Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films 

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
WikiProject Films announcements and open tasks
watch · · discuss

Article reviews • Assessment • Core articles • Requested articles • Stubs needing expansion
Featured article candidates 
Pather Panchali
Other featured content candidates 
Vernon and Irene Castle
A-Class review  
Rang De Basanti • Little Miss Sunshine
Good article candidates 
Full list...
Articles for deletion
Featured article review 
Peer review [Attention needed!] (update list)
The Lion King • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull • Army of Darkness • Delicatessen • Toy Story • Bugs Bunny • 10 Things I Hate About You • The Usual Suspects
Articles needing attention 
...and copy edit • ...to expand beyond Stub • ...to add requested images • ...to add infoboxes • ...to add a synopsis • ...to add a cast section • ...to turn sections into prose • ...to trivia • Unassessed • Requested
View full version (with task force lists)
Shortcuts:
WT:FILM
WT:FILMS


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
About archives

Contents
WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
 → Naming conventions talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Cleanup listing talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk


C-Class discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Consensus was not to adopt C-Class in the project assessment scheme. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:

Arguments for C-Class
  • More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
  • It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
  • For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).
Arguments against C-Class
  • The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
  • Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
  • The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
  • This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
  • There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
  • More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.

So we can determine consensus in WP Films, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Films assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on July 25, 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. I do support adopting this change. Yes, it might take a bit of sorting before the criteria is completely clear, but then the line between some of these classes has always been a bit tenuous. There is a huge difference between Start and B-Class, and I've hestitated in the past to assess some article as a B-Class based on just a bit more information and some subheadings. It takes everyone a little time to learn the difference between any given pair of classes, this will be no different, and it is a welcome step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I support this. (though I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote, I'm not a member of the project, though I am interested in editing film articles. If I'm not, go ahead and delete this.) I think the gap between Start and B is too big, this will make things clearer and easier to edit, as well as giving more concrete things for editors to aim for. - Dalta (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. As a substantial WikiProject well-equipped to enforce its own standards, I don't think we need concern ourselves with C-Class. Article assessment can be subjective at the best of times, and throwing another grade into the mix can only make this more so without offering any real benefit. A mass reassessment of Start-Class and B-Class articles would be a monumental waste of time and effort. We should be less concerned with assessing articles, and more concerned with improving them. PC78 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure that anyone is proposing a massive reassessment of articles, but that the class be incorporated from ratification onward. I agree that a mass effort would be a waste of time, but there is a huge gap in quality of articles from start to B.
    Of course there is a big gap, and so there should be. But if you close that gap and blur the lines between grades, how does that help? In what way will it be easier to determine whether an article is C-Class or B-Class than under the current system? PC78 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I opposed the initial C class addition to the V1.0 Assessment scale itself, and still don't believe it to be necessary. I've seen many large projects rejecting C class, while some smaller projects that have the resources and limited articles, adopting the class. For our project, I think that the differences between Start and B class are sufficient enough, and adding this additional class will result in a large reassessment campaign when we should be shifting our focus on improving the articles. I'm not stressing that this is just an increase in workload, but am also thinking of the long-term effects, including the possibility of further additions/removals of classes in the future. We need to concentrate our efforts on working to properly tag/review the B class articles, and improve the number of GA/A/FAs within the project rather than reclassifying our Start class articles. (And don't worry, this isn't an oppose vote just because I recently created the Start to B Class template! We can modify this if consensus supports the class.) --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. I oppose C-Class since it strikes me as additional red tape. I'm not sure if the implementation of this class would be a boon to WP:FILM, and I agree with PC78, we should instead use the effort to focus on improving articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. I just recently converted my vote. I believe it wont actually help us so much as just wasting time by forcing a huge reassesment of articles. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. I have to agree with Nehrams and PC78 above. I really don't think it is necessary and makes assessment more complicated than necessary. I also believe the distinction between a start and B-class is enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  1. -The line between "Start" class and "B" class has always been thin. Though I propose that we don't go into support of this (immediatly, that doesn't mean don't vote) until we see an example of a C-class article. I run the risk of sounding like a hippocrite, considering I asked if an article I've worked on quite a bit has met criteria, before being told we haven't gone into much of a discussion regarding our support of it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not certain that we can determine standards until we decide if we need a new class. The current classes already have standardized criteria, so presumably a C-Class article would fall somewhere in-between. The question at the moment is whether or not there is a need for another classification in between our current standards for Start and B. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    One assumes that if we decide to adopt C-Class, we will also be adopting the same (or similar) standards specified in {{Grading scheme}}, so it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a few examples. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) perhaps, as opposed to Alien 3 which is more what I'd expect from a B-Class article. On a related note, and irrespective of how this debate turns out, will we be adopting the more stringent criteria for B-Class? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    That would seem to be a given, with C-Class somewhere less so and B-Class incorporating, perhaps, more film specifics. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    We actually already have stringent criteria for B-class articles (see the project banner for anything rated B-class or below), but unfortunately I've been too distracted with task force tagging for some time now to have given much priority to the massive backlog of articles requiring a B-Class review. The coordinators have started discussing doing a general Tag and Assess Drive in the coming months, and I've broached the idea of first running a pilot drive to handle this backlog (with the side-benefit of testing out in practice what does and doesn't work well with drives by targeting a thousand articles before blindly starting a 45k-article re-evaluation of all of our articles). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, OK. I was looking at the assessment scale, which has no mention of this. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if Giro has the correct link above, but the actual proposals and subsequent ratification vote for C-Class is here. PC78 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    The proposals and vote are also linked, IIRC, from the link I provided. The results of the vote and implementations, however, might be of more interest with regards to this discussion, which is not about the larger issues of general Wikipedia-wide assessment and the 1.0 project. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Can someone explain what "A-Class", "B-Class" and "C-Class" is? I would read about it on the Wikipedia space, but I don't know where to start looking for that type of information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades should tell you what you want to know. Steve T • C 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. I've added a note about C-Class to the {{Film grading scheme}}, kinda like what they've got over at WP:MHA. Might prevent any unnecessary questions about why we don't (yet?) have it, and perhaps even draw a few more people to this discussion. I do hope we won't be stuck at 3-3 on the 25th! :) PC78 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Can I change my mind now and put my vote for support? Upon inspection of the Wikiproject: Military History criteria, I decided that I think it would be best to adopt a more strict criteria for B-class and (though mass reassignment would be a waste) get some articles reassesed on any editors own time. In short, I think the classes we currently have are quite fitting. Yojimbo501 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    You can of course always change your mind, but I'm confused if you support the new class or think that our current scheme is fine - it reads like you're saying both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    Does it really? Not intentional. Well, I'll breifly repeat what I mean. I support having a stricter B-class criteria, gradually reassesing some articles, but I've decided C-class is a waste of time and doesn't really improve an article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. I shall stand by what I've said above, at least for now. However, I admit that I'm warming a little to the idea of C-Class. Consider these points: 1) If the criteria for B-Class has already been tightened, then the inevitable downgrading of some articles widens the gap between Start-Class, allowing for the inclusion of an intermediate C-Class. 2) Over at WikiProject Biography, someone requested an assessment for an article. I gave it a Start-Class rating, and left a note that if it offered a little more depth and coverage then it might be eligable for C-Class. Within 24 hours, the user who made the request had gone back and expanded the article, then resubmitted the request, and I promptly increased the assessment to C-Class. If the inclusion of another grade promps such behaviour from some users, then isn't that a good thing? PC78 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think that is one of the more salient points in adopting the C-Class. I think editors sometimes balk at trying to raise an article from Start, which is sometimes only different from Stub by a few minor points, to a B-Class. This provides another level of improvement. Meanwhile, I note that of the four who registered an opposition, three of them have cited a need for a massive reassessment, which isn't at all what is being proposed in adding in a new level of quality assessment. There is a huge leap between instituting a class from ratification and a massive effort to reassess all the articles at its inception. Nowhere have I seen this in the proposal and I honestly don't think it is a valid reason to avoid the change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    "Arguments against C-Class" above suggests such a mass reassessment. Of course it wouldn't be necessary, though some users might be tempted to take it upon themselves. It isn't my sole reason for opposition, though. PC78 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I guess if it makes people want to work a little harder, it's good, but I'd hoped editors would work as hard as they can anyways. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Renaming of filming terms

