Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 14

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

However, I took a look at the other similar templates and they're not standardised:
 * Template:Worldcinema - lowercase c, no space. This is the main World Cinema template containing links to all countries.
 * Template:World Cinema - Uppercase C. Contains links to 6 continental cinema "parent" articles and the 4 sub-continental Asia articles.
 * Template:African Cinema - Uppercase C.
 * Template:Asian cinema - Lowercase c.
 * Template:East Asian cinema - Lowercase c, different template format.
 * Template:East Asian Cinema - Uppercase C.
 * Template:South Asian cinema - Lowercase c.
 * Template:Southeast Asian cinema - Lowercase c.
 * Template:West Asian Cinema - Uppercase c.
 * Template:Australasian Cinema - Uppercase C.
 * Template:EuropeanCinema - Uppercase C, no space.
 * Template:North American Cinema - Uppercase C.
 * Template:Latin American Cinema - Uppercase C, different template format.

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

Gram123 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am happy with the templates. And, they should be standardized, both in design and naming conventions. I prefer the format that is used on the majority of the templates, such as Template:Southeast Asian cinema, with the light purple background. Lowercase c, with a space makes the most sense. Something additional to address would be a replacement for the film reel that was formerly in the templates, but went away with the deletion of the stock images. I had tried using a map image inside a clapperboard, similar to the flag icons that have been created, but I am displeased with the results and would urge a different direction, possibly finding another freely licensed film-related photo, like a camera lens or film reel. — WiseKwai 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb as Valid Reference Material
On one of the articles I watch another editor added a section claiming that the screenwriter used a sci-fi shortstory written by another author as "source material," citing only the film's IMDb literature page as a reference. Am I correct in doubting this method of research? If I understand IMDb correctly, anyone could have seen the similarities between one of the movie's story elements and the short story's premise and submitted information about it being the "Original Literary Source" without having corroborating evidence such as a statement from the screenwriter that he did indeed draw inspiration from the short story. Is this a valid objection, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Roundelais 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDb isn't a reliable source because it doesn't cite its sources. A better reference is always a proper interview. Alientraveller 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) I would suggest attempting to use keywords involved with this situation, such as the screenwriter's name, the short story's name, and the name of the story's author. IMDb is user-submitted, so it should not be relied upon as a valid reference source except in the case of cast/crew, in which the list is an electronic copy of the film's credits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of sourcing is to provide a line of information descendance from the article backwards, so that the article's contents can be traced. The IMDb is generally considered a valid source, and is permissible for the most part. There is no requirement that our sources also be sourced - only that they be considered generally reliable. (Note that "reliable" media like newspapers also make plenty of mistakes, too - hence the "Errata" section.) If there is evidence that the IMDb is wrong in particular instances, then you'd at the least need another source to provide counterweight. But trying to dismiss the IMDb en masse is probably going to be a difficult assertion. Girolamo Savonarola 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not considered reliable in an FAC. It's the first source to get picked on if present. If you are saying that one does not need to verify the sources of the source, then what happens when a source says "I heard from an insider ...."? How do we know what they heard if they don't give us a name to attach it to? IMDb does not distinguish between what they get from users and what they find on their own, and they don't provide a source for their information. Otherwise, we might as well not source an article at all on Wikipedia; we can simply take the word of the editor adding the information. If IMDb says James Cameron intended to _____ with his _____ film, then I want to know where they got that information. If they got it from Cameron, great. If they got it from some random user who submitted it to them, then I want to know where they got that information. How do we know they weren't lying to IMDb? How do we know they weren't using some internet chat forum, where some joker was posing as Cameron and spouting off rampid trivia that was in no way accurate? We don't, because they don't tell us where they get their information. This is a site that posted "Aunt May as Carnage" and posted a composer for GhostRider, who Mark Steven Johnson (the director), acknowledged in an interview that he had never met that composer before and did not know where IMDb was getting their information. This is why you check your source's sources.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec, lol, Bignole, GMTA) IMDb is not comparable to newspaper sources. It is basically a gated wiki, with no evidence of attribution behind new information.  This has been an issue with pages for future films, where new names come and go -- at Spider-Man 4, Sam Raimi is listed as the director, but there has been zero attributable evidence to support that claim, as he's been on the fence.  The cast section is also batched together from user-submitted reports until IMDb is able to create an electronic copy from the film's credits of the cast and crew.  IMDb also estimates release years on their own -- Logan's Run had a release date of 2007 until a few months ago, even with no sign of actual production.  It's been "updated" to 2010 since.  Lastly, the trivia pages are user-submitted junk, which are usually and unfortunately copied over to Wikipedia.  IMDb, in my opinion, should be used as a possible starting point for finding the actual references for information, preferrably for already-released films.  However, it should not be referenced any more than an external link.  This opinion is not only mine, but has been shared by others in several FAC processes that I've witnessed to improve references for article information from IMDb to a more concrete source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Our job is to write the article and source it properly. If the sources turn out to be false, then we'd still need a contradicting source. Presumably something from Cameron's mouth (and sourced) would override the IMDb source, were there a conflict. If the IMDb seems to contradict, but without as obvious proof, then this still can be noted and discussed within the NPOV parameters. For example, the Spiderman 4 info can be discussed as "being listed on the IMDb as ___, but unconfirmed elsewhere" in the article. I'm not advocating total faith in the IMDb, but I think it's equally as ridiculous to assume no faith either. Girolamo Savonarola 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

With that line of thinking, we might as well say "Listed on Bloody-Disgusting's forum site...." They get faith. They get faith for being able to have accurate cast listings after a film is released. Anything that happens with regard to future films, that's another story.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, if a general consensus can be shown to exist - through a large and open discussion to the community at large - that regards the IMDb as an unreliable source, then we can deal with that. However, at the moment, I believe that most users regard it as a reliable enough, though admittedly imperfect, source. I can understand FAC wanting more direct sourcing, especially with regards to anything that could be construed as controversial or difficult to swallow. Girolamo Savonarola 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What most users? The "most users" I've come across are in FACs, and they disagree with that statement. IMDb is a great source for random trivia on articles, taken with a grain of salt. But one should not use it as a source, as it would be like citing an Encyclopedia in and Encyclopedia. If you were to create an article on a specific topic, like say Horror Icons, you wouldn't cite the Wikipedia articles as proof that these characters are iconic, not even if they were featured articles. You might use sources from that article that show that, but not the article itself. That is what happens when you cite IMDb. You're virtually citing another film article as verification that something happened.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand WP:V - sourcing is not about the truth (this is stated at the top of WP:V). It's about showing where our information is coming from so that we are not liable for misinformation, libel, etc., and allows researchers to follow back to the sources. Per WP:RS, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - so I would agree that IMDb is not good for assertions likely to be questioned. It is, however, perfectly fine for basic info; which is really what is its main function as a database, not a trivia repository. See also WP:NOR on sources - I'd consider the IMDb a tertiary source - citable, but only in a limited scope.
 * In a nutshell, I think it's fine to reference the IMDb for limited "hard fact"-based information, such as release dates for classic films. I would tend to steer clear of the trivia section altogether - surely if the trivia is true, the submissions were originally sourced from other media which should instead be sought out. Girolamo Savonarola 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about truth, I think you are assuming too much. Basic information would be the cast of a film, or the release date of a film that has already been in circulation. I do not find production information to be "basic", as you cannot verify that by simply watching a movie. Release dates are hardly basic when it comes to films yet released. Thus, the only "basic" information from IMDb that is citable is usually not something that is questioned to begin with.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might like this about IMDb's trivia... on Spider-Man 3, there is a sentence, "With sand as a possible hazard in scenes that buried actors, ground-up corncobs were used as a substitute instead." On IMDb's trivia page, "Real sand being possibly hazardous for such scenes, ground up corncobs were used as a substitute. It provided marvelous snacks for the cast and crew afterwards..." :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd really agree with girolamo savonarola here. Imdb isn't a perfect source, and if you have reason to question something that's only sourced there, great, remove it from an article. Using imdb as a source for refs shouldn't really be a problem however, since anyone can see where the information comes from and figure out for themselves whether they want to trust the site as a source or not. The purpose of sourcing isn't to hold people's hands and tell them that anything with a ref tag added to it is reliable, it's just to tell them where that information comes from, so they can judge for themselves. - Bobet 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why not cite a blog, or a internet forum? It's verifiable, and people can make their minds up with whether they want to trust it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs are considered reliable if the actual source is considered trustworthy or authoritative wrt the subject at hand. Publications are considered reliable if they have fact-checking or editorial oversight. While you can argue that the IMDb does not do this well, the site does have editorial oversight. A forum is not reliable because there is no way to verify the source reliability - the person posting - and no editorial oversight in the sense of deleting erroneous information. As has been mentioned, this is all already clearly laid out at WP:RS. Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny that you would mention the fact that one has no way of verifying the reliable nature of the source in a forum, because that is precisely the problem with IMDb. If they claim something, we have no way of verifying the reliability of their information. You are taking it at face value, and assuming that if you just go "oh, well I got it from IMDb" in the article, then it's ok. Where did IMDb get it? How do we know they didn't just get it from some forum post? We don't, because they don't say where they got it. Now, if someone posts on a forum that some actor is going to be in a future film. Your theory suggests that we cannot use it, because we cannot verify the reliable nature of that information. How does one verify the reliability of IMDb, when they don't show their own sources? USA Today is considered reliable, not just for editorial oversight, but they generally release the sources of their film information, or at least label it accordingly if they don't. IMDb doesn't release any sources, and you cannot determine what is submitted by random users (who may very well be using some forum as a source), or what is found via their own people. They don't label anything. IMDb says they check their information, but how hard are they checking if they are making such obvious mistakes, like the Spider-Man 3 casting information, or the composer for GhostRider. Where are they getting these future film release dates? Release dates that have yet to show up anywhere else besides random fan forums and scouper sites. This is why IMDb is not reliable for most of the information they publish. If we cannot verify where they get their information, then we cannot verify if that information is reliable itself. We don't know the degree to which they check facts. We don't know where they pull information. For all anyone knows, they are pulling information from the very sources that are deemed unreliable by everyone on Wikipedia. If someone posts information in an article, and cites it, but you say "sorry, that isn't a reliable source", does it change anything if IMDb surfed over to that very website, took that information, and posted it? Now, if IMDb attributed information to a source that is considered unreliable on its own, would that change the informations ability to be used on Wikipedia? In other words, if IMDb admitted to publishing information from a source that is considered unreliable, does that make the inclusion of said information alright? I would say not. If we aren't using information from one unreliable source, why would we use it from another source that admits to using that same unreliable website? That's like me giving you a check for $1 million dollars, you not believing that the check was good opt not to take it, but then I give the check to another person...my name is still there, you know where its coming from, but you decide to take it now because you trust this second person. It doesn't change the fact that the check was still coming from me, and that you still didn't trust me. IMDb doesn't even give you the privilege of knowing where the check is coming from, and for all you know, all the checks could come from someone you would not normally trust. The fact remains that IMDb's criteria for what is reliable and verifiable is not posted, and probably isn't anywhere near as strict as on Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Open forum for discussion?
Given the above debate, would it be a good idea to convene an open and centralized discussion page for considering the IMDb's status as a reliable source? Girolamo Savonarola 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Girolamo Savonarola 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you supporting IMDB as a source? or just supporting th eidea of opening a centralized discussion? Bjewiki 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for support for a separate discussion space so that we can advertise the discussion for all - something external from the WikiProject. Girolamo Savonarola 21:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(struck by Girolamo Savonarola) as per above. *Oppose - (if this is a discussion for whether IMDb should be considered reliable) Beyond cast lists for films and television shows that have already aired (and are verifiable by watching said programs), IMDb does not cite where they get their information, which can easily come from the same unreliable source that is forbidden to be used on Wikipedia. Since IMDb is not a major news organization, but simply a trivia house, the changing of hands of information does not make it any more reliable to publish on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. There are features about IMDb that should be more clearly outlined and discussed for all film/TV editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This needs to be covered, the question of whether IMDb is reliable enough to cite in film articles comes up all the time - • The Giant Puffin •  18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Where can such a discussion be established? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking (and asking)... Girolamo Savonarola 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've created a proposed policy at Citing IMDb. This is simply a proposal, and as with all proposed policies, is intended to elicit community response on its talk page and be mercilessly re-edited as per compromise and consensus. I'll start placing notifications around as well to kick up some dust and get outside editors in on this. Girolamo Savonarola 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image use
I recently nominated Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End for the GA - and User:Carson Lam only passed after removing two images he considered "arguably decorative". [before after. The reasoning was fair? [[User:Igordebraga|igordebraga]] ≠ 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the first one (ship sailing into the mist) was definitely decorative. Bjewiki 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request help
I have recently rewrote the entire Jason Voorhees article. It's modeled after Jabba the Hutt, Padme Amidala and Palpatine, the three Star Wars articles that have reached FA status. The article needs a good copyedit. My main problem is that I know the movies and character front and back, and having basically written the entire page, I tend to read it with the understanding already there. Because of that, I kind of miss things that an average reader, with no deep knowledge of the character, might not understand fully. So, besides copyediting, I also need people to present questions in places that may seem unclear for those that don't know the character. All help is much appreciated.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is excellent and incredibly comprehensive. I've gone ahead and nominated it for GA status.  It could easily move on to FA status with a good copy-editing effort.  I'll see if I can make any changes or suggestions for improving the flow of the prose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Twisted Pictures
I had recently updated the studio image but I cannot find any information on the Studio anywhere. Wachapon2 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look here for possible news headlines that mention Twisted Pictures. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I still can't find any relevant information on it. Wachapon2 02:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese film needs serious help
If anyone has a bit of knowledge around Chinese films, Jia Hongsheng is in need of some desperate help. For one thing, I can't tell what is about the person and what is about the film... Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other Tasks"
I've been working with Jogers in setting up a semi-automated bot that will keep track of the various IFD's related to the project. As soon as we get a 'track history' to make sure the bugs are out of the system, I'd like to propose adding them to the as time-sensitive items. The two that are relevant to this project are Contested DVD covers and Contested film posters. If there are any other categories of images that you think should be watched - just let me know! Feedback on these is always welcome. SkierRMH 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussed change to notability guidelines for future films
Please join us at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (films)! We are discussing what the notability criteria are for films which are unreleased. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July newsletter delivery request
Either myself or Cbrown1023 deliver the monthly newsletter at the end of the month when it is completed. However, both of us will be away from our computers at the time of the delivery and will be unable to send it out to all subscribing members. I was wondering if there is anyone who is willing to add any last minute information (such as new members and passed FA/GAs) to the newsletter if necessary and to deliver it to our project's members. If you are interested in doing this, let me know here or on my talk page (I need to know by 7/25 before 2:00p.m. West Coast Time) so this month's newsletter can be sent out. I will be able to give you instructions on how to deliver it using AWB or if there are multiple interested members I can divide the subscription list up equally to cut down on the delivery time. If interested, let me know as soon as you can. Thanks! --Nehrams2020 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving soon and it appears nobody was able to help with delivery so I'll deliver it when I get back on August 4 or 5, unless one of the newsletter delivery bots does it. Just want to warn everybody in case the newsletter is late. --Nehrams2020 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorised films
Starting to get full. Postcard Cathy 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About 25 films in there now. Postcard Cathy 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb redundancy
I've noticed a few attempted removals of the IMDb template from External links, citing that it's redundant to the one in the Infobox Film template. Considering that this redundancy is widespread, was there a consensus reached to have them exist in both places? I've only found discussion to include IMDb in the Infobox Film template, but I can't seem to find anything about including both, even though WP:MOSFILMS says to include IMDb. Has there been discussion on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a discussion (though I can't remember where...) and the consensus was to keep the EL and the infobox link. IIRC, it had something to do with general accessibility on things like phone-browsers or something like that. Girolamo Savonarola 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I had that impression since the redundancy was commonplace. I'll point here in the future for editors who try to clean up the redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Film editors insight needed
At Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), there used to be two subsections of the "Cast" section. One was called "Previous roles" and was a list of characters that appear in the source material (i.e. the book), and the actor to play him or her in the most recent film adaptation (as the actors who have played a few characters have changed over the films). Another was "New characters" and was a list of characters who appear in the book and have not appeared in a previous film adaptation. Here is an example of what the articles used to look like. The two sections in both articles have been removed and a discussion whether they belong is taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gun films
''I don't wanna waste people's time in a category for deletion debate, so I'm asking first. Would it be a good idea to add a category with the name gun films? The category description would be:

"Movies that use guns for at least 50% of the movie."

''I mean movies like Bad Boys II, and The Departed. Would it be a good idea?''

This is a direct quote from my talk page, as someone suggested to post this here. TheBlazikenMaster 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any reliable sources to verify that this is a recognized genre of film and not WP:NFT territory? --Farix (Talk) 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, neither is any real movie genre for plane movies, but they have category for some reason. TheBlazikenMaster 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you plan to recognize what constitutes "50% of the movie"?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, plane movies could probably be better termed "Movies set on a plane". Which is more verifiable. But even if it weren't, bringing it up to justify the existence of this putative category is simply a logical fallacy. And I agree with Bignole, how can you quantify a "gun film"? Girolamo Savonarola 21:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can find out. All you need is a DVD player with time recording feature. (most DVD players have that) And then start on a gun scene and pause at the end of it, then calculate the minutes. This should be done many times during the movie, if this damages the DVD somehow you need a DVD spray. Is that good enough? 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC) P.s. I will join this Project soon, possibly in September.


 * Oh and if that isn't reliable enough, then I guess this category simply won't be. I will join the WikiProject nevertheless, possibly in September. TheBlazikenMaster 01:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Silliest thing I've heard of on WP in a long time. I would strongly support deletion of the CAT: there's no such genre in authoritative film critique, and the criteria to establish listing is so time-consuming that no one can reasonably expected editors to test them. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

4000 movie reviews
According to Richard Roeper on Ebert & Roeper this week, on August 2 their website apparently here will be posting 4,000' past review segments by Ebert and Siskel/Roeper. They didn't say if it is a by subscription or not, but if free, it would be a damn good resource for reception/criticism sections.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories proposed for Deletion
 The Category:Film directors by religion and its subcategories are being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

The three subcategories are:
 * Category:Jewish film directors
 * Category:Mormon film directors
 * Category:Roman Catholic film directors

Although it wasn't specifically included in the proposal, the sub-Category:Jewish American film directors would undoubtedly be affected, as well, if these categories were to be deleted.

If you wish to add your comments to the discussion, be sure to do so ASAP, as the the CFD was opened on July 27 and will probably close in 2 days. Cgingold 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Flic Story
Hey, I've recently written the above article. I've never written a film article before, and was hoping that those with more experience would be able to check and let me know if I have done things correctly. Particularly putting the right info in the right places in the infobox, the reliability and appropriate nature of some of my sources, and whether I've got my film terms correct. If you could comment on the article talk page that would be brilliant. Thanks!! SGGH speak! 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to use WP:FILMPR. Girolamo Savonarola 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article guidelines?
IS there a guideline to what film articles should include? Like at WP:ALBUM, it tells you what should go in the article and how certain things should be formatted. I basically came here looking for the proper way to list the cast in an article, but can't seem to find the answer. -Joltman 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Film guidelines here. -- Beloved freak  20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The style guides are linked to, but they're hard to spot. I added some links to the top of the page.Cop 663 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable Roles and Awards
This morning I notced that the notable roles section has been removed from the activated fields in the infoboxes for actors. Upon going to the template page and finding this discussion I found myself mostly agreeing with the reasons for removing it. The Harry Potter fans have been particularly rabid about making sure every actor from the films has this listed on their page even if the role was a small one. My only question is this. The decision seems to have been made by a somewhat small number of editors (and I know that this goes on all the time) and it seems to contradict discussions higher up the page and in the archives. As I say I am agreeing with their removal but I wanted a wider consensus before this becomes a contentious issue. Now if we could only convince people that the awards section has become more bloated then the notable roles ever was making some infoboxes bigger than the rest of the article. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The infoboxes need to be compact and objective. Notable roles violates NPOV in most cases. While the conferral of awards is an objective fact, choosing which ones to include is also POV, and including all is often unfeasible. Keeping the infobox limited to brief facts is probably best. Girolamo Savonarola 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree heartily with the removal of notable roles from the actor infobox. But because the Awards section is now collapsible, I don't think that including so many awards is a problem any longer. Most fields will be blank for most actors, and thus won't be in the way. For those who have many awards, simply click "Hide." I think it's much more readable and attractive for each Award to have its own heading/banner. --Melty girl 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors involved in this decision, I disagree that it was made in contradiction to previous discussions - plenty of other editors have expressed their concerns over that field, both on the talk page and it's archives. Still, since you guys agree with it's removal (and I also support getting rid of the awards section for the same reasons), your comments on the template talk page would be most welcome. Regards. PC78 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction plot missing
Someone appears to have run away with the plot (quite literally) from the article! Aside from being a well-known, high-hits page, the project should be particularly concerned, since the plot section was mentioned in the Style Guidelines as being an exemplary article wrt summarizing a non-chronological plot. Given that there are no shortage of people who've seen this movie, can someone take a look at this? I'd do so myself if not for three things - a) there've been a LOT of edits since this went off-radar, so a revert probably isn't a great idea, b) the last summary I saw was WAY too long, and c) I don't have a copy of the film onhand and haven't seen it in years. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming
I am pleased to announce that I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming, two articles about Singaporean films under the jurisdiction of this WikiProject, have achieved GA status. Having written my first GA on a Singaporean film (I Not Stupid), I have decided to join this WikiProject, hoping that it will help me in my quest to get more articles about Singaporean films to GA status. As a new member of this WikiProject, what do I need to know? May I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming inspire and guide to those pushing articles about obscure foreign-language films to GA status! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WikiProject Films! Your contributions are welcome.  I don't know how familiar you are with this WikiProject's pages, but I would suggest taking a look, if you haven't already, at the WikiProject's spotlight, which lists film-related articles that have achieved GA or FA status.  I have a feeling you've already been pointed to the film style guidelines.  You can find your niche here, and you seem to have established it already (mine is primarily upcoming films).  I'm not sure of the extent of your experience here, but I would suggest taking a look at the pages listed in the WikiProject Films table if you haven't already.  Also, I'm sure many of the major contributors to film-related articles would be willing to respond to requests for clarification certain detail in writing the articles.  Again, welcome! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes for unreleased films
User:FerryUser, and previously at his IP, has been adding unnecessary succession boxes for the release dates of unreleased films. I reverted these as pointless, but he/she readded them simply because released films do have them for box office chart data. Can anyone else explain this to him/her before this escalates? Alientraveller 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV - Publicity images of film characters
Project members might be interested in this Deletion Review of an image of Harry Potter, and one of Storm from X-men 3.

The two images were deleted because they "cannot verifiably be traced to a press kit", despite appearing at IMDB (as "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends"), MovieWeb, and Comics Continuum ("20th Century Fox has provided The Continuum with large versions of the character shots from X3").

I'm not quite sure what would satisfy these people; but IMO they seem to be imposing a test that goes far beyond that actually set out in policy. (WP:NFCC criterion 2).

My concern is that if these deletions are allowed to stand, the precedent in effect is to make it almost impossible for most users to upload bona-fide publicity shots for articles on particular movie characters. I think that would be a serious loss to Wikipedia, so I hope people will join the discussion exploring the basis for these deletions. Jheald 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) FAR listing
The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) 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.--Dark Kubrick 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect page move
Hello to the members of the film project. I wanted to let you know that User:Burstmeets used a cut and paste redirect to move the film Paris, je t'aime to Paris, I love you thus losing all of the edit history. There was also no debate on the discussion page about whether this move should have happened at all. I would be inclined to say that it should have stayed with the French title as all the TV and print reviews that I encountered when this film came out used said title, but if the members of the project decide that it should stay with the English title that is okay to. I don't know how to fix things so that the edit history and discussion page is restored to the article so if one of you who does no how to do this would take the time to fix things it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have corrected it, but now apparently I've discovered that this user has done this to a good handful of articles. Luckily you caught this early, so it's just a matter of rv; no substantial edits. Girolamo Savonarola 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this GS and to Cop 633 for making it clearer that this film has not actually ever been advertised as P, ILY. MarnetteD | Talk 05:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant categories
These categories for country-specific films and country-specific-language films seem really redundant. For example, how many films in Category:Japanese films don't also fall under Category:Japanese-language films or vice versa? Granted, there are a handful that don't go into both categories, but not many. It seems like it would be better to have a category such as Category:Japanese-language films not from Japan and Category:Japanese films not in Japanese-language, with everything else falling into Category:Japanese films. Granted, the wording is a little awkward, but it's better than the repeat categories we have now. --SeizureDog 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Other
 * Well, there are separate categorization schemes for national cinemas and for languages. Obviously most American films are also going to fall into English-language films as well, but that doesn't mean that the cats need to be merged. Girolamo Savonarola 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that these categories are redundant. You admit yourself that the two things aren't entirely synonymous, and the likes of Category:English-language films and Category:Spanish-language films contain films from many different countries. The current categorization system is both uniform and straightforward, so I see no reason to change it. PC78 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another factor that has been kept in mind for future development is that, IIRC, the devs have been discussing the software eventually allowing dynamic categories on demand. Therefore, categories would be kept as basic as possible and intersections could be generated by the user who wants to see all articles in both categories. That's still probably a ways off, but since the current system works fine on its own and will be compatible with the proposed system, I'd caution that radical changes shouldn't be done.
 * Btw, I'm going to copy this to the Categorization Dept, which is where this discussion really belongs. Girolamo Savonarola 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing references for actors - IMDB enough?
Hello fell WikiProject people. I've been working hard on all things Bergman over the last few months. I've added quite a few actors that have appeared in several of his movies. One example being Sven-Eric Gamble. Not long after it's creation a tag was put on it saying it does not cite any references or sources. Fine, I have no problem with that. However, I did link the actor to his IMDB page. Is that enough? I have read about using/not using IMDB as a source on here, but I find it difficult of where to turn to next. Now obviously both here and IMDB rely on users to supply data for articles, but surely it's a good enough source when creating a new article on a film and/or actor? In this person's case, he's on IMDB with some 60+ film credits to his name. What other sources are recommended if IMDB isn't the sole one? Thanks in advance! Lugnuts 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDb clearly cites end credits as their source, so it's fine when it comes to filmographies. Alientraveller 20:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDb is increasingly unreliable as a source except for hard facts. Reasons include questionable editorial control, attribution, corroboration. Trivia, bios, things like that, can be written by anyone, bios are attributed (but the authors may not be reliable sources), but other items are not (that is, no trail back to who contributed the information). Linking to an IMDB entry sounds fine, but for facts used in WP articles, I would prefer seeing sources which pass the RS criteria. Just my .02.... David Spalding (  ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on the bio, trivia, goofs, etc, but on the basic listing of x person was in y film(s) I would assume that it's pretty reliable. I would never cite IMDB on some trivial matter relating to an actor, but I would always use it as a starting point when creating an article on a film/actor. Lugnuts 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the common points I believe that believe we reached in the Citing IMDb discussion was that the source was considered reliable enough with regards to the filmographies. Beyond that, there was little consensus. Why your article was tagged likely had to do with several factors, and was not necessarily to do with the IMDb per se. Girolamo Savonarola 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actor filmography templates
A numer hav been listed at tfd. Please add specialist veiwpoint to the discussion if appropriate. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05 5 August 2007 (GMT).

Help with improving an article
Hey guys, I'd like to ask for help improving a page I recently created John "Bluto" Blutarsky. This includes pictures, sources and any information you can add.

Thanks, James  Luftan  contribs 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not sure if the character is notable enough to warrant his own article. Generally, characters that appear in only a single film are not notable.  I think that this character would have some notability in popular culture due to his antics in the film, but I'm not sure if it entails the creation of his own article..  It may be better to develop content on the film article itself, and per WP:SS, if there is abundant content after all provided about the character, the fictional character article can be re-established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Erik - is there a reason why this character actually needs an article independent from Animal House? Why is the coverage there lacking, and if so, why can't it be improved upon there? Girolamo Savonarola 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I figured he was notable since television characters that Bluto is way more notable than, have articles. Hell, Jeff Spicoli has an article. James  Luftan  contribs 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that article could probably be merged into the respective film, too, having little content to it. There's not much page history, and the talk page hasn't been touched.  Articles on TV characters tend to be more notable because there's more development involved, more detail (in terms of background and real-world context) provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I guess I'd like to request deletion. James  Luftan  contribs 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)