Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Filmmaking task force/Archive 1

List of completed articles
I'd like to suggest keeping a list on this project page of articles that have been completed (revised), or perhaps a section to nominate articles for completion and then a section for completed articles - so that we may keep track of the work done. I'll first nominate Techniscope, as I believe that's about as thorough as it can be without naming the individuals responsible for the creation of the format (which I cannot currently find in my resources). Thoughts? LACameraman 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC) TSC, RCA connectors, etc., but where exactly is the line to be drawn? Similarly, with companies, clearly big studios such as Paramount are germane, as are equipment houses like Panavision or Nagra. But on the other hand, at what point are we getting more into topics like broadcasting (for tv companies) and electronics?

The other major issue is that (no big surprise), no matter how we define these boundaries, there are a LOT of articles to be tagged and then eventually edited. What I'm looking into is an easy way to track all of our tagged articles (aside from the clumsy "What Links Here" link from the template page) and then categorize them into sub-specialities for what other projects call "task forces" or "departments" - I like the latter, as its already a film production term of categorization. Eventually as more editors join this project and enough have a common departmental interest, it will be easier for these groupings to be run directly through their department teams. I'd imagine at the moment the divisions would be very general, such as "companies", "pre-production", "production", "post-production", "television", etc., but with enough people there's no reason not to break them down further into what actual departments specialize in - "sound", "camera", "lighting", "producing", "editing", etc.

So, what're everyone's thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * G - I'd vote for slowing a bit on the tagging and only tagging articles that one (or more) of us are doing significant work on. I'm noticing that I'll look at an article for revision/expansion and suddenly find myself in a three or four hour commitment to not just write/revise/expand the article but meticuliously find references - both fo rnew material and existing. This is a very time-consuming process, to say the least, that I'm taking one-at-a-time (unless they're directed related articles such as Telecine and Color grading. Although it's important to spread the word - I'd suggest limiting the tagging to only those articles that we've already started work on or are concentrating on now - lest we spread ourselves too thin. In my mind, that tag should stand for a certain level of excellence in article accuracy and thoroughness (while falling in line with potential Wiki FA status), not just a random stamp to be applied to future articles. Am I alone in that? Perhaps we can make a tag for "Future WikiProject Filmmaking"?
 * As far as what topics to cover - I'd let that evolve naturally and make it a user-selected criteria. LACameraman 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was inappropriate to tag many of the optics articles with a template that claims "This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking". The articles on focal length, aperture, f-number, etc. are primarily optics articles, part of the physics Wikiproject. Of course, this is a crossover area, so these articles are equally important in photography, astronomy, microscopy, and engineering. It seems inappropriate to tag them with any one wikiproject, at least if the tag is going to have the wording "this article is part of...". In general, I suggest you avoid tagging articles on technologies whose usage is broader than just filmmaking. For example, you could tag electricity as part of this project, since you certainly need electricity to run the cameras and lights. That would be silly, though, because electricity is used much more broadly than its role in film. Similarly, the optics articles are broader in scope than filmmaking, and other specific technologies such as BNC connectors fall into this cateogory as well. Movie cameras obviously should be tagged. I'm less clear on whether general types of lens such as wide angle lens and fisheye lens should be included. That seems like a grey area.--Srleffler 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I think that these are both good criticisms, and I will retreat considerably on the tagging. However, I'd just like to say that I am unaware of any guidelines which limit an article to being under the domain of just one WikiProject. Furthermore, my justification for doing a large amount of tagging was three-fold: first of all, to get a feel for the "lay of the land" as far as what's being covered (obviously I wandered a bit too far...), to assess the state of articles in order to categorize tagged articles by the work needed for improvement (I saw a lot of potential merges, for example), and finally and perhaps most importantly, to advertise the project to editors who might only be active on a handful of those articles. In fact, the best practices page for WikiProjects specifically recommends tagging for this reason. I agree that the scope was misjudged, and will scale back accordingly, but part of the purpose behind the tagging is precisely so we know which articles need work.