I've noticed a few articles on filming terms that use (film) to disambiguate the specific term, and I think this is an inappropriate disambiguation for articles not about individual films. I think we should expand WP:NCF to set a standard for disambiguating the terms. Here are the various formats I've found:

I think that "film term" seems to be a fair enough catch-all, but I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of these should be moved to more properly reflect naming conventions, for example, "shot" which should be disambiguated with "(filmmaking)" rather than "(film)", which implies that the article is about a film entitled Shot rather than a technique used in filmmaking. There are many others like this one on the list. I'll wait until more feedback first, but I'll likely move these if there's no objection. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So are you advocating "filmmaking" as the disambiguation term? I'm just trying to sidestep any fallacies in using a term, since "filmmaking" may not be accurate. For example, a certain way of marketing a film that needs to be disambiguated would not technically be filmmaking. Hence why I'm considering "film term" to be the catch-all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the above that "film" is an unacceptable disambiguator which could lead to confusion with actual film articles. I have no strong feelings over a preffered disambiguator, though I was leaning towards "filmmaking". I do think "terminology" would be better than "term", though. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistake Erik, PC is right; it should be "film terminology", because of accuracy and simplicity. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "film terminology" works well, too. Let's hear from more editors to establish a solid consensus so we don't deal with a shuffling nightmare over a disagreement. Two more issues related to this that I'd like to bring up, though... one is, what if the terminology applies to television as well as film? I just came across Split screen (film), which occurs in both media. Secondly, would it be a good idea to pursue a category called Category:Film terminology? Looking at the current categories for the various terminologies, it seems to be a bit of a mess. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes to the category. :) Regarding terminology usage in television, perhaps it might be as well to raise the issue with the TV Project? PC78 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:Film and video terminology, by the way. I'll see what the TV WikiProject does for such terminology. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Articles about television, "Articles which relate to general concepts related to television technology, terminology, and industry (but not programming) should use (television)." That might be why articles related to filmmaking get disambiguated with (film). I'll initiate a discussion over there and see what could work out best, since there may be overlap in terms of film and television production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well since television shows have "TV series" in the brackets there is no wonder terms have "television" in bracket. But with movies, I agree that it should be film term, film terminology or whatever eliminates the confusion of people thinking the article is about a movie. "Shot" could very well be a crime movie with guns used a lot, when "Shot (film)" comes to my mind, I don't see a movie term in my mind, what I see is an R-rated movie with a lot of swearing and violence. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that kind of confusion can be avoided with a proper move. Also, digging in further, I've found the article Motion picture terminology, which lists technologies and terminologies. This could be moved to Film terminology and be used as a guide for our little renaming task. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'd wait for more input, however. We need more than just a couple of people for this to work. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Film terminology" largely works for me too, both as an article title for "Movie terminology" and as the bracketed disambiguator. Though some might be more appropriate as "Film and TV terminology". I'll help with the moves & category additions should it be decided this is the way to go (and provided it hasn't all been done by the time I'm back on in 8-9 hours or so). We should also strike out the articles named above as a batch is done, in order to prevent overlap. Steve T • C 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Movies have more than television shows. I mean movies are limited by ratings while television shows have more limit, there is a small limit how how much bleeding can be in a television show and what words can be used. So no, I don't think "Film and TV terminology" would be such a good idea.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain that I'm game for "film terminology", because for the vast preponderance of these articles, they are about concepts and things, not terms. In other words, were the article about a slangy phrase for something like the "martini shot" or whatnot, then certainly the terminology parenthetical might make sense. But the supposed gaffer (film terminology) is not about the term gaffer (although doubtless the term will be explained); it's about what a gaffer is and how this came about. In theory, every thing is a term for something, but the question is whether it's primary just a bit of terminology or something of further substance. Therefore, from the current options, I'd be most disposed towards (filmmaking). Filmmaking itself is a catch-all term for any sort of motion-picture production work, regardless of format or medium, so all the handwringing about television isn't really appropriate - we're not calling it feature-film-making, after all. Anyways, that's my spare change. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, Girolamo; the disambiguation term {filmmaking) does seem more substantial. Does that mean, though, it would be appropriate to have Trailer (filmmaking)? It doesn't quite seem to mesh... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It only should work where it makes sense. In that case, is there a reason why film trailer is insufficient? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Movie trailer is a common term, so yeah there is no reason the article can't be called film trailer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How about Private screening (filmmaking), then? What I'm trying to get at is that there are topics in the film industry that are not directly pertinent to filmmaking, but marketing instead. I'm just not sure if "filmmaking" is quite the catch-all. It seems to come close, but not entirely. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree. My point is that not everything needs a parenthetical to begin with. So, why not private screening? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even check to see what else was called "private screening". We can definitely move that one with ease. Still, though, we won't have simple solutions like that for "trailer" or "private screening". I don't know if any other examples apply, but what if with new topics, we have to disambiguate the film-related topics and (filmmaking) does not fit? I'm just trying to iron out all possible fallacies... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(outdent) I'm just saying let's see where the specific issues are and deal with them on a case-by-case as they arise. Just because this doesn't fit every situation doesn't mean that it can't handle most of them well. I am dubious that there is any solution that will handle everything and be satisfactory to most of us. But I think we can all agree that where there is not need for dabbing, or where the term can be slightly and uncontroversially renamed (e.g. trailer to film trailer), we can avoid the question entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I am getting ahead of myself in wanting to establish a universal standard for such topics from hereon. I think for the most part, (filmmaking) will work as the disambiguation term, but I think that there may be marketing-related terms that are better suited with other terms down the road. To inquire the editors who have been following this and any others, would (filmmaking) be an acceptable term instead of (film terminology), per Girolamo's reasoning above? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Let's do it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Trailer (film) was moved to Film trailer. Can we get further input from other editors to move articles that need disambiguation to (filmmaking)? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's get to it. "Filmmaking" won't be the best fit for all of them, so let's just take those as they come up, using our best judgement. Steve T • C 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
EDITCONFLICT (bah!): I'm happy with "filmmaking" in general, though as said above it won't be a perfect fit for all. Snipe (theatrical) seems to be more about advertising than actual filmmaking, and Cue (theatrical) covers theatre as well. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Weird, I was just about to mention Snipe. I'll keep that where it is barring a better available term. Steve T • C 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Film snipe, perhaps? Acting cue? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds good to me. We could also just diambiguate Snipe with Snipe (film terminology) as originally planned, though. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already discussed above why that may not be a good option. Anyway, IMHO, parentheticals are far uglier than regular titles, assuming all else is equal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... just gone and moved Pick-up (film), but when I went to fix the incoming links it was commonly piped as "pick up filming" or "pick up shoot" etc. Perhaps something like this would have been more appropriate? PC78 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You can move that page to more appropriate spots, but I try to avoid moving pages, because it can be a pain in the ass to fix 1,000+ incoming links. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. Thankfully I had to deal with a far more managable number of links (about ten or so). :) PC78 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Why bother? The only important thing is changing the redirects, unless the old name is going to be taken over by a different article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to MOSFILM regarding non-free images

Hello, I've proposed a component to be added to WP:MOSFILM regarding non-free images. Please see the discussion here. Thank you! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled out a draft addressing non-free images at WT:MOSFILM#Draft. Please take the time to review it and provide constructive criticism! This will provide more structure and less confusion about implementing non-free images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions on subtitles

We're having a discussion on naming conventions regarding subtitles, where editors have differing viewpoints. It's at WT:RFC#Subtitles in naming, if anyone is interested. kelvSYC (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To make a correction, the discussion is at WT:NC#RFC: Subtitles in naming. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When is too little too little?

