Talk:List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies

Hallmark category
Isn't this the same as the Category "Hallmark Channel original films"? Cactusjump (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. That list you are referring to is an alphabetical list that doesn't have the air dates and has not been maintained to the extent this list has been.

Finding Love in Mountain View is complete and airing on Super Channel in Canada, so that movie need to move out of the Under Development section. https://www.superchannel.ca/show/77299023/finding-love-in-mountain-view

Create Table Lists
What do we think about a table for each year? (e.g. year 2002). I like it, but my only concern is how much space they will take up, especially, for more recent years where there are two columns of movies.

Having the column of 'DVD Release' added to each section/year would also eliminate the need for the unkempt table at the bottom.

Thoughts?


 * - 2017-12-01 - I don't think that the new 2017 table is an improvement - it will make the page very long - single column and the line spacing is increased so between 3 and 4 times as long - adding actors is interesting - but may be very tedious to do for all the older movies. But I will leave it alone and see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsl (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dec. 1 2017 - I really don't like the new 2017 and 2018 table, it makes it extremely difficult to read the list of movies, the old format where all of the movies from one year fit on my screen at the same time was much easier to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.251.104 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dec 2 2017 - Hey, I'm the one making the tables for the years with all the information with cast, airdate and television ratings. I should have asked what people thought before I started to do them. I agree that it will make the page a little long, but at the same time, this page was in desperate need of an update. While creating these tables and putting all the films in, I've come across loads of mistakes with airdates (and even one film was said to have been aired in 2016 when it had actually aired a year before!) so doing these tables helps me to update the information and keep the page as up-to-date as possible. I'm able to go back and fix all the mistakes that have gone unnoticed. I'll continue to do tables for more of the years but if people would prefer the old layout, we could always revert back (but please give me warning so I can save the table information for my own use as this does take some time and effort to research and find all the ratings etc.) Codywarren08 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dec 3 2017 - I think the table is easier to read and see all of the information quickly. So the page is longer?  Thats what mouse scroll wheels are for.  Also not every webpage is always going to fit on one screen.58.175.194.232 (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dec 3 2017 - I like the new format, it keeps the page looking neat while also offering more information (i.e. viewers for each movie). Perhaps as a compromise, the "starring" column could be removed so that the tables won't use as much room on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.229.151 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - 2017-12-18 - I would really like to have the tables, lists, entries of Hallmark movies listed with with the most recent at the top, and the oldest at the bottom. That way, we can all view the upcoming and latest movies without having to scroll all the way to the bottom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.240.216 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Series
I like the improved list of series currently above the list of films - but I'd like the series list to include the films within the series - some of the counts are incorrect (e.g. Gourmet Detective has only 3 not 4 - but a fourth is in the works, I believe - update 4th broadcast so this entry is now correct!) - some series (e.g. Good Witch and Signed, Sealed, Delivered) are not particularly clear as they have both a TV series and a film series - and in the case of Good Witch (and When Calls the Heart) the TV series Christmas Specials are included in the film list, despite not having fully standalone story lines.

A table like this may be better placed below the list of films by year.

Any thoughts ?

John SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsl (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Would it make sense to include a HoF section for each year as well as HM and HM&M? - Many of the HoF films are not on the current list - and those that are are sometimes listed oddly - for example the recent The Christmas Train appears in both 2017 HM and HM&M lists because it was broadcast simultaneously on both channels - but it would be better in just one (or in a section of just HoF films.) Johnsl (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors ?
I have just noticed (2018-01-18) that the 2015 list has been modified to include several additional entries. The Hall of Fame additions are good - thank you. But there are a couple which I do not believe are correct :


 * 1) 12 Romantically Speaking - I believe that this is a Pixl film
 * 2) 22 Christmas in the Smokies -  which I believe is an Insp film.

Leaving the list alone so those who know better can adjust if appropriate.

