Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 12

Proposed fair use policy change
The a proposed policy change at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions that would affect our project. It's to prevent any fair use images whatsoever from being displayed on the main page. Meaning, any FA film articles on movies from the past 70 years, which are largely unlikely to have any free images, will be presented without an image, or a cartoon clapperboard—as Gremlins 2 was for a short time early this morning. It looks like they're having a vote over there but it is an attempt at discussing the policy. Doctor Sunshine  talk  19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the cartoon clapperboard that was presented? Maybe we ought to be pre-emptive about this, seeing that Jimbo is on board with this change and all.  What would be some acceptable substitutes?  Anyone an amateur cartoonist in here? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was the image used for Horror stubs, which is decoration and won't ultimately work. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship so Jimbo isn't the end all. Even drawings of copyrighted images and characters are fair use and would be barred. Doctor Sunshine   talk  22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think on the one hand we're not going to have a fair use image for say, a person, but I think films would be exempt on the grounds of common sense. Alientraveller 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems they have closed discussion. I think we should avoid fair use where possible... but sometimes the needs of an encyclopedia come first... and since it seems that it clearly doesn't violate the law we shouldn't be paranoid about it when there are no free alternatives. gren グレン 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jimbo dictates Wikipedia, it's clear that his action was significant enough to help close the poll. Should be fun to see how the Main Page looks for Scooby-Doo on April 12. Maybe a nice, free picture of a Great Dane with a similar-looking leash. I look forward to the reaction to that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You were right. Take a look at these:
 * In fairness, the first time it was meant as a joke, I think. Doctor Sunshine   talk  17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, that's awful. Well, while I don't doubt that popular film titles (AFI Top 100 kind of titles) will stand out on the main page, something of a more obscure name will probably garner even less interest on clicking on the link.  Such a shame. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make a promise right now. If, when Cannibal Holocaust makes the main page, they use an image of Jimmy Wales chowing down on some Hufu I will stop complaining and let them do whatever they want. Doctor Sunshine   talk  18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Banner Question
Hi, All! Recently you/we added the "nested" option to Film. It's now being used on roughly 120 articles. In adding it, though, I've been somewhat concerned about how the stub articles look. For an example, take a look at Talk:House of the Dead 2 (film). What would you all think of keeping the "article upgrading" section, but putting it it's own row - like this? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I said from the beginning, that the upgrading info, should not get in the collapsible box, but should display outside of it, as it was before. The way you worked out this solution in sandbox/un3, it doesn't even show. I am getting very displeased with all this hiding of useful templates for the sake of... (what really?). I ask every film member to see this new system and to actively take part in a poll (here) on whether we want all this collapsible inconvenience in film articles or not. Hoverfish Talk 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The result of having this collapsed templates system applied to film articles is very inconvenient. Useful information that should be visible needs now clicking various "show" options to display. Hoverfish Talk 06:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Leave it as it is, as it wouldn't serve its purpose if it's hidden from view. I've never had a problem with scrolling down a talk page with four or five banners anyway, and I think that by hiding this and saving once scroll is not worth it. We created this template to alert people on what steps they can take to improve the quality of the articles and I'm sure that new people see it everyday. --Nehrams2020 07:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:Please make it clearer whether your "oppose" is for the whole collapsed system or just for the upgrading info. Hoverfish Talk 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind for the WikiProject banners if they're collapsed, as long as they show their class on the row. But again, the banners are not really for me but for potentially new editors or members of our project. For me, I would rather we not have the collapsed sections altogether, but I guess there was consensus in the past for this to be implemented. Obviously I want the upgrading info to be visible, and I don't mind if it's inside the template or out, as long as it's visible. For the stub film articles, I'm sure it's rare to have more than three WikiProject banners anyway, so I don't see why we needed the collapsible template. --Nehrams2020 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment I recognize Hoverfish's comment - I don't want my WikiProject's banners hidden either. But with the way things are going on WikiPedia, your choice is between the example I've given and Talk:A Steam Train Passes.  Which would you prefer?  That template (which hides absolutely everything - project names, ratings, and the "Article needing attention") is currently being used on over 1,000 articles.  WikiProjectBannerShell is an attempt to mediate between all the full banners (which some people object to) and hiding them altogether. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have complained about all this in several pages, including WP Council. I doubt I will get any answer, as "Now it's too late; the dice has been cast." From the start we were presented a decision already taken. I have searched for a place where this was discussed between projects, but it seems all projects faced the same situation: "decision taken, do you want A or B?". "The way things are going in Wikipedia, here are your choices A, B (period)", is a slightly masked totalitarian way to go about things. No project ever got a chance to say much about the initial decision to do all this hiding. I also don't find anywhere a page where people (outside the banner project) had expressed problems with the way the templates show in the talk pages. The way I see it is that some people decided by themselves that "it is a problem and it's time to hide all talk page WP templates". Even so, I said if we have no other choice then Shell is better, but the upgrading info should be left out of the box. Well, even in Shell it's in the box now and it looks much worse so. And by the way, it's not "I don't want my WikiProject's banners hidden", it's "I want to see all banners of all projects": they have something to say and I don't want to have to press extra buttons to see it. I personally want (actually I demand it) a javascript for my monobook which sets "show all" by default. It should be available for all who wish to see the banners when they hit a talk page (which by the way looks terribly more cluttered now that the box is added around the info). Sorry to sound frustrated, but the way all this has been handled is frustrating. Hoverfish Talk 07:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The monobook idea sounds great for us editors, but the banners also serve a purpose of recruiting new members or readers or new editors to Wikipedia. These two groups of people may not fully understand all of the inner workings of Wikipedia and hiding all of the banners prevents them from seeing them and becoming potential helpers in the various projects. I would also welcome this monobook idea, and believe that the upgrading info is the main priority for me to be shown for new editors. --Nehrams2020 07:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoverfish, that's an extremely good point. I'd been going on the assumption that the discussion I saw on the three "multi-banner" template talk pages was some sort of general concern, which may or may not be true.  As a first step, I've started a discussion on the WP:COUNCIL page: here. After getting a bit more sense of how the council feels, I may take it to a more general discussion on the Village Pump or a Request for Comments.  Thanks for making me think about it - and please participate in that discussion. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New cinema pages
It has been brought to my attention that a many new stubs on Cinema pages are being created seemingly for the sake of it. I am all for smaller film producers which actually have an industry and some films under their belt to have an article, but the creation of pages such as Cinema of Oman and Cinema of Bahrain and Cinema of Kuwait have been created when OMan in particularly according to the imdb has only ever produced one film. Cinema of Yemen - 1 film. (Wow huge industry!) How can this possibly be worthy of an aritlce covering the cinema insutry of the country?? I beleive there must be some criteria for Cinema pages e.g produced over 100 films etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If it must be done I have now redirected them sensibly to the previously empty West Asian cinema page where each country can be briefed on there one of two films if needs be ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can well be that they have produced 100 film and imdb has only 1. Do we take imdb as the all seeing eye? The problem I see with these articles is that they don't offer much information appart from some links. Yet what you just did (replacing the article with a redirect) is not the way to go about things, unless you are in agreement with the editor(s) who created the article. This is why we have the AfD process or on a milder note the various tags. Hoverfish Talk 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course redirecting is better than afd. And I didn't just look at imdb I read the comments in the articles e.g "Yemen has only ever produced one film etc and looked at some of the links. If they can be expanded which would be difficult with only one film, then thet can be moved to the seperate pages within seconds. Palestine clearly has some kind of industry so the main page should be kept for it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things: one, I agree that redirection is the better solution here - it at least allows someone presuming that the page exists to be sent to the appropriate page. This is exactly what redirection exists for. As far as the actual content - I'm not saying that this is directly sourced from the IMDb, but it is worth keeping in mind that there are whole cinematic traditions which are more or less so far under the IMDb's radar as to avoid being listed. I still can't find plenty of well-known American experimental films there, to say nothing of mainstream films from obscure places; I still try to update them on numerous films that aren't listed. Even if we are not relying on the IMDb alone for facts on national cinemas, one should also be wary of lazy journalists who may be doing the same. As always, reliable sources (preferably books) are desirable. Girolamo Savonarola 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At least for film articles I am an eventualist... so, I wouldn't have even redirected the pages. Early on I created all of the sura pages because I knew they would deserve pages... they were templates of how many ayah, what number, etc. but over time they grew and their very existence got people to add to them.  Same goes for film pages I create with only infobox info and images... users will add summaries, etc.  Clearly it's not ideal that they are almost empty, but I think having the pages create incentive. gren グレン 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully handy little tool-box
I'm in the process of putting together a little tool-box that will show the areas that are in regular need of attention. I've come up with 12 so far, and am open to suggestions of regular areas that fall into this category. The link is User:SkierRMH/My Sandbox/Film toolbox. I try to update this about as often as Film stats is updated, every other day or so... You can leave feedback here or on that page's discussion page.

If you find it useful, you can link it to your page of preference via

Ciao - and thanks in advance for any helpful suggestions! SkierRMH 08:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on filmness of article
Is a webserial a film article? See Dead End Days. Obviously it's not a film, but we also tag videos as film articles. Hoverfish Talk 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't classify it as a film, but just to be sure, perhaps we should have a consensus to say if it is or not to make a mention of what is not counted as a film in the style guidelines. --Nehrams2020 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category "women screenwriters" up for discussion
Thought people interested in this project might like to know that Category:Women screenwriters is being considered for deletion. — scribbling  woman  02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming question
I was about to rename Guyver movie as either "Guyver film" or "Guyver films", but given the rest of the article, t'aint sure what this should be... not familiar enough with the genre to decide - anyone with a bit more experience willing to take a shot? ;) SkierRMH 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Music/Soundtrack information
Should this section of film articles be standardised, as I've seen they seem to be a touch messy. A music section with a soundtrack sub-section would be most appropriate. Possecomitatus 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I need to know if there's a 'formal' manner of creating templates for actors and directors (the ones which appear at the bottom of every film page in which they have a significant role). I've created several modeled after Template:Jim Carrey, however many others look different. For example, compare my |My original Kate Winslet to a new version created by an unregistered user. --Wasted Sapience 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the actor templates meant for film articles or for biography articles? Director fimography templates to appear in film artciles has been accepted and is practiced, although I have seen a different format used. Have we decided also for actors' filmographies in film articles and if so how many per page is the limit? For example Finding Neverland has the Kate Winslet filmography, but top starring name is Johnny Depp, so why not also Johnny' filmography? Hoverfish Talk 12:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood me. I was talking about how the templates look. There's no Johnny Depp template because no one has created one yet. --Wasted Sapience 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit I derailed your query a bit, because how they look is a simple decision that could be taken if enough people are interested to offer opinion. However the problem of whether they should be included in film articles at all, is a much more serious issue, especially since there is a general movement to limit templates, and actors filmography templates can easily get out of hand. Hoverfish Talk 13:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Free images for films
I posted a question in WP Free images and here is an interesting answer I got from User:Pharos: ''Trailers for American films from before 1964 were never separately copyrighted and are considered in the public domain. So, taking a screenshot from the trailer can be a very profitable option. See here''. Hoverfish Talk 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Screenshots from public domain trailers have been uploaded onto Commons for some time, typically for use in biographical articles. However, more generic film-related screenshots can probably be uploaded. --PhantomS 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this really mean that a screenshot taken directly from a film is not free, but an identical screenshot from the trailer for the film is free? This seems odd. And how do you prove it's from the trailer, not the original film? Cop 633 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The trailers are considered to have been "published" without copyright notice, so any content that was first released to audiences in the form of the trailer (from before 1964) is considered free. In other words, those brief parts of the film constituting the trailer content are in the public domain.  Of course, it doesn't matter whether a screenshot is physically taken from the film itself or the trailer, so long as there is solid documentation that the particular frame was a part of the original trailer.--Pharos 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Film needs cast section
After discussion with Skier I think its very appropriate we add a new element to tagging films ; - film needs cast section- many films are missing the cast and character section and details and only mention one or two actors in the info box. THis is an important element to films. Also I remember discussing that cast sections also shouldn't have a table but should be written. Here would be the category : Category:Articles that need a cast section

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not article page categorizing, or we'll into a wall. Talk page maintenance template. Here goes: Template:Film needs cast section. (I'll post at on the bottom too, to make sure you all see it). Hoverfish Talk 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on Zoo (film) seems biased in its representation of critical opinion
Article on Zoo (film) seems biased in its representation of critical opinion. It puts the negative review of "/film" first and implies that this is the concensus. It uses the Seattle Times review as the pro point-of-view, leaving out such important review sources as the New York Times, Variety, and The Village Voice.

Would someone with decent editor credentials review it and make changes as they see fit?

67.40.192.50 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a change to get rid of the wording that implied that SlashFilm said what many sites did -- same with the Seattle newspaper. I suggest going to Rotten Tomatoes and draw from especially the Cream of the Crop reviews, which are reviews from major media outlets.  Since the film is rated 50%, there should be an even split of positive and negative reviews.  You could even mention the Rotten Tomatoes rating at the beginning of "Critical reviews" to set the stage for how it was received, instead of SlashFilm seemingly paving the way for more negativity than necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Just thought it might be pertinent to let the project members here know that Category:Films featuring nurses and Category:Films featuring airships are up for review at the April 10 CFD page and, at this point, look likely to be deleted. They are listed at that page under the rather misleading heading of "Films featuring things". I personally think that the categories are worth saving, and their deletion could cause a bunch of other categories to be nominated for deletion by those who make a habit of doing that kinda thing, based on precedent. And there has been some silliness there too (ie: comparing Nurses and aardvarks and left-handed orthodontists, and a general misunderstanding of the term 'feature' to boot). It's all good fun, come on over and leave your thoughts, whatever they may be. Cheers.--Keefer | Talk 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some important discussion points...
Having gone through over 10,000 film articles at a glimpse, I just want to start a bit of discussion on a few things:

Films that need infoboxes
I don't make more work than necessary, but going through all films individually in the categories of films by year, you might have noticed I've added around 3,000 more titles that need infoboxes (along with another 1,000 or more new film templates in general). My concern is that along the way I have discovered that the majority of film stub articles don't have infoboxes - this could be another couple of thousand to tag, which may end up being under review for being stubs anyway, wasting time filling out the details for the articles. I also went through the documentary category and the majority of those needed infoboxes - which should indicate there could be plenty more in comedy, drama, musical etc.

I was happy to contribute to 1,000 or so titles but as with the reaction of others dropping out of the project because of the sheer scale of it, I think there needs to be a cap or limit to infoboxes required, even though technically it would be great for all films to have one. From what I can see, I can only predict at least another 2,000 articles exist that don't have the film template, and another 5,000 or more without infoboxes.

Infobox Question
I just finished the "N" section. The one film that's left there has an infobox, so I don't know why it's still on the list. If someone knows how to fix this and could let me know I would be much obliged. Thanks, FilmFemme 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done! Part of the films project template is infobox required if it says yes, it adds it to the list all you need to do is change it to no Malla  nox  00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I swear I had done that and it wasn't going away. So weird.  Oh well, thanks for your help! FilmFemme 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging
I also noticed that I could determine what should be upgraded from stub to start if it already had tagged synopsis, infobox, and image which gave the article something substantial enough. I really like the idea of the tagging for organising a structured way of managing films but I think the tagging should all be one template!!! I propose this for discussion, what if there was a template more like this: I know it might appear pretty crazy, but having gone through 5,000 titles then discovering there's a new tag I could have been placing, essentially it all needs to be re-tagged, then again when the next tag is introduced. I think this sort of system could also be a really good basis for consistency throughout all film articles - it can be used as a quick reference for people contributing to the article to see what it needs based on what's required of the style guide. I'm almost even thinking grading each element - some articles have plots but are one line - yet they still need something more substantial. Some are too long and also need work. Some have an infobox with one line, others are too long.

Categorising project
I noticed that even though so many new articles were being tagged, I've still missed heaps of films in all the genre categories, stubs. I was told the countries had already been meticulously gone through for tagging, and yet I've tagged an additional few thousand. This means there's a gross under-categorisation of films - all films should at least be categorised by year, country, and genre.

Stubs
There are also a lot of stub articles that have one-liners - are these ever going to get off the ground, or should they be kept to list of films, so they're not a waste of an article. A lot of articles seem to be made and left for no reason, or might not have enough notability.

What comes under the wikifilm project?
Just trying to get a consensus on what is considered "film":


 * Direct to Video/DVD ( Yes )
 * Animation/Cartoons ( Yes )
 * Anime ( Yes, but they get anime infoboxes )
 * Documentaries ( Yes )
 * B-grade/low budget films ( Yes )
 * TV Series
 * TV shows ( No )
 * Shorts ( Yes )
 * Music video clips
 * Web Serial

Should Indian films be under wikiproject films or just Indian cinema? There's a bit of inconsistency with some articles, it's like some have avoided placing the template on some Indian films. Peter 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I marked the ones I am prety sure of in your list. Others could add to it or modify. Hoverfish Talk 08:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll give you a few of my opinions:
 * Films that need infoboxes, my recommendation would be that we put our energy into adding film boxes instead of searching for more. When I started my search (with Indian film stubs) I didn't realize so many would be added.  I would be against any guideline that said don't add "infobox needed" if you see one, but I think at this point we can best spend our time adding infoboxes, not lengthening the list.
 * I guess my initial reading to check the status of films was to get a more accurate guide as to the scale of the tagging project. It's for this reason I am getting an obsession to have a complete and more accurate idea of what work is to be done rather then getting excited about only having to add info for 100 more boxes when in actual fact it's 5,100. But then, the more information provided with the boxes the better anyway. Peter 07:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagging, this may not be a bad idea... but, I think it could be part of Template:Film (just as needs infobox is now). This may do some good... although, I would reserve using it for articles that users think are important instead.  I also imagine it may be very difficult to find some of the info for some films which could result in many films with this tag left on for years, when cleanup tags are meant moreso for things that can be easily fixed.
 * Stubs, maybe I'm too much of an eventualist when it comes to film stubs... and maybe it's because I create them because it's nice to have a page with the poster to click through from actors... most films with a notable actor or director are notable, and while it would be nice that they are improved, having a nicely wikified stub with an infobox and a poster is a good thing in my eyes, even if it's not a very good article. I also don't understand "or should they be kept to list of films, so they're not a waste of an article".
 * wikiproject might interest you.
 * gren グレン 05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm, Peter. I wouldn't go overboard with new tags. People will get overwhelmed and the tags will loose relevance. They're best kept to basics, such as infoboxes and pictures, things which people can add quickly and in an automated fashion. More in depth content requires time and/or research is mainly going to get added by people who take an active interest in a specific article and will be able to figure out what's missing either by checking around or from experience. Instead, leaving comments on the article's talk page, some project banners (like WPBiography) even have links to subpages for comments, would seem a better option.

Regarding stubs, might as well keep them, Wikipedia's got a seeming infinite amount of server space and you never know when someone'll add stuff. On what's considered a film, I agree with all of the bracketed assertions and would add we don't cover TV series, webisodes or music videos. Indian films I'd say yes, can't hurt to add our banner. Doctor Sunshine  talk  03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TV series
Here is an example of of a TV series questionably categorized as films: Canada: A People's History. Film or no film? If film, which year released? I found also that although generally Category:Television miniseries (which I find is usually the name for TV series) is subcategory of Television programs only (no "films"), someone has put Category:Canadian television miniseries under Canadian television films. In other country-TV miniseries there is no parent "films". We have to either correct the Canadian categorization or accept miniseries as films (which I feel is wrong). Hoverfish Talk 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say no, too. If it's been played theatrically, sure, let's share, otherwise we can let Television have them. Doctor Sunshine   talk  03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought of this, but in most cases I can't find information on theatrical release. I will start a new section about all this and include all I have picked since and maybe you can help me further. Hoverfish Talk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actor templates nominated for deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Matthew_McConaughey

Several of the actor templates have been nominated for deletion. There were numerous templates already in existence long before my time, and I created several of the ones which are nominated. Since there aren't any guidelines or policies about actor templates I suggest we all participate in the discussion. --Wasted Sapience 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on your previous comment above. (Sorry, but this page has rapid growth lately). Hoverfish Talk 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Film style guidelines for which templates are acceptable and which not
I suggest we include a section in film style guidelines about which templates are acceptable in film articles and which not. Pleople can'd search the archives of this page to know about consensus on each issue. The reason I think it should come in style guidelines is that the problem is spreading in many areas and we are already facing problems. Even our talk page templates are facing those who want them hidden from view. Hoverfish Talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What are some examples of templates that have become an issue? For me, the one I've noticed is "Cinema of the US".  That would be unnecessarily replicated in many, many film articles.  I don't like the actor templates, either -- the readability is atrocious for chronological purposes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Academy Awards
Just curious what you guys here think of this edit of Template:Academy Awards, and the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academy Awards. So far there have been only comments by three users, myself included. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs cast template
Skier already run into trouble categorizing the main article pages with the request category, so now we have the maintenance Template:Film needs cast section for talk pages, which assigns the same category Blofeld created. Please do not use the category in the main article pages any more. Hoverfish Talk 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can such templates not be added to certain future films that have not established casting? Halo is an example, with no casting being done.  Thus, the request cannot be met now, if ever -- it's akin to requesting a screenshot from the film when no footage has entered the public realm yet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an example of what I mean: the request for an image at Knight Rider (film). That film article, which probably should be deleted or redirected, has yet to enter production, if it ever will.  Thus, no one can comply with the request.  It's like asking, "Add plot or production details," when it should be recognized that such information is not yet available. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we PLEASE discuss the option I mentioned above about combining all the needs "X" talk notification things. As great as they are, they seem so repetitive and overly long, taking up slabs of talk pages. Please check User:Aussiepete/filmneeds for a proposal of how it might look to save repeating the same line "This article requires X or needs to be expanded. Please see styleguide for more information", and for when the next lot of tagging takes place. I really think this is a valid solution and all other areas of articles I think should be tagged in this way. I think this needs to be discussed and decided before another round of tagging for cast. Then there will be tagging for distribution and categories and lead, and production, releases etc and everything else. Please comment. Peter 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like your idea, Peter. I believe it has too many options right now, though. I'd get rid of the release, screenshot, tagline, and trivia options. They're not as necessary as the other ones (especially Trivia). But, yes, I do like the idea of making one template for all the needs. --Crzycheetah 06:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think you should just create it and it will give another option.  You don't have to use them all and I see no need for en masse replacement of the old templates.  But, it can be another option that users can use at their own discretion. gren グレン 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article consistency project
After sifting through heaps of film titles, I noticed inconsistencies with heading titles and want to make it all consistent - but I don't want to change it to something that is doesn't have the general consensus. The main one was "Plot". The "needs film synopsis" then displays "plot summary". Which is it? Even with the featured and good articles there's inconsistencies. Here are a few examples currently being used:
 * Plot / Plot summary / Plot outline / Synopsis / Story
 * Cast / Supporting cast / Cast and characters / Casting / Characters / Voice cast
 * Development / History / Background / Production / Conception / Production history
 * Reception / Reception and influence / Response / Critical response / Critical and public reaction
 * Screenings and release / Releases / Home video / DVD Release / Home video availability / Video releases
 * Media based on film / Merchandising / Other media
 * Awards / List of nominations and awards
 * Music / Soundtrack

Is this something to be discussed in the style guidelines? Even the order of the article, sometimes synopsis is a lot lower down, and other elements come before or after others differently to other articles. (As one example of many, The Boondock Saints has release and reception details even before the plot, when plot is generally first off the ranks). Peter 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is a major issue. They all pretty much say the same thing, so I don't think standardization is necessary.  The section titles related to the plot are pretty much the same, unless you believe there's a major difference between "film synopsis" and "plot summary".  As for cast section titling, it seems that "Cast and characters" is better for films that originate from a franchise, like Spider-Man or Star Wars, as it describes the characters in more detail than the plot section permits.


 * There are five stages of the production cycle. Development is the first one, but I think that sometimes it's necessary to separate that stage if there is a lot of history involved.  For example, see Watchmen.  It's been through development hell for a while, and it may not be appropriate to put it under "Production" as it does not directly relate to the end result, this film that will finally get made under this studio and this director.


 * I've found Reception to be the most appropriate section title, as it's broad enough in scope to cover box office performance, critical reviews, and any controversy that the film may have caused. "Marketing" seems to be the right section title for any kind of promotion or merchandise that comes with the film.  "Awards and nominations" is appropriate as well 'cause I think that section should be written as prose, and nominations of certain awards such as the Oscars are fairly notable.  To be honest, it depends on the preference of the editors of that article.  I have my own preferences, but it's just personal opinion.  Like I said, I don't know if we need to set guidelines for this kind of thing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have style guidelines on this page but I'm not sure whether the headers there are intended to be proscriptive. It might be better to ask your question on the style guide's talk page because there has been some discussion of some of these issues there (albeit rather inconclusive). Cop 633 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going by definitions, a synopsis is a summary of a plot, which is a summary of the story. Synopses generally don't have too many spoilers and don't contain actual points on a timeline (exposition, climax, ending), whereas a plot does. It's my belief that a "synopsis" title should be used for future films, where are only using some generalized breakdown of what a film will be, and that "plot" should be used after the film is released and we've gone through and added a little more detail. "Plot summary" and "Synopsis" could be taken as the same thing, because of the definition behind synopsis being a summary of the plot.
 * I kind of like "production" as an overall heading, because production doesn't necessary have to mean "filming". I think if enough information is available then subheadings within that "Production" heading could exist that are more specific (e.g. Casting, Directing, Music...see Halloween for an example of how it can be broken down like that). I don't believe "development" should be a header, because if you only have "development" information then it probably means you shouldn't have an article devoted to your film yet. If they haven't gone past the "lets talk", or "i've started writing" phase, then why are we having this discussion; if you know what I mean.
 * I like "Release" as the overall heading of information dealing with "reception", "DVD sales", etc. You can't review a film (generally) unless it's released, nor can a film make any money.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against aligning everything. One, the editors might have a good reason for variating the section titles. Two, having everything exactly the same would make everything slightly more boring. Three, the time can be better spent elsewhere. Four, conformity is how the Man breaks you down. Free Huey! Doctor Sunshine  talk  02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TV films, series, miniseries and film categories
I asked WP:TV but there is no reaction. The problem: Category:Television miniseries has as only parent Television programs, not films (or direct subcategories of). Someone placed Category:Canadian television miniseries under Canadian television films, which is not done in other countries' miniseries, but which sounds correct. Then I went searching for definitions in the articles. Television miniseries: no strict rule exists which differentiate a miniseries from a "regular" series or serial and by the broader suggestion: a limited run program of more than two and less than the thirteen part season or half season block associated with serial or series programming. Well, in IMDb I find 2-part TV films (not tagged as "mini"), which have won awards as miniseries or as TV films/miniseries. My guess is that originally it was meant to be a 2-part film and then some TV station turned it multipart. A clue I find in Television program is that TV series (or season -US term) is a 6-26 part thing. So it might be that a miniseries simply means a series with fewer parts (and not split in very short segments as I originally thought). But I am still not sure of categorizing. Logically it should follow the logic of Category:Television films, which has parents Films by type (which is under Films) and Television programs. Dr. sunshine suggested above that we host only TV miniseries that hit the screen, but I don't always find info about it. Also many circulated in DVD's as at full length. The other problem is we should then do the same in all TV films (1-parts). Any thoughts? Hoverfish Talk 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's rare that a miniseries gets a theatrical release so I wouldn't worry about claiming any of them but if someone finds that one's been released theatrically, for example Berlin Alexanderplatz (television) has been making the rounds in repertory theatres, and I remember seeing an Australian miniseries at a film festival, then the film banner can be added. Film and TV productions have both laid claim to the DVD format so I don't think that should have any baring on our decision. A miniseries is usually a one off production, where a series is intended for an extended run. I find reviews are more reliable than the IMDb in making the distinction. Doctor Sunshine   talk  17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with seeing TV series on the big screen, but if they do occur as Berlin Alexanderplatz (television) was suggested above, then we probably should include that. I remember seeing some series in the past that were in 7, 14, 15, etc. parts. Although it is called a series, it sounds like its pushing being a television program itself. I know that we share television films between WP:Films and WP:TV, and I think we should stick to that. It's going to be misleading to readers/other editors who see that we put the TV film series as a film but then make exceptions for others. We should probably choose if we should accept them all or none of them (except for any special cases that we may agree on). --Nehrams2020 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that a theatrical run probably is a better indicator. The tricky thing is that there have been television movies which have gone onto to become full-fledged films of their own, such as My Beautiful Laundrette and Truly, Madly, Deeply. In general, though, I'd say that there's nothing wrong with overlap, and surely being slightly too inclusive is better than being slightly too exclusive. Girolamo Savonarola 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject James Bond banner question
There is now a new project at the above page. There has been repeated concern expressed here and elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners on talk pages. On that basis, I was wondering if any of the members of this project might be willing to, possibly with WikiProject Fictional series, set up some sort of arrangement so that one banner might somehow function for whichever of the three mentioned projects apply to a given article? John Carter 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking forward to the day someone would start this. I'd say everything: films, novels, video games, comic books, fictional series etc. Alientraveller 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is currently a proposal at WP:COUNCIL for a tiered WikiProject structure which will probably begin to alleviate some of these problems in the future. Girolamo Savonarola 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you wil be glad then I have started yet another popular project!! -although I didn't actually propose it - if it was just films I would habe adapted the main film banner but James Bond covers a variety of topics including films, books, games, locations, actors, characters, weapons, cars etc and s quite justified because of its major impact and diversity to have its own banner ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uma Thurman FAR
Uma Thurman has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan FAR
Lindsay Lohan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple "stub" templates
I'm sure there's probably a 'rule' about this somewhere, but I'm not finding it... Is there some rule/policy/guideline/whatever regarding multiple stub templates on the same article? I can understand multiple templates for multiple projects (say, novel, film, radio), but how about multiple genres in the same? I'm seeing quite a few film articles that are getting multiple templates for multiple genres, a good example is The Combination of the Safe. Is there a reason to keep all of them, or can they be reduced to one, as long as they're all "film" related? SkierRMH 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally we keep a few. In that case it looks really odd and if no one opposes you in removing one it wouldn't be a big deal.  There is no rule... just general accepted actions of editors.  Having tons is bad... but removing them in a provocative manner can get you into trouble.  So, the reason to keep them all is because they are all applicable.  The reason to remove is because they are messy... weight the pros/cons and decide.  If someone disagrees they can tell you. gren グレン 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes a film from a certain country?
Looking for some more experienced films editors to clarify a minor dispute at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Thanks, Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, it depends on which studio funded the picture, and where the film was mostly shot, edited, got its effects, sound done and so on and so forth. So The Lord of the Rings was funded by New Line, but the films were actually made in New Zealand, (shot, edited, Weta provided props and special effects, sound department was there) with the exception of most of the score being done in Britain. Alientraveller 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only practical way is by the nationality of the production companies involved. So Lord of the Rings is US/New Zealand bexcause it was made by the American company New Line and the NZ company Wingnut Films. Harry Potter is US/UK because it's made by the US company Warners and the Brit company Heyday Films. Cop 633 21:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the catch. What determines priority? Why does US come before UK? or New Zealand for that matter? By priority, I'm not just referring to what order their names come, but the writing style of the article. There needs to be consistency, otherwise you'll have British spellings, and grammatical structure mixed with American ones (and if you've ever noticed (since you and Alien are both British citizens) there are some differences. I've watched ridiculous reverts over the spelling of one word, just because in America it's spelling one way, and in the UK it's spelling another. That's a fun read when you have to people battling over which is the right spelling. The same with sentence structure. Is Harry Potter more American because Warner Brothers puts up more dough than Heyday Films? That would seem rather odd, when you have characters that only speaking with their British dialect, and often use words that aren't even known in America.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Priority. Well, in regard to what order their names come, just go alphabetically, that's the easy solution. As for the English variations, it's a real problem, but not just in film articles - there are some suggested guidelines here that sometimes help -ENGVAR. As a Canadian, I recommend just shrugging, trying to be nice to everyone, and not coming to any real decision. :) Cop 633 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From reading that, I guess Harry Potter should be written in the UK's english, because the only thing that I could find that would determine that would be that the film has more ties to the UK than America.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" - and since the characters are all speaking British English it makes sense to write it that way. Cop 633 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Peer Review
Lage Raho Munna Bhai, a Bollywood comedy film that has created great interest, and revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India, is in Peer Review. Please visit the peer review entry of Lage Raho Munna Bhai, and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

about categorization
Hello. There is currently some discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized about the possibility of having a bot identify a bunch of stubs in a specific topic that have a stub-cat but no permanent cat. For instance, it seems there are about a thousand film stubs that are not properly categorized. The idea would be that if we populate the category Category:Uncategorised films, then it would make it easier to get you guys involved in categorization. (the downside of course, is that you get 1000 articles to categorize) In any case, thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On which note, I've populated the first 200 "unpermcategorised" articles in the tree into. Due to the way the traverse works, this just happens to have been largely filmmaking terms and filmakers rather than films per se: if that's broader than you'd prefer, I'll adjust this for the rest of the run. Alai 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrm, that might have been a less bright idea than first appeared to be the case: for some reason  was a sub-cat of, so that caught a lot of actors that weren't necessarily even film actors.  (I've removed that cat-inclusion now.)  My bad, should have checked more carefully before running the bot;  I have now re-removed them.  I've run the bot again with another batch, from , which should be much more "pure".  I can tag the film actors at a later point, if the project so desires.  Likewise, if the filmmaking ones shouldn't be there, I can batch-remove those, too.  Sorry once again about the to-ing and fro-ing.  Alai 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai in FAC
Lage Raho Munna Bhai, a Bollywood comedy film that has created great interest, and revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India, is a Featured article candidate. Please visit the FAC entry of Lage Raho Munna Bhai, and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've supported it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club
I've improved this film article enormously from its first FA nomination. I've set up a couple of peer reviews -- one for WikiProject Films and one in general. If anyone is willing to impart some constructive criticism at either peer review, that would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One film but two article pages
Hello to the members of the film project. I have come accross the fact that there are two pages for the same film here at wikipedia. The first is Stoned and the second is The Wild and Wycked World of Brian Jones. Now they are both stubs but the first has more info in its article and as this is the title of the film on the DVD cover and at IMDb it may be the one to keep. My question is how does one bring these two together? Do you perform a merge or just delete the second title? In any event my wikiskills don't include having done either of these so I thought I would make you aware of this so that those of you who know what to do can get this situation fixed. My thanks ahead of time to any who can help. MarnetteD | Talk 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've redirected The Wild and Wycked World of Brian Jones to Stoned with a note in the lead of Stoned mentioning the alternate title for just the UK. If possible, you should include cited information about why there was a difference in these two titles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix Erik. I was working on an unrelated project when I came accross this so I don't have any details but maybe some other member of the film project will know about this and be able to add the citation that you suggest. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CfD clarification requested
Request for comments on the status of the naming convention for genre films, in this case Disaster movies. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)