An interesting point that came up on the talk page at MOS:FILM. It seems to be accepted as the standard that a film article have an infobox, and that the infobox display a film poster. Which is fine. However, fair use images are supposed to provide "critical commentary", and not be used "solely for illustration". Take an article such as My Teacher, Mr. Kim: does a stub of this length provide enough cricical commentary to justify the inclusion of a fair use image? And if not, what is the minimum standard we should be aiming for? PC78 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We use the poster image in the infobox for identification purposes; I don't see how the length of the article would affect the fair-use intent in that regard. (Obviously a more substantial article is more desirable, but if it is decided that images need more text to justify themselves, then the solution is to add more text, not delete the image until more text arrives in order to re-add the image.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that's the problem: the very license that we use for these images explicity states "not solely for illustration". That may of course be a rather stringent interpretation of fair use requirements; I don't have any strong feelings on the issue, it's just something that came up over a larger discussion of image use in film articles. You're quite right in saying that such articles require expansion, not having their images removed (I'm not suggesting we do so). I guess the question I'm really asking is this: Should the image have been added to the article in the first place? PC78 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that there may be images in long-standing stubs, and there may be images in stubs about upcoming films. A potentially important difference is that an upcoming film's stub may have further expansion, since I know an editor who keeps up with new poster image releases and uploads them, creating new stubs to add them if necessary. Long-standing stubs, though, are likely to be challenged. Justification could be easily established with a few new sections and a few new references. Unlike some other instances on Wikipedia, I don't think poster images are viewed as quite as gratuitous. Ultimately, I think we work with the assumption, "It will be a full article someday." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason Beghe up for Peer review

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jason Beghe/archive1. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut (film)

I noticed that this article talks about the technique, the action, "Cut". However, as an IMDb search reveals, there are nine films also titled Cut. Should Cut be moved to Cut (filmmaking technique or something like that? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We've actually been discussing this in one of the threads above; I would anticipate that this will not remain the article's title much longer. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved Cut (film) to Cut (filmmaking). At the present, there is Cut (2000 film). Should I file a move request to move to Cut (film) in the meantime? In the future, if other articles are created for the films called Cut, we can create and move where necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)

A note to the members of the filmproject. Today User:XxJoshuaxX performed a series of moves and redirects to move the page for this film so that there would be a small "o" rather than a capital "O" for the word "over". Now I know that this is grammatically correct but I was under the impression that when it comes to film titles that we followed what was seen onscreen and/or what is used most often in referring to the film. Of the dozen or so websites that I have gone to they capital "O" for the word over. So many edits were made that I am not sure what to do to restore the page if that is what we want done. On the other hand if the members of the project are OK with this move then so be it. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation. The pages for the book and play have been moved also. Thanks for your time and efforts for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be something worth bringing up at WT:NC, since they may be more experienced in such matters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it grammatically correct? I was under the impression that "over" should always be capitalized in titles, while "with" shouldn't be. Any case, s

ome reference to grammar material would be handy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:CAPS may be a better option, focusing on capitalization. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the person who did the move cited WP:NC as the reason for the move, however, the section on that page that directs "over" to be a lowercase word is only in the section Wikipedia:NC#Album and song titles and band names. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:NC#Books - literary works states Use the title of the work as the article's title, following all applicable general conventions. WP:NC-BK#Capitalization says that Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from "lowercase second and subsequent words". The actual title of this book, and the resulting film, is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I believe this move was unwarranted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on Wildhartlivie's information, I think we need to undo the moves made with the book article, the film article, and the play article. We should contact the editor and file a request at WP:RM since the moves cannot be reverted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that whatever the grammatical version, the "actual" screen title should prevail. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
Be aware that at [1], the decision for a move is being discussed and at this point, other voices are in favour. If you are not in favour of this controversial move, please make your comment there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
We generally do not go with the "actual" screen title because oftentimes graphic designers will use odd orthography for presentation purposes. The naming conventions exist for a reason - standardization. There is leeway for notable exceptions, but they should be exceptions which have specific reasons. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a series?