JSL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsl (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
And a big thank you to the other contributors to this page - I make use of it a lot to help me keep up with new movies and track down old ones - and I really appreciate the effort you put into keeping it up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsl (talk • contribs) 10:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me reply with a big you're welcome! on behalf of all the amazing editors that helped build this list and continue expanding it...for you, the readers!  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  03:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to condense list
and all other interested editors: As you probably noticed this list has grown considerably lately (and it will continue to grow) and it may be starting to cause navigation problems with both the reading and editing sides of the list. Therefore I would like to propose condensing this article (rather than splitting it). The main way we could do this is by limiting the "Starring" column to the top-2 actors so that every row in every table occupies one line of text only. I'm also concerned that splitting this article in two, like for example, 2000-2009 (part 1) and 2010-2020 (part 2) may lead to confusion and the likely abandonment or neglect of the earlier years or "Part 1" of this list. Looking forward to hearing your comments. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  23:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Top 2 actors in the starring column is a great idea. Thank you for all your help. SilverWinter (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The page currently has 540,224 bytes of markup; that's far too much, it needs either a drastic reduction or to be split into several pages (or both). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the ratings columns because they were taking up far too much of the artice's size, and this is information that can be found on their respective articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, we should first try to follow SilverWinter's lead on how to best manage the tables. As the de-facto maintainer of this list, SilverWinter has shown to be the most dedicated and reliable of contributors. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have to see their proposals or actions in reducing the size of the article, but so far their contributions have mostly increased the size of the article. Do you have any suggestions? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , What do you think about having each entry/row with 1 reference only, and removing the secondary ones? We could leave all the ratings refs untouched (the Ref. column ones) and remove the ones in other columns. BUT we still leave each entry with at least one ref., even if we have no ratings ref. available. I think this should help reduce the article's byte size by another chunk and improve reader/editor navigability. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no need for more than one reference each. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's wait a little longer for SilverWinter's response since we are currently in the busy holiday season. Happy holidays to all,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  03:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S., What is your opinion on the matter of reducing the article's very large byte size?  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  06:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , to be perfectly honest, I just started trying to minimize the space because I felt like it. I was updating citations to add the correct information to them, and I realized that since the page uses the "Use mdy dates" template, all the dates could be stored as YYYY-MM-DD to save space. I've never really done any major restructuring edits before, so I'm willing to leave the article re-formatting stuff to people who actually have experience in this field. Finnaboing (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We could try to remove references for entries with more than one, but this would take quite some time if we are primarily removing those in the title column, rather than the references column. There is also the potential to split out the years 2016 to 2020 as they are individually quite large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , like I said, please wait, we need to reach WP:CONSENSUS first, otherwise and  will keep reverting your changes. Cordially,   History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  07:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Happy New Year! When I started editing this section years ago, it only consisted of movie titles listed according to their premiere dates per year but an editor converted them into tables and added columns for directors, actors, premiere dates, etc. that's why it became this big. Any suggestions to condense the list are welcome. Which references do you propose we remove? SilverWinter (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, so to put it simply, my idea is "1 ref per row" and would:
 * Leave all the Ref. column (ratings) references untouched.
 * Remove all others (BUT always leave at least 1 ref per entry)
 * Keep the best, most reliable refs for entries with multiple refs.
 * That's about it. If you agree and there are no objections from the other editors, then let's proceed.  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  17:27, 1 January 2021
 * , let's do it. Thank you. SilverWinter (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

, based on what you've done so far, how many bytes do you think the article would be after this is fully implemented? Good to see your work. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as you noticed I (we) barely scratched the surface with the removal of these "extra" refs. I only completed the intro and the 2000-2012 tables. The real work is in the remaining 2013-2020 tables , there is a lot of fat to chop there. It will take a team effort, patience, and attention to detail to complete them all. The optimist in me tells me that we should have a stable, navigable version of this list after we are done implementing this byte-reducing measure.  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  08:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would be the best way to split the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that if this article can be kept under 500K bytes, that shouldn't be necessary. However, if there ever is WP:CONSENSUS on a split, then a sub-list covering the 2000–2007 "early years" of Hallmark Channel could be created (and thus free more space for the main list). Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think more realistically that may be the case if it becomes less than 400kB. Is there a reason why you would split it at the year 2007? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a historian I see three "eras" in this list, roughly divided by 7 years:
 * 1. Early years (2000–2007) or HC / Odyssey Network era
 * 2. First expansion (2008–2013) or HC / Hallmark Movie Channel* era
 * 3. Second expansion (2014–present) or HC / Hallmark Movies & Mysteries / Hallmark Hall of Fame era
 * * Not 2004 when it launched, but 2008 when it began premiering original movies.
 * Cheers,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  16:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for splitting this up into eras that make sense for the subject matter, but I'd like to note that 2019 alone is larger than all of 2000-2007 put together. pauli133 (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is clearly consensus to split the article. Transclusion defeats the purpose of splitting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and all interested editors not yet involved we need you to engage more in this discussion and state your *clear* opinion with regards to your preferred course of action for keeping this list "comfortably navigable". And, I'm happy to assit with an actual split when there is consensus for it, especially if and when SilverWinter agrees with it. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  09:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you notify all relevant talk page participants to avoid improper WP:Canvassing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant talk page participants are all WP:WIKIPEDIANS, but feel free to ping them all. Oh, and let us not forget the almost 100 page watchers. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  20:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I think splitting the article would make the most sense as it will only get bigger and bigger. SilverWinter (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, we now have four editors plus myself who agree to split this list. As I mentioned earlier, in my opinion the logical method (for minimum WP:READER confusion) would be a main list that includes the years 2014–present, and two sub-lists covering the 2000–07 and 2008–13 periods.
 * That being said, SilverWinter and other long-term contributors, I wish you all the best in your editing adventures. I'm now done participating in this article. But who knows, I might just return some months later to do a nice per WP:MOS, WP:CONSENSUS-approved total makeover of this list so it may finally become a featured list ;-) Cheers,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The "franchise" list
And speaking of things that need condensing – is it a "franchise" or a "series" if it's just two movies?! I would say "no". IMO, all of the "2-film" entries in the "franchise" list should be removed. I'm not even sure "three films" is a "franchise", but I know 2 films is not! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a month, with no objection, so I have removed all the 2-film entries from the table. I have also retitled this section 'Film series' – "franchise", at least on Wikipedia, generally implies multiple media (e.g. film, TV, books, etc.), but what is meant at this article is just "film series", i.e. "a series of TV films". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute – page too long
Why was the 2019 section merged with this article. There does not appear to be any consensus on this action, and now the page is long again. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the page is "WP:SPLIT", it should not be year-by-year. I could see splitting along the lines of every 5 years (e.g. 2010–2014, 2015–2019, etc.) or every 10 years. But not every year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. This page should be split so I will look into that. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the options, and I think we should split it by year, as there is a page for 2000-2007, so we could split this article into 2008-2015 and 2016-present. Or we could sepaeate it by decade, but that would mean we would add the 2008 and 2009 movies onto the 2000-2007 page, rename the page to say List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000s), and then split the 2010s movies into a separate article. I feel like the first option would be the best as it would take less steps, and it would make sense. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should be consistent – I would either do it by decade (e.g. "(2000–2009)", "(2010–2019"), etc.), or do a split-out to every 5 years (e.g. "(2000–2004)", "(2005–2009"), "(2010–2014)", etc.) – if the former means that List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000–2007) gets revised to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000–2009), or the latter means that means that List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000–2007) gets revised to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000–2004), then so be it... But before deciding on this, I would pay very close attention to WP:SIZESPLIT (and note that WP:SIZESPLIT talks about readable prose, not "total character count", so list articles actually have a higher hurdle to clear before splitting) – based on that, I suspect the "by decade" scanario would be the better option (I suspect a "by decade" list won't be too long on its own). I also would do this as a "formal" WP:SPLIT proposal at this Talk page, before finalizing anything. You may also want to run this by WT:TV for advice before even opening the proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would pay very close attention to WP:SIZESPLIT (and note that WP:SIZESPLIT talks about readable prose, not "total character count", so list articles actually have a higher hurdle to clear before splitting). This is actually a common misconception. Readable prose size is a relevant measure for prose articles, not list articles. List articles aren't judged on readable prose size as there is very little prose, they are judged on technical character size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do like the idea of doing a split based on decades (2000-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-present) Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even do the last one – I would leave those at this page, along with the first four sections, and the last, and then include links to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2000–2009) and List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies (2010–2019) from here, with movies from 2020 on included here (until after 2029, assuming cable TV even exists at that point...). At least, if it was my proposal, that's what I'd suggest. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully support your proposals to split the article and would encourage you to implement them. You do not need to raise this at any other forum. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I use a phone though and it is not very easy to do copying and pasting an entire section of a page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't recommend splitting articles from a phone. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Split into new decade?
Having read through the comments regarding splitting the article (and noting the consensus to go by decades) I see we're getting quite long again, and maybe overdue making a new article for 2010-2019 and letting this article run from 2020 onwards? May I go ahead and do that, or would another editor prefer to do it? pgbrown (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is time to split the movie listings into half-decades. I would put 2016-2020 on a separate page.96.3.68.251 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Older Hallmark Christmas movies
I wish for the holidays you would play some of the older movies that we love. Those movies had a real story behind them not just a love story. Thank you Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam4givn (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)