 * Another of the recommended practices is to find or create one or more model articles which exemplify what we're striving for. As LACameraman has already started considerable work on 35 mm film and it is a central and broad topic to the project, I suggest that we adopt it as our current collaboration, and am going to list it as such, unless anyone has objections. Girolamo Savonarola 11:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I agree with the "advertising" concept as this project will only succeed (to any degree) if we have a considerable number of active editors who are well versed in the technology. The more the merrier, for sure. I also don't see why one article can't be part of several projects - although I'm not clear on any defined rules as far as projects - I'll defer to Girolamo for that. Please - by all means - join forces on the current piece 35 mm film. LACameraman 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found a template for this project on Talk:Extension tube. A a google search for extension tube turns up many entries for photography, but hardly any for cine. Reub2000 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikifilmschool
Is this project new? I searched for something similar before I created my own independent wiki project, Wikifilmschool, but found nothing. I'm excited about this project and eager to help out, though I will admit that the unavoidable redundancy is and overlap is not exactly idea. Nevertheless, even as set up, there are still some pretty substantial differences in the way this project and Wikifilmschool are setup. Specifically, in addition to serving as an encyclopaedia for all knowledge related to filmmaking, I would like Wikifilmschool to address subjects such as critical theory and present how-to guides. I'm of the opinion that having a wiki devoted to a particular topic that includes extensive practical knowledge (such as filmmaking) would be better served by combining both the encyclopaedic and manual elements into a single project. Yes, there will inevitably be a lot of redundancy between these two projects (and the MMM), but I hope that can be an advantage to both projects, saving time on things like templates and formatting standards. I hope that people here will consider contributing to Wikifilmschool as well; heck, redundancy's not necessarily a bad thing. In the case of a nuclear war, having information on unrelated servers will ensure that people will still know how to distribute their short film. HamillianActor 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The [| Filmmaking Wikibook] is very similar. I would say to go with the Wikibook instead. I definitely think this (and the Wikibook) is a good idea.

Glennchan 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New category?
I'l like to propose the creation of a new category for Motion Picture Technology or something similar. Rope in many of the elements we'll be dealing with into one tight category. I'm seeing sooo many articles that are somewhat related - it would be great to bring them together. IE: 35 mm film, Film, Photographic film, Silent film, History of film, Precursors of film... all of these would fit into that category (yes, I obviously consider motion picture film a technology). Is it difficult to create a new category? Anyone think I'm on crack with this? Or are we all in agreement? LACameraman 09:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but we already have Category:Film and video technology in existence. Do you mean that you want to split it further into separate film and video categories? Girolamo Savonarola 11:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That should suffice. I'll just need to learn how to apply categories. Fair enough. LACameraman 18:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New article - Color film (motion picture)
I've written a new article that focuses on the history and technology of color negative film (reversal needs to be added?) with specific regard to motion picture films. Color film (motion picture). Please feel free to revise, smooth, update as necessary. LACameraman 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Help needed over at alternate ending
The page alternate ending needs some historical background in order to beef it up, namely, key films that had alternate endings, the first known alternate endings, etc. Adam and I would greatly appreciate the help i fyou can provide it. Apologies, coincidentally, if this is the wrong WikiProject to ask for this - it's the closest one I could find. ^^;; Runa27 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the page in the Expand section of our announcements template. Girolamo Savonarola 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Next collaboration?
It seems that the collaboration on 35 mm film has been very fruitful, and when we move onto the next collaboration, it should be moved to peer review for some outside critique, and then (hopefully) progress to the real grilling of a featured article nom. (It would be nice if this were the standard order for collabs, plus it would definitely boost our trophy case of featured articles!)

So, the question is, what shall we collaborate on next? As per a recommendation from P-Chan, perhaps it would be a good idea to start at first principles and do Film. Plus, it's an article which almost all of the group should be able to improve in ways relative to each person's interests and specialties. Sound good? Have another idea? Let the noms begin. Girolamo Savonarola 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice. I was about to suggest 35 mm film as ready for peer-review, but wasn't sure if I was jumping the gun. I've never been through the PR process with an article and am a little scared about how hard it'll be ripped - but let's "throw one to the dogs," so to speak, and see how it goes. With the exception of a few not-done to-do notes, I think it's ready to roll.


 * As far as the next article, I'm iffy on Film as it's really as surface-level article, but would go along with the vote if that was the choice. My next personal focus was citations for the Panavision story (a lot of effort to reverse cite a story). I'd like to recommend Color film (motion picture) for collaboration as well. I may be biased, but I think it's ready for scrutiny and it's a good partner piece for 35 mm film - although a danger of too much redundant info? LACameraman 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote almost all of the Panavision article, so I can tell you without much hesitation that almost all of the info was derived from the sources already listed. I have been meaning to do a little more revision on the article anyway, but I think that it has too much meat already to be a collab. As for film, its generality is exactly (IMHO) why it needs to be refined. I don't think it would be too hard, since it's already been identified as an A-Class article, but it needs priority by someone, because it is highly likely to be included in Wikipedia 1.0. I'm not against color film (motion picture), but I am somewhat wary of being so camera-centric that other disciplines feel excluded, even though camera is my own speciality too. That all being said, I'm happy to continue with the camera articles if no one else suggests something different. Girolamo Savonarola 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * G- Excellent! Can you turn those Panavision references to in-line citations? Man that would save a lot of work. I've got four or five other references here to help out and beef up the citations. I see your point about being too camera-centric - but as we have so few members thus far and this is a Filmmaking project (which requires cameras), I think it's a good place to start (IMO).LACameraman 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea to revise an overall principles article, such as Film, but what about doing that with Filmmaking, since this is the WikiProject Filmmaking (and there is a WikiProject Film), that seems more appropriate as our "flag ship" article (and it could use a lot of work). HamillianActor 12:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the long wait - haven't had much free time recently. Perhaps filmmaking would be the better place to start. Sounds good to me. Anyone else want to weigh in? Girolamo Savonarola 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the appropriate place, but I’d like to offer my compliments on the superb 35 mm film article. Kudos. OldCommentator OldCommentator 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been MIA for a while now, but seeing as filmmaking was the only one with more than one vote, I'm going to make that the next collab unless there are any objections. Girolamo Savonarola 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged articles
HOLY MOLY!! There's 699 articles tagged already? Ba-woof! Okay... Now I'm really intimidated... Well, best get crackin.

At what point do we "sign off" on an article and move on? LACameraman 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a one-by-one "done and signed deal" thing, I think. Theoretically we're only done when we've reached featured article status, but as the field changes, our participants increase, and Wikipedia itself changes, there's not really a black or white distinction. The goal is to improve and coordinate; ideally this will result in a lot of FAs, but that's not per se the point. Increased accuracy and depth alone will be fine with me. Girolamo Savonarola 08:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing article title?
Hi - I'm working on the Development disambiguation page, and notice that your Development (film) page is listed there. I fully expected to find something about Kodak or one of the other film processing labs there. I discovered that it's about filmmaking; that might be a better title for the page, i.e., Development (filmmaking). Up to the project team, of course - it's just something I ran across that you might not have. Thanks. Chidom 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to script development; hopefully that will make it more comprehensible. Girolamo Savonarola 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Technical Specs
Anyone interested in working on a template for Technical Specifications for a film? The general WikiFilm template doesn't carry this information and quite often it's vital. Things like film format, color (or black and white) format, camera system, laboratory... stuff like that. It doesn't seem that this info is generally included in the articles and sometimes its critical.

Also, we don't have a userpage template yet. Any ideas? The Photoplayer 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's really more of a question for the WikiProject Films group, since it's their template. However, it shouldn't be difficult at all to implement - all it would take is a quick edit to the template itself to include those additional parameters. The hard work of course will be the content gathering. Girolamo Savonarola 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining Group
Glad to come across this. I will be happy to join and assist. I am not a technical "Wikipedia" expert, so hope my templates and grammar attain an acceptable level. My knowledge consists of mainly history of silent film companies up to the 1920's and acting and film subjects. I may not be able to contribute as much as I like, since I do go on tour quite a bit, but very happy to be a part of this. --Roger the red 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies Assistance
I just wanted to make small mention of an edit I did to this article, as well as editing other film companies articles. Not just their history, I am now interested in content as well. I was informed by editor Dpbsmith of certain Wikipedia policies that I was actually unaware of. He stated "According to longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for promoting forthcoming media releases. The material should not be reinserted until sources meeting WP:RS can be cited that show that the product a) exists, b) has received enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability, and c) can be clearly connected to the 'Subject' itself". On a side note, strangely, I found this "Promotion" all over Wikipedia, unchallenged (Which I will be working on). Continuing, this is why the editor Dpbsmith removed the reference to Wireless Mutoscopes since the editor claimed it was a "Future" reference, and only one press release for reference. Because of this, I researched the Biograph article to see anything else, and found an inclusion on "Biograph on the Moon", which 1) No link to the "Biograph Moon" inclusion, 2)It was used as a "Crystal Ball" to portray and promote something forthcoming, and 3) has received not enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Therefore I deleted it. However, the inclusion was republished with an archived link. I just need assistance, because this confuses me, is contradicting to what Dpbsmith stated, and the longhstanding WP:RS Wikipedia policies. I will investigate and contact Wikipedia, but any other help by any of the editors is greatly appreciated. Thanks, --Roger the red 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

List of color film systems
I was redirected here when trying to discuss the page "List of color film systems" which is incomplete. I believe some systems are missing, including the process called COLINCOLOR used in 1991 for Gaspar Noe's film Carne. Whoever wishes to edit the page may ask me, but I am far from being a specialist... -Beforedecay
 * I just started it yesterday and I'm currently going through it chronologically, so please be patient. For a color process to be added on the list, it is recommended (by myself) that three out of the five categories be filled.  Most important is name, year and projection method, of course.  I see that Carne was shot in 16mm.  Is ColinColor a 16mm only process?  An Eastman derivitive?  Anyone know exactly what it is?  The Photoplayer  03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what Gaspar Noé says about the "process": "En accord avec mon directeur de la photo Dominique Colin, nous avons juste rajouté un peu de doré à l'étalonnage et nous avons fait le tirage sur une pellicule à haut contraste afin d'obtenir ces teintes violacées qui rappellent les pages intérieures de Détective. Au générique, on a appelé cela le Colincolor." Translating into: On an agreement with director of photography Dominique Colin, we added in a little (gold? golden? gold tint?) during the (color timing? post-processing?) and printed on a high contrast film stock in order to obtain the purplish tones that remind of the inside spreads of (French tabloid/made-up drama magazine) Détéctive. On the credits, we called it the Colincolor". I haven't found if the "process" was reused for "Seul Contre Tous", very similar-themed film (and visually similar) yet. Source: http://www.letempsdetruittout.net/gasparnoe/index.asp?v=117 --Beforedecay 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable Films listings/Studios
I know this is sort of an iffy area for your project, but since the talk pages on the various studios have your template on them, I figure they fit the realm. On most of the major film studios, say Paramount Pictures for example, there is a listing of "notable flims" sorted by year. I think that most of these listings are a bit cluttered, and should be trimmed considerably. A listing of notable flims should be those that were high grossing, award winning or otherwise significant. I have removed a lot of redlinked flims, and I think there are also problems with some being listed over several different studios (in some cases, it's correct, but for a lot of MGM/UA, that's a hard spot) and spots for flims that have not been released yet. I'd like anyone to check out these sections and let me know what you think. I'll try to get some obvious work done on them. Burgwerworldz 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The article for Audio editing has an error
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_editing

quote:

The multi-platform package Audacity is currently the most fully-featured freeware audio editor.

should be:

The multi-platform package Audacity is currently the most fully-featured free software audio editor.

freeware is not the same than free software

for an explanation on this

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Girolamo Savonarola 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Future project development and Ideas for your consideration
Hello everyone and apologies for my fluctuating presence in recent weeks. Real world work has tended to dominate most of my life and has left me only enough free time to do basic edits in the past few months. However, I would like to let everyone know that larger changes are currently in the process of being developed and implemented. Mainly this is structural and administrative, but it should hopefully also improve our productivity immensely. Namely:
 * 1) Assessment Some of you may have already noticed that the project notices now include an assessment section. The vast majority (all but our three featured articles) are at this moment unassessed, so please feel free to dig into this massive open task (over 800 articles to go right now). There will be a subpage or subpages shortly which will describe this process in more detail, but for those ready to get their hands dirty now, you may want to get familiar with the assessment grading scheme, as well as the basic instructions to be found at Category:Filmmaking articles by quality. A bot-generated assessment table for Filmmaking is updated daily with the progress of this work.
 * 2) Subpages These will help subdivide the project's work and information efficiently while also allowing for easy transclusion of particular subpages within other project pages and templates. This is mainly re-structuring, but will also hopefully include a fair amount of project expansion.
 * 3) Navigation A new navigational sidebar is currently in the late stages of editing and will allow easy access to all project-related pages as well as being integrated into all of them. This should help clean up the project pages considerably and keep all essential information at one's fingertips.

Conversely, some things not in the pipeline yet that merit discussion:
 * 1) Outreach More in this area can always be done. Userboxes, newsletters, and invitation templates are all possibilities - what does everyone think?
 * 2) Work groups/Task forces Is it too early to start creating subgroups for particular areas within the project scope? My first interest is in cinematography, and I would certainly be interested in starting a group for this. I would hope that other areas such as editing, production, art department, companies, etc have editors who are also interested in doing the same.
 * 3) Graphics Department Anyone who would like to work on creating diagrams, animations, or the like, as well as aggressively pursuing free license images for use in articles within the project's scope. More images or better images are always very welcome!
 * 4) Design Is there anyone out there who would be interested in improving the design of the project pages? I've mainly been cannibalizing other project pages with a moderate degree of success, but it would be wonderful to see someone actually creating a unique and practical design expressly for the project.

I look forward to your comments and your edits! Girolamo Savonarola 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No infobox for filmmakers?
I want to add an infobox to Alan Goodrick (Gimpo) (an underground film maker) but I can't find a suitable box. Can you help me out please? --kingboyk 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at WikiProject Biography, which I believe has several templates for articles on people. We personally don't have a template for this, however, because the project scope is specifically exclusive of individuals. Best luck! Girolamo Savonarola 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Budget should link to film budgeting, not the generic budget
In the paperwork trail category. Glennchan 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Girolamo Savonarola 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Expand articles on shots
Hi. I see this project has started a few months ago only so you probably have a lot of projects in mind but I would like to suggest an expansion of the article shot (film) and the related long shot, medium shot, bird's eye shot, etc. They are all pretty fundamental and although the current articles are all correct (at least as far as I can tell) they could benefit a lot from expansion. In particular, it would be nice to have at least a picture for each and possibly some history (which filmmakers introduced them, what are some of the famous examples) and some technical discussions. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add them to the Requests section for the meantime. Any other articles you'd like to be added? Girolamo Savonarola 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dufaycolor
Surprised no-one had yet created this article, so I wrote it myself. It's not my area of expertise, so it may need tweaking and expanding, but if you want to add it to the project (or not) I'm not going to complain. Fourohfour 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; I've added the project template to the talk page. Note that you can do this yourself by adding to other appropriate articles' talk pages. Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really a project I was part of, so I felt it better to let those who were decide whether or not to include it. Fourohfour 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration, but you don't need to be a member to participate and vice versa. :) Please feel free to join us, though, if you want! Girolamo Savonarola 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen - Merge needed
Looks like we've been treated to an embarrassment of riches here - User WPFMK and User WikiProject Filmmaking. Many thanks to the two editors who put these together. I think that there are good features of both which can be merged together - notably categorization included, color scheme, namespace co-location, title, and link name. Perhaps Cate and Fadookie can work together to create an even better single hybrid out of these two wonderful userboxes? :) Girolamo Savonarola 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just made my version today from User WPMILHIST since I wasn't aware of an existing one. I also placed it in the project space instead of template space in an attempt to comply with the german solution, although I did make Template:User WPFMK a redirect for convenience.
 * I do like having a slightly larger "logo" image, as long as the box doesn't get taller than the standard size. Other than that I don't really have any strong opinions, and welcome any suggestions.
 * Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes having these neat little things. :)
 * -Fadookie Talk 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The two user boxes are similar, so the merge should be very simple. My comments on the differences:
 * Template name: I prefer: "Template:User WikiProject Filmmaking". It seems that majority of project have full name in Category:WikiProject_user_templates, and in template name space. Cate |Talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Immage: the size of User WPFMK is better. Cate |Talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Color 1: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Filmmaking uses blues, as my template. Cate |Talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Color 2: Template:Members uses white for the right side. But background color is better (see also Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects. Cate |Talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The. I forgot the article before the name of project. Cate |Talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. I just finished drafting several possible merges by look; I'll leave it up to someone more well-versed in template hackery to merge the "features". -Fadookie Talk 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Category: I forgot this point. My template includes also the new created category: Category:WikiProject Filmmaking participants. I think it should be included, ev. renamed according che choosen name of userbox. - Cate |Talk 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So how does this look? We can replace User WikiProject Filmmaking with this design and delete User WPFMK. I'd rather not do the actual code merge myself if possible, but I want to get a consensus on the design.

-Fadookie Talk 11:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To little discussion. So I updated the template User WikiProject Filmmaking, according Fadookie.  Maybe instead of discuss, you (members in generals) could update directly the template (see WP:Be Bold).  Cate |Talk 15:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I said before, I don't feel that I have enough knowledge of template syntax to properly merge the "features" discussed, although I was planning to give it a try at some point if nobody else would. -Fadookie Talk 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Panavision FAR
Panavision 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. Sandy (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Category
Obviously a newbie, but I think the project might be helped out dramatically if a Category:Filmmaking could be created, which would allow the members to place all the articles that this project deals with in a single category. Badbilltucker 17:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need - the project banner already transcludes a category to all talk pages. See Category:WikiProject Filmmaking. What is needed, however, is a more thorough examination of the current film categorization scheme, so that we can set up a Categorization department properly and more efficiently organize the current categorization structure for subcats. Would this interest you? Girolamo Savonarola 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WGA screenwriting credit system FAR
WGA screenwriting credit system 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. Gzkn 07:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Multi-WikiProject Collaboration
After a talk with Girolamo Savonarola, he and I believe that the Film article definately needs some working on. It is, after all, the basis for both of our projects (Filmmaking and Films). We agree that the best way to fix this is to hold a collaboration amongst both projects much like our current collaboration, with hope of turning it into a featured article. Any comments and suggestions are, of course, greatly appreciated. Please note that this will probably not occur until after the start of the new year, but all replies before that time are very helpful. Cbrown1023 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for collaboration. Feel free to vote for it here!--Supernumerary 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afriad) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)