Talk:Batman_Begins#The_Preceding_Movie for relevant troubles. Because Christopher Nolan's two films have no relation to the prior four, and those four none to the 1966 Adam West movie, these would appear to be different series about the same character. However, the discussion is whether or not all should be seen as one series. There seems to be concern that if we say all related films constitute a single series, then editors on some 'series' could argue for 'in-universe chronology' order, as opposed to production order. I think it can be established easily that related films constitute a series, reboots constitute a new series especially when reliable sources support that there is a reboot occurring, without opening the door to In-universe ordering ,which was already present as a 'non-problem'. For example ,Star Wars pages don't' order it by chapter but by production. Given the number of reboots currently occurring, esp. in sci-fi and superhero films, a policy needs be established. Otherwise, we open the door to a major issue, in that every making of pride and prejudice should be considered part of a 'pride and prejudice' series. Instead, I propose that where we have clear citation of a related set of movies, we consider it a series, and where we have citation that a new film of the same (or similar) title and characters represents a clean break and new set of stories, we consider that a second, third or whatever series. This would not interfere with Examples in the linked thread like the Halloween series, as those films have citation about the 'different scare every October' concept originally conceived of, while allowing stand-alone reboots like Hulk/The Incredible Hulk; The Punisher/The Punisher/Punisher:War Zone; Batman (Burton/Schumacher)/Batman (Nolan) and so on to be managed in a way which does not include internal contradictions. Thus a rule might be:

A Film Series constitutes those films for which citation and references demonstrate a clear intended connection on the part of the producers and writers, and should be ordered according to the production dates for purposes of determining preceding and following films in the infobox. Rely upon good prose writing in the body to clarify as needed, and to make clear the breaks between a given series and a later reboot.

thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A film series is a film series, no matter who reboots the continuity. The James Bond films have almost zero continuity with each other, does that mean that there should be no "preceded by" and "followed by" sections? Why are we giving preference to those people that reboot a series? The fact that they chose to ignore previous continuity is irrelevant to the fact that it is still film #X in that list of films from that series. If you look at Batman, who ever said that Batman Forever was in continuity with Batman Returns? There is no mentioning of the previous events in those Shumacher films, does that mean his two films are their own series? Halloween III has nothing to do with any of the other Halloween films, not a single thing, should we remove it from the "preceded by" and "followed by" sections simply because the "real" series is Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI? What about Halloween H20, which retcons everything after Halloween II? A "reboot" is the same thing as a "retcon", the only difference is that it's ignoring everything instead of specific details. It seems that limiting the definition of "series" to "clearly intended connections" (regardless of sources) is nothing but providing a way for "fans" (and I don't use that term as an insult) to determine what films should be present. Maybe Shumacher felt Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were part of Burton's films, but Burton hated those films so much that he didn't consider them part of his series (<--This is hypothetical, so don't tear my head of with "he's never said that"). There are plenty of people that hate Shumacher and his Bat-nipples, and probably don't consider his films to be related to Burton's films. If Burton says they aren't, does that mean we should separate them? I think not. I think that we shouldn't be playing "favorites" here, and have one set standard. The Pride & Prejudice example doesn't float because there isn't a "series" of Pride & Prejudice films, there are constant remakes of the same film over and over again. Should we link them in the infobox (preceded by 1967 - followed by 1977), maybe so just to keep the standard, but it's a little different when you have a "series" of films with new stories based on the same characters and a "series" of films that remake the exact same story over and over again. Technially, Batman Begins is part of the Warner Bros. Batman film series, because THEY own the films, not Burton, Shumacher, or Nolan. Even if they were to change hands, it's still all part of a set series of theatrical releases about a particular comic book character. That is what makes it a "series". It is a series of Batman films, not "Nolan's personal series" or "Burton's personal series".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see it that way. I'm not giving preference to fans, I'm deferring to the reliable sources who say 'this film is unrelated to those old films'. It's using RS like it's supposed to. As for Halloween, we know that #3 is a part of that series because there had been an intent to do a different story each time, not all michael myers. As for H20 and such, they're all the same production company, and meant to build upon the same basic story. If production company and ownership is a part of things, then Hulk and Incredible Hulk are clearly unrelated, because not only do we have RS, but we have different production companies. Same for the Punisher films. but in cases where we do have the same production company, we need to figure things out more. James Bond apparently rebooted with Casino Royale, but it's owned by the same company. That, like Batman, provides us with problems. And frankly, as companies merge and conglomerate, this problem will probably get worse. We need to determine what's what. Perhaps we can consider all films attached to a character fro ma given company (or the new comapny, if acquisition is involved) as a 'Franchise', and the related films as series, meaning batman would have one franchise, two series, and a one-off film. WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into this. Films that we have multiple sources saying 'not connected' shouldn't be connected by an ephemeral perceived fungibility based on 'the character's still owned by the same company, so it's all the same'. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated in continuity, but not unrelated when it comes to what they are, which is another film in the series of films about said character. First, Dimension Films made H20, they did not make Halloween I and Halloween II....or IV and V for that matter. They didn't acquire the rights till VI. You are making this all about continuity, and YOU'RE choosing what continuity is relevant based on who says it is? You're not being objective, you're looking of people that say, "this film is not connected to the previous films because it starts the story over". Does that really mean that is isn't part of the same film series? No. It means that it's part of a new continuity. You're trying to attach this fannish "canon" aspect to the film's when it isn't relevant. Who cares that Batman & Robin isn't connected to Batman Begins, it's still part of the giant film series on the character of Batman. If you want to use commonsense, then use it to realize that "followed by" is not necessarily (nor has it every truly been established as such) about what film follows one in continuity, but merely what film was released after this one. Hell, how would you handle Superman Returns? Technically, it's a reboot of the franchise, but it also kind of follows after Superman II. It negates Superman III and IV, but at the same time does not officially declare continuity with Superman I or II. It falls into this loop hole of in AND out of continuity, reboot/retcon. Is it part of the Salkind film series, or is it its own film? If we chose your method, we'd have a mighty large dilemma on our hands. If it's part of the Salkind films then it goes at the end, but since the Salkinds didn't make this film and it effectively ignores two of the Salkind films, does that mean it's its own new series that just uses previous films as backstory? Now, with my method, we have an objective, standard operation. It's all part of the series of films released about Superman, thus it goes at the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Superman's not a hard example, we have Singer's direct comments that he built upon those two, and not hte other two. It's part of the same series, but needs some explanation int he prose, like I proposed. Same for Halloween. There's nothing 'fannish' about making clear to readers which films constitute a continuity. Finally, that's exactly the question I'm as king here. What should we use to define a "series"? You are saying well ,we have a series here and here, thus we know what a 'series' is, and this is a series. I'm saying ,should a series be all movies about a character, in which case from 1943 to 2008 is one batman series, and 1940 to 2005 is one pride and prejudice series, and 1930something to 1990's is one romeo and juliet series. Further, under your assertion, all three Casino Royales are all part ofthe 'James Bond series'. We need a clear definition of how Wikipedia will define a Series, and a Film franchise, and are they the same, or one a subset of the other? if subsets, then which it the larger and which the smaller? Please do not define the series by extant definitions of the series already on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are including serials, which are not feature films. The series of feature films on Batman spans 1966 to 2008, and that is how it should read. You are trying to give preference to these select groups that follow the same "continuity". This is an encyclopedia, we should treat it as such. Batman Begins clearly states in the lead that it reboots the continuity of the film series (notice how the lead actually refers to the film series as a whole and doesn't say "starts its own new series"). What you are trying to do is say that we need to segregate the films into who is directly connected to who, