
The discussion can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Film projects
There is an emergence of nonstandard articles that are supposedly "exceptions" to the notability guidelines for future films. They are "film project" articles about the plans to make films. The trend started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film), where a lack of outcome led to the article being moved to The Avengers film project. Since the argument was that the article was more about history than about a film (since there is no film and no guarantee of one), the structure excludes elements normally found in a film article, such as the main infobox and the film-related categories. I expressed concern that the "exception" of The Avengers would encourage additional "exceptions", and sure enough, X-Men: First Class (film project) was created and is currently posted at WP:AFD here. I also came across Marvin the Martian (film project) recently.
The general notability guidelines defer to subject-specific guidelines, and we have notability guidelines for future films. These guidelines explicitly say not to create a film article until filming is verified to have started. After all, it is misleading to have an article for a film when there is no certainty of one. A so-called "film project" article circumvents this compliance by making the real topic the so-called "history" of the plans. To me, the clearest "exceptions" to be had are planned films that are covered retrospectively. However, this is rarely the case with the spontaneity of editing on Wikipedia. WP:NFF was mainly applied to where film articles were created based on announcements and incomplete attempts at production. In the film industry, the presence of a director and a cast is still not a guarantee of a film. Nor is an announced release date. Even so, articles have typically been created in anticipatory fashion, as if the film will happen. Extensive coverage of plans for a film are largely due to underlying elements of preexisting notability. For example, superhero films and other comic book films are especially acknowledged because of the source material. Plans are covered because of the source material, which is why we have encouraged having details of such plan fall under the appropriate umbrella article. Plans are also covered because of well-known directors. For example, Neil Marshall has announced multiple projects, but there are no guaranteed films. The argument for a "film project" article is that it is a sub-article from the umbrella article on account of size. A strong example may be The Hobbit film project, for which there have been multiple events.
The problem with "film project" articles is what constitutes history and details of that history. If we are dealing with recent projects, what is the criteria to determine enduring notability and not just news reports? We can report coverage of plans for a film in the right context, but when can such plans truly stand on its own legs in its own article, regardless of an actual film? If size is the criteria as it was with The Hobbit film project and The Avengers film project, where they were spun off as sub-articles, what makes up the so-called size of plans coverage? Despite merging efforts, sections will still be written in a forward-looking tense as if a film will be had. How much of the coverage matters when a film is not realized? To compare, actors and filmmakers will be attached to countless projects in their careers, but only a few of them will be realized. Of these, only high-profile involvements may be covered in their articles. What's obviously covered are the relationships with the films they did make. I'm not sure yet of a solution, but the problem to me with "film project" articles is that if they are about recent plans and that the criteria for a separate article is size, then umbrella articles' "planned film" sections can be easily exploded with detail that only matters when there is an actual film. That seems the case with X-Men: First Class (film project), which was originally part of the film series article due to obvious recognition as the next possible X-Men film. A final troubling point about all this: plans for a film can last for years (hence the infamous term development hell), where people constantly express the intent to make it and make little progress. If they repeatedly report their intent to the media, then there is the constant sense of premature anticipation, making the tense of "film project" articles difficult to work with. What do others think about the best approach to reporting the so-called buildup to a possible film? How much detail to be had? What is the "retrospective" cutoff? Could Wikipedia:Article Incubator be used to keep all details from which umbrella articles' "planned film" sections draw to provide relevant highlights that matter even if there is never a film? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the project page does state that we do cover all film-related projects. Our project's assorted departments ensures that the various types of articles are properly formatted and that members with the same interests can keep the project's goals running smoothly. The future films department, started three years ago, has helped to reinforce policy and guidelines on upcoming films that would otherwise be inundated with unreliable sources and rumors leading up to the film's release. Since it's done a good job with many upcoming films in the past, and with the continued interest in upcoming films, it would be best to keep these potential films (currently listed as projects) stored and maintained on a project page until ready. Working with films is definitely different from other projects. When a historical event occurs, there's no waiting for it in case it may happen down the line, it just happens. For films, there's two paths: getting made or sitting in development hell for an extended period. It's not that difficult to move them into article space when filming begins. This would help us to avoid the continuous AfDs and continue to properly prepare these articles with developed content and collected sources. However, to do something like this, we would have to indicate what types of projects would be incubated, and how to properly merge existing articles into other articles or setup redirects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 21:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
War adventure films category up for deletion
The discussion can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Battleship (film)
Has this movie been filmed yet. If not I would guess it's not ready per WP:NFF. Jhenderson 777 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
- AFD is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
comicbookmovie.com and the use of citizen journalism as reliable sources
Tenebrae (talk) in good faith recently removed all content from Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger citing information from comicbookmovie.com stating that the site is actually a forum. It is my opinion that the site utilizies citizen journalism (which is also used by some mainstream media outlets such as CNN) and should not be discounted because its contributers are not paid professionals. It should be noted that in each of the site's articles a disclaimer is posted stating
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal of copyrighted material, contact us HERE.
to which Tenebrae veiws as evidence of it being a forum. The site's code of conduct states
Journalistic Ethics and Standards on the Internet:
Your fansite is formatted to be a news site. OK, so you're not a REAL journalist. Neither are we. We're passionate fans first! Still, that doesn't mean we don't want to do our best to follow established guidelines and ethical practices. So, here they are:
1.Don't plagiarize. Stealing is bad. When aggregating news content from other sites, only take a portion of someone elses work--a paragraph or two is acceptable. If you find you are taking too much you might just want to rewrite it and call it your own.
2.Always credit your source. Make sure when you use content from another site or news source that you give them credit with a link back to their site. Your newsloading tool has that ability, so use it.
3.Don't use copyrighted images. There is a lot that is free on the web, but some of it is not. Sometimes stuff you shouldn't take will tell you that it is copyrighted. If we are contacted by the copyright holder we will need to remove it.
4.Exclusive content is GREAT! Do a lot of that. It will get your fansite noticed
and safe harbor refers to the site being protected from liability non-purposeful copyright infringement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Safe Harbor refers to protection from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it does not protect the website from potentially slanderous or libel material. Also the code of conduct does state that there is some editorial control;
We, the owners of ComicBookMovie.com, reserve the right to edit and/or delete users contributions and fansites at any time, and for any reason. Now of course, we hope to never have to do that, but we also have no idea what one of you naughty little buggers might do in the future, so we require total control over all elements of the site. Furthermore, as a contributor to CBM you are agreeing to shared ownership of all content created under the ComicBookMovie.com url. We pledge to be fair masters, and you may contact us with member concerns, questions or disputes HERE.
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You are missing what I am say - if you get involved in the editorial control of content, you can't claim safe habour because you then become the publisher rather than a provider of space to publish. All that link says is that they can remove or change anything they like (which they need to be about to do as the provider of space), it's say nothing about editoral control in the way we define it. It's not a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Green hornet deletion nomination
Anybody interested should go to The Green Hornet (2006 film) as I have nominated the green hornet for nominaton for deletion. So cast your votes to keep or delete as you wish. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Blockbuster", "flop", etc.
I've come across lots of articles about actors that have a chart of their films with a tag such as "blockbuster", "flop", "super hit" for each. Never cited. Same issue for articles with table-of-films for certain genres or "XX year in film" pages. I've started removing them on the basis of WP:OR (either WP:RS uncited or WP:SYNTHESIS if editors' conclusion based on box-office gross/etc). I've gotten mixed feedback (usually supportive comments but sometimes lots of no-comment reversion by IPs). Is there existing content or style guideline specifically for this type of material? If not, am is there consensus that it's bad/removeable? Would be great to have an easy link to that guideline (could just use WP:HITFLOP edit-summary like we use WP:SULF for the sulfur-vs-sulphur guideline). DMacks (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone help with a poster
Hello to the members of the project. Today I cam across our article for the film Waking Ned. I noticed that the poster in the infobox is from the US release which was entitled Waking Ned Devine. I know that we prefer to have an original release poster in the infobox. I am not good at finding and uploading pictures so I am posting this here so that those of you who are proficient at this can replace this poster, if possible. If an original poster is not available I will leave it up to you if we want to stick with the one currently on the page. My thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 14:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Book:Academy Award for Best Picture - Help needed
I recently created this book. I originally opted to go with years, but upon consideration, I'm wondering if it would be better to go with 1rst, 2nd, ... 82nd instead of 1928, 1929, .... 2009 ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
See also Book:Academy Awards, also recently created. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Help request - "The Seventh Seal"
Another editor has posted some material about a Cinema Insomnia supposed parody of Bergman's The Seventh Seal that I have reverted as irrelevant insofar as the description of the show by that editor DixieDellamorto involved only what seemed to me to be trivia. This editor has objected, which is understandable, but his/her responses on the Talk page have become querulous and borderline uncivil. I responded that if someone from WP:Film thought the material relevant then I would not object to its inclusion. I wonder if someone might take a look at the edit here [[1]] or suggest to me someone who could or would be interested. Our little discussion is going on under the "Parody Again" section here [2]. I'd actually like to revert the entire section as irrelevant, but it seems as if many film article have similar sections. Also, the point was raised on a CFD discussion here [3] that the above named editor may have a COI because he works for the show whose episode he is trying to insert as an example of parody, FWIW. Thanks - Sensei48 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
New AfD
I have placed List of horror movie serial killers up for deletion. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror movie serial killers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Surreal films
RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) is mass-removing text and categories from films that state they are "surreal" and in many cases, they are clearly cited in the articles (Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, etc). Thoughts/comments on this? Lugnuts (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion here on the Categories for Discussion page, as to a possible solution to this Surrealist films category problem. Please contribute and let's try to solve this, please. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Category: Fims produced by x
A current discussion at CfD can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Question about application of Wikipedia:Notability (films)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Most_Hated_Family_in_America. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Twister (1996 film)
I was wondering if anyone could take a look at this article and trim down the plot summary a bit, as it seems a bit overly long and detailed. IP editors have just been lengthening it despite the {{Plot}} tag on it. I think I'm the only one who keeps a regular watch on the article, and I'm not very good at telling what is and what isn't important to any given plot summary (plus I've seen the movie so many times I probably couldn't write a less detailed plot summary if I tried), so any assistance that could be provided would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (ToCoG) 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Film articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Film articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (?) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Celebrity free license images
Since signing up for a temporary trial of IMDBPro last week, I've been able to get permission for images of Fred Willard and Katy Mixon after directly contacting their publicists. Before my trial runs out on the 28th, I'd like to send out as many requests as possible for images, so if you know of a article of an actor, director, writer, etc. that does not have an image (or has a poor one), please list it here. I'll try to send out requests in the next few days and hopefully secure permission to have an image under a free license. My goal is to see if IMDB will be willing to let me use a free membership for image searching purposes (and maybe include the project's coordinators, but we'll see how that goes). Anyway, please submit any articles soon so I can send the requests out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Sherlock Holmes Baffled
Today's frontpage featured article. I've started a discussion on the talkpage regarding the opening line, which can be found here! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
New article - Recursive science fiction
- Recursive science fiction
Thought WikiProject members might be interested. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Requesting Opinions
I've started a discussion at Talk: Wes Craven's New Nightmare#Title regarding the page name. Please come provide your opinions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Legend of the Guardians
For Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole?, there is a dispute about identifying the film as American or as Canadian-American. Discussion about the identification can be seen here. Editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film), the English-language remake, was created since filming started. I moved The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (film) to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) since neither film will ultimately transcend each other enormously. Can anyone fix all the ambiguous (film) links to point to the 2009 film, using a script? I did not want to adjust the disambiguation page or the hatnotes until this is done. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Release date
Some edits I made to articles on The Human Centipede and Splice were reverted previously from changing the release information in the lead. ("Splice is a 2009 film...etc.). When we state release dates for films in the lead, do we refer to it's year of the premiere date at a festival? Or it's wide-release? Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Language instead of nationality in lead sentence
I'm cleaning up edits by the banned user Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), who edited on the IP 86.186.39.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The editor is pretty sneaky with his edits, and it's tough to figure out the proper nationality for some film articles that were edited. I was wondering, this issue coupled with repeated discussions about the nationality in the lead sentence, would it be simpler to use the language instead in cases where there is not a definite nationality? For example, if a film is a British-American production, and we call it a British-American film in the lead sentence, it seems to simplistically indicate even collaboration. Most of the time, we can't really gauge who did what, so we're stuck with a simple and possibly misleading opener. A characteristic like "English-language" is easier to establish since most films will consistently have a dominant language, where nowadays, the productions tend to be multinational collaborations. It's just a thought I had since there's so much back-and-forth about nationalities in the lead sentence. We can avoid frequent arguments about countries appearing to claim credit for a film. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
New Cat
- Find sources: "vigilante films" - news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
- Find sources: "vigilante movies" - news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
I noticed the following new category "Category:Vigilante films" being added to film articles in the last couple of days. I don't know that we need to take this to a full CFD but I do think that, if we are going to keep it, there should be some criteria set for it. It was added to The Year of Living Dangerously and I can't remember anything from that film that fits this cat. Other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 22:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Infobox for film series?
Just spotted this at WP:RT if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct title for Puerto Rican film
Hi. The film ...And God Created Them has raised a question on the PR project talk page (discussion here). Any help with this would be appreciated. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Identifying public domain films
I have been asked for my thoughts on a means of identifying films as public domain here, and I suggested Wikipedia:WikiProject Films might be a good place to do this. Has a task force looked at this already? -84user (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Internet Archive references the Public-Domain Movie Database at http://pdmdb.org. This full search of wikipedia for pdmdb only finds two uses. Has anyone evaulated the reliability of this database as a source for copyright status of films? -84user (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Catfish (film) under attack
Hello, the article for Catfish, which describes itself as a documentary, is under steady attack from two separate factions. One wishes to hide plot spoilers; the other denounces the film as a hoax without supporting evidence. Advice is appreciated. YLee (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I have filed a request for comment with the BLP noticeboard regarding a potential issue with this article. Also, it's possible that given the filmmakers' reactions to the existence of the Wikipedia article that it may come under WP:SPOILERS-violating attack again. YLee (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for protection renewal
I again request that the protection on this article be renewed; since Skier Dude's initial one wore off as of the film's initial release, the seemingly endless attacks from both the "Wikipedia shouldn't spoil plots!" and "This isn't a real documentary!" sides have resumed. YLee (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Cinema of templates
Hello there Project! Lugnuts have been having spatts about the use of {{Cinema of XXX}} on film articles (for example: {{Cinema of France}}. I believe that navigation boxes are completely generic and do not aid the reader in looking at an individual film which has only one aspect of nationality. Also including them breaks down the purpose of navigation aids, to navigate between articles, because they are not included in the box. I will let Lugnuts defend his position. Can we get a consensus for this? The documentation of {{Cinema of the United States}} already indicates not to include it in film or person articles, but there is no such consensus for the others. BOVINEBOY2008 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The film country templates in the infobox no longer pipe to the cinema of articles, so nobody is going to stumble upon them via that route.
- Some people believe we shouldn't pipe the cinema of bit into the intro - IE Dogtooth is a Greek film should simply be Dogtooth is a Greek film.
- Therefore, there is nothing actually in the article linking to the bigger picture of the individual cinema of articles.
- The Cinema of the USA template was deleted via a consensus made up of people whom the majority didn't even contribute to this project, and didn't have a clue what they were deleting it for. However, American cinema is a common term, but the complete opposite is true for world cinema.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ So, are these templates that should be included in film articles, or just those that are included in the navigation boxes? BOVINEBOY2008 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have little to do with WP:Films these days. good to see PC78 and Erik are still ruling the kingdom, what happened to the God of Films, Giro? I don't see a problem with a single Cinema of template what I object to its the ludicrous number you see in sports related articles. Anything over 2 looks disgusting. A lot of it is easily accesible in categories the whole point of the templates really were to access a guide to the films of that national cinema by year to ease broswing and to be placed at the foot of every film article. If editors really want to find it its pretty easy to do but the templates are certainly no more redundant than most of the others we have on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC).
I've made a proposal to add a "hide navigation templates" option in your user preferences for those who dislike them. Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's your point of view. Editors like myself and Lugnuts (who have started more articles on films than anybody else here) think it is useful to browse film listings by year. I've recommended previously that the templates are replaced with a single see also link to the relative year in film for that cinema and an editor began doing so enmase until you people started moaning again that you weren't happy and the editor who was doing so was halted from being able to do so. If certain people in this film project hadn't have got all anal over his edits there probably wouldn't even be these templates at the bottom of articles anymmore.. It is incredibly difficult to please everybody on here. If I had my way articles like Dogtooth (film) would have a See also and a plain link to Greek films of the 2000s instead of Cinema of Greece template. But it turned out that was also not acceptable to people here. Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
t::Well, the templates were made in the belief that films by year are related to other films released that year. This was the point. I would agree with you though about a 1997 French horror movie being linked to a 1915 French silent comedy seems redundant. The best thing in my view in that case would be a see also link to French films of 1997 but a number opposed to this as I said abovr so in the end we ended up keeping the entire year templates. In my view it would be much better to have a see also direct link to that year in film than every year in a template. Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+It seems that you are the only one who disagrees, Lugnuts. How can we compromise with you? BOVINEBOY2008 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed Lugnuts. It is also extremely narrow minded of you Bovine to apply your criteria to every single wikiproject on wikipedia. The historic registered places use a generic templates on tens of thousands of articles as do the aviation project. I agree in my view it would be better to link specific registered places by county in templates and precise articles by aviation but too many people like the generic templates so I can't do anything about it. Unless there is a wikidespread discussion and consensus involving every wikiproject to decide upon this then it it not up to you to set as a guideline. I agree with you Bovine in part that it is better to link to precise articles which are directly related. If there was consensus to replace the nav boxes with a see also linking to that year in film then I'd support it. The idea is that the film from a certain year of that cinema is connected to the others; categories do not do thise as neither say Category:French films or Category:1918 films link to a precise list. Now some may think a link to other films of the same year of that cinema is unimportant but I disagree and i'm sure many others do. As long as that initial link is there then you can rely on the template in French films of 1918 to link to others years. But the link has to be there. Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I support keeping the navigation templates unless they are replaced with a single by year link in the see also section of articles. Given that you rejected this preivously, I recall Erik complaining about a American films of 1999 in Fight Club etc so in the end it came to nothing. Unless we can agree that the best thing would be a single link to the relative film bank of that year in every film article then I continue to support the use of these templates. Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I could agree to the demise of the navigation templates only if a discussion was opened about a see also link to the year in film and that there was consensus to do so and that as the templates were being replaced with a see also link that nobody kicked up a storm about it. Other than this if we were to change the category system to e.g Category:1999 American films, Category:1981 French films then there would be no need for any link at all as such categories would also contain the e.g List of American films of 1999. Somehow I can't see people supporting that idea. I personally however would support a split by year for the major cinemas as I think 16,000 articles in one category is too much.. Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
What on earth??? I strongly support a link to the relative year list of films. I couldn't give a damn if this is done by a frickin navigation templates or a see also section. However if a specific category existed contianing the specific films of that cinema by year as I said above I'd support the removal of the navigation templates in favour of a category which would contain the films of that cinema of that year and also contain the link to the list of films of that year. DO you understand now? Probably not. Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I fully support a link in the "See also" section of a film instead of including a template linking to one related and 99 unrelated lists. Wasn't that what the consensus about these templates was last time around? --Conti|? 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Should these "Cinema of" templates (e.g. Template:Cinema of France) be used in articles about the films, or should their be a way to provide the most relevant links into the article, whether through "See also" sections, categories or Portal links? And if so, which would be the most appropriate? BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've already commented on this in the above discussion, but I'll reiterate the same points here. IMO these templates are unsuitable for individual film articles, as the links they contain generally have no direct relevance to any one film. We should limit the templates to the core topics for each national cinema, i.e. those articles that are linked in the template; I believe this view is consistant with WP:NAVBOX. Any links that are relevant to an individual film should be included in a "See also" section, assuming they aren't or can't be used elsewhere in the article. PC78 (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've commented above, too, but just so no one can say that there's only one guy opposing the current use of these templates: Here I am. I prefer a link in the "See also" section instead of using adding to template clutter. --Conti|? 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commented earlier as well; full argument is here. I oppose "cinema of" templates in individual film articles. I'm open to the use of "See also" sections that can encompass a relatively specific topic such as List of American films of 1995 in addition to other links like to similar works, using Allmovie or reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD - The Bridge (2006 drama)
- The Bridge (2006 drama)
Relevant AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Darth Vader
Hey. Due to a suggestion on a peer review. I have come to ask help for sources for the article Darth Vader. Thanks. :) - Jhenderson 777 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The Film Stage
Is The Film Stage considered a reliable and notable source? BLGM5 has been removing these reviews from numerous articles with the edit summary "college kid reviews are not notable." It seems to me that the site has passed the threshold from a hobby by some college students to a reputable source for film information, interviews, reviews, etc. But, I would like the opinion of some other editors, which is why I also posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Let Me In (film)
This is going to be a bit long, so please bear with me. I declined to bring this up earlier because the film hadn't been released yet, but it's now coming out tomorrow and there are numerous reviews from people who have seen it.
The film Let Me In is clearly a remake of the Swedish film Let the Right One In. The Swedish film, was in turn, based off a significantly different novel.
Let Me In follows the Swedish film's version of events scene for scene, sometimes shot for shot. When the Swedish film differs from the novel, Reeves opts with the film's version for events. For example, a significant plot development is derived from an interpretation many had from the film that never existed in the novel. There are also scenes in the film that were lifted directly from the Swedish film that weren't in the novel as well.
Here's an example of what I am talking about from a review:
"Reeves respects Let the Right One In perhaps a little too much and though he claims that his film is based on the novel and is not in fact a remake of the cult hit Swedish film, the movie he's made says otherwise. The movie he's made is absolutely a direct remake of the 2008 film, the two are so similar that it's almost impossible to differentiate between them. Reeves' take is masterfully well done, but it's not because he's put his own stamp on it. Let Me In is good because Let the Right One In is good, and Reeves simply made the same film, only slightly better. They're nearly identical, right down to their bones." [6]
But right now, the article for Let Me In has its lead sentence as "Let Me In is a 2010 American-British drama/horror film directed by Matt Reeves based on the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist and the Swedish film adaptation of the same name" It gives more prominence to the notion that this is based on the novel over the film, which is not true. It should read like Psycho (1998 film), which states "a remake of the 1960 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both films are adapted from the novel by Robert Bloch". The way it is now, it incorrectly implies that this is a new take on the source material or at the very least half and half, when the bulk of the film is lifted directly from Tomas Alfredson's adaptation.
The way the article is now is because there is an IP address who constantly monitors the article and changes it whenever someone correctly refers to it as a remake of the Swedish film.
The majority of reviews and published sources all refer to the film as being a remake. The confusion about this being a new version of the book has come from the director making some vague comments about the novel's influence on his film, but he has never explicitly said that his film is a remake or an adaptation of the novel. That being said, his comments have lead some people to assume that this is not a remake but a new take on the novel.
This issue has been discussed at length on Talk:Let_the_Right_One_In_(film)#The_new_film_version_is_not_a_.22remake.22 as well as the talk page of Talk: Let Me In (film).--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Director templates
Some director templates have been massively edited to be broken down by decade, no matter the number of films. For example, this was the case with Template:John Curran here. I think it is a better practice to break down by decade when there are a substantial number of films per decade. Some decades could be grouped together, too. If a director did one film in 1989, then did five films throughout the 1990s and another five films throughout the 2000s, perhaps the first six first could fall in a 1980s - 1990s range. The director templates are not as readily monitored as film articles (I can't imagine too many of us having these templates on our watchlists), so this is an approach I recommend implementing. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favor of templates in general because of the ease they provide in navigating through a director's body of work clearly and simply. My main argument in favor of sectioning off by decade is that it makes the appearance cleaner instead of one big garbled mess. If I make a new template, I try and go through and add films that haven't been done yet to make them more comprehensive.Donmike10 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why wasn't I told of this discussion until today? My name was brought up somebody should have warned me of this before, not almost 10 days after. Anyways, to the point, I think breaking up by decades makes it look clean and not all jumbled together. Some templates such as John Curran, I can gree with since theres only 3 films. Now for one such as Paul Greengrass I dont agree at all. There are 4 decades worth of films there and these decades should be seperated. I really dont see the problem with splitting them up by decades.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
My two cents The decade system is totally arbitrary and should only be used if it's actually helpful. If a director has a template which is one line of seven films stretching from 1998 to 2010, there's no added value in making it three lines with one film in the 90s, five in the 00s, and one next year. Furthermore, other templates include a more logical and helpful division of (feature) films, short films, television, etc., and breaking them up into decades there is just confusing and contradictory information architecture. This division by decade is useful for the Woody Allens of the world, but not the Irvin Yeaworths. Common sense should be the guide here. --Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Italics in article titles
The long-running RfC on the use of italics in article titles has recently closed in favour of using them, and policy at WP:ITALICTITLE has been changed accordingly. I notice that the folks at WP:ALBUM are planning to implement this via {{Infobox album}}, so we might want to think about doing likewise with {{Infobox film}}. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I added to MOS:FILM an "Article italics" section. Is there any additional guidance to provide? For example, for films with titles of more than 50 characters (e.g., Borat), do we use the {{Italic title}} template or the magic word DISPLAYTITLE to address the article title? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerns over articles based only on reviews
I just expressed some concerns over writing an article (in this case on a PBS TV special) based only on reviews: Talk:The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Please check it out if you are interested. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Requested moves
- Pulp Fiction (film) -> Pulp Fiction (discussion)
- A Few Good Men (film) -> A Few Good Men (discussion)
- Psycho (film) -> Psycho (1960 film) (discussion)
- Back to the Future (film series) -> Back to the Future Trilogy (discussion)
- I Start Counting (film) -> I Start Counting (discussion)
Above are ongoing requests to move. Editors are invited to comment at any one of these discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerns over debatable plot summaries NOT based on any reviews
Relatedly, I just asked about where to find a specific template to tag movie articles whose plot summaries contain debatable interpretations or claims (i.e. original research).
See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup#Fiction_template_for_.22no_OR_in_plot_summaries.22.3F - and please reply there if you reply, so we can keep replies in one place.--greenrd (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
MTV.com a reliable source?
With my GA review of The Twilight Saga (film series), the responder and I have differing opinions on whether MTV.com is a reliable source or not. Does anybody else have an opinion on this? Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Election results
As some of you probably gathered from the recent WikiProject Films newsletter, the sixth election of coordinators for WikiProject Films has concluded. Here are the results in order of supports:
- Erik - 14
- Nehrams2020 - 12
- MichaelQSchmidt - 11
- Lugnuts - 9
- MikeAllen - 9
- Bovineboy2008 - 8
- Ankitbhatt - 1
I have accepted the position of lead coordinator, and Nehrams2020, MichaelQSchmidt, Lugnuts, and MikeAllen will fill the remaining four coordinator positions. Coordinators will discuss an agenda at WT:FILMC, and others are welcome to participate. The title of coordinator is one of willingness, and not having one does not bar anyone from participation. :) If you have any ideas based on the older agenda at WP:FILMC or in general, let us know at the coordinators' talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Bambifan101
Just a heads up about a disruptive editor. An editor from the 98.85.XXX.XXX range keeps inserting false information intoi film articles. You can get all the recent IP numbers here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:98.85.5.251. The editor seems to target running times, screenwriters and composers, so if you see any of those types of edits by someone from that range it's best to check the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed category for talk pages under WikiProject Films
I have proposed a category to add to the WikiProject Films banner on the banner's talk page. See discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for Boys Don't Cry to be copyedited and corrected
Hi, I am interested in getting Boys Don't Cry into GA shape, and there are some issues with the prose. The grammar and sentance structure needs some polishing, so anyone good at writing, oould you please give it a decent copyedit or fix major issues with the prose? It would be very appreciated and I hope I have come to the correct place. Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Featured Article 300
On a whim, I researched the film 300 (which has a Featured Article on it) for retrospective coverage. The film article was promoted five months after the film was released, which had struck me at the time as awfully quick. In my research today, I found and listed several references that cover 300 in retrospect in their chapters. Since 300 is a Featured Article and ought to meet the criteria of comprehensiveness, it is important to include such coverage. The references can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Films without an IMDB page category
Interesting discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is The White Ribbon an Italian film?
Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As Lugnuts noted above, there is live discussion about the country field. Editors new to the discussion are welcome to comment, and editors who commented at the onset are invited to catch up. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation
Hi. I've noticed for a while that wikipedia lacks a decent (and free) representation of the dolly zoom technique.
I've taken a bash at creating a CG animation which I have uploaded to commons:File:DollyZoomTest.ogv and added to the dolly zoom article. I would like to improve this video with an aim to getting it to featured status and am looking for suggestions on how to do so. Useful feedback could include:
- Whether there is a better range of movement/angle of view to show off the technique to its best effect.
- What background/foreground objects could be used and in what arrangement.
- Colour schemes and other artistic rather than technical suggestions.
You can leave comments here or go to commons:File talk:DollyZoomTest.ogv. Thanks.
I've also dropped a note at Portal talk:Computer graphics#Want feedback for improving dolly zoom animation. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
God of Carnage (film) article?
Would it be good to go ahead in creating the article. The movie is in pre-production and is going to be released in 2012. If I do go ahead to create this article with your all's help, I would need someone to guide me to the stuff I need to create the article.IBS101 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No Strings
I am just curious how many producers should I list. Who should be listed?IBS101 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Bond Film
Why does this francise have its own infobox? 20+ films, yes, but I don't really see the point. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Resident Evil: Afterlife - budget
Can we have some more input at this discussion please: Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife
The issue is between two estimates, $57.5 million and $60 million. The Numbers claims here the budget is $57.5 million. However, it uses this article in the LA Times as its source which claims the budget is "nearly $60 million".
- The issue is should The Numbers be permitted as a reference even its stated figure is at odds with the figure given by its own source?
- And, given that it provides a source for its information, does using The Numbers instead of the original source violate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT?
This is going to keep dragging on unless we get a few more opinions into the discussion, and it's probably best if weekp the discussion at Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Film budgets - a fresh approach?
Given the budget dispute on the Resident Evil: Afterlife article, I've been mulling this over. There is a tendency to put any old crap in the budget field on a film article, provided we can source it. If a studio or producer releases an official statement and that can be sourced, then we can just treat that as we would any other verifiable fact. The problem is this is usually an exception to the rule, and most budget figures are estimates.
I think how we deal with estimates needs a rethink. I think it is closer to an expert opinion than a fact, since the estimate will rely mainly on the quality of journalism and the quality of the journalist's sources. Better journalism and better sources will lead to more accurate estimates, or if you like more informed expert opinion. In effect, which sources we cite for budgets in our articles actually becomes a question of notability. To draw a comparison, The New York Times TV reviewer claiming that GM crops increase the cancer risk is verifiable but is not notable, so the inclusion of his opinion on Wikipedia would fail notability. Similarly, the same TV reviewer claiming a film cost so much is also not notable for inclusion, because he's not in an acknowledged position to ascertain that information or knowledgeable enough to come up with an informed figure.
So my suggestion is that notability for a budget estimate should be established for inclusion, since it is a formulated opinion rather than a fact. This of course would rule out websites that simply list budget amounts. This may upset some editors but there really is no need for a budget to be listed on every article (I don't subscribe to the view anything is better than nothing).
My view on what would be acceptable for notable estimates, would be prominent journalists/writers/scholars whose writing concentrates on the film industry. At the very least estimates should come from authored pieces so it is clear who is making the estimate. For instance, Sharon Waxman (former NY Times entertainment journalist and editor of The Wrap) stating "someone close to the production says the film cost $200 million" would stand as notable, because Waxman is a notable writer in the field of film journalism, whereas a budget entry on Box Office Mojo wouldn't notable because you can't establish the notability of the estimate.
I'd like to get further thoughts on this, and whether you think the view of setting a notability test for estimates is a route worth exploring. The budget numbers get changed a lot in articles, simply because it isn't concrete data and varies quite a bit, so maybe a fresh approach to it might help stability as well as improve the quality of the information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
More Pricer1980 socks
Following on from this, I think this is another one:
- 86.185.77.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The edit on Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives was a dead give away. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one:
- 86.185.77.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Ah, appears to be the same as the above. He's back after the IP ban was lifted, doing exactly the same edits as before. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- 90.216.88.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Where do you report them? Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Tables on film pages
The move towards eliminating tables for film pages in baffling. Tables show some degree of professionalism and aesthetic sensibility, whereas using the simplistic actor in a role looks as amateurish as the cheesiest websites out there. Why we are making this move to look so low brow is beyond me.Donmike10 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
What's it called
I know this propably isn't the place to ask; but, can anybody here remember the name of the Canadian movie (from the late 1960's or 1970's), which involved a mute woman name 'Eve' being forced to live with & latter falling in love with a woodsman named 'Jonathan'? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Actor question
Question posted here at our semi-inactive sister project. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Question from editor of Movie Review Intelligence
I am David A. Gross, editor and publisher of Movie Review Intelligence. Several months ago, the editors of Wikipedia allowed my website to have its own article, for which I am grateful. Last week there was an article in the New York Times about the reception of The Social Network and other current movies under consideration for recognition for distinguished artistic achievement by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, of which I am a member. I am wondering if this article deserves posting somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, what is the protocol for receiving a link to my site in the general information box on the Movie Review Intelligence page? In visiting other similar articles, it appears to be a common feature for people who wish to learn more. Is that possible? Movie Review Intelligence is cited regularly by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other authoritative sources covering the movie industry. Here is the NY Times article: http://iurl.us/bd8 Thank you for your time and consideration. Dagrossla (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on these issues. I would appreciate the whitelist for the link. - David A. Gross Dagrossla (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The website's "about" page was whitelisted and is now included at Movie Review Intelligence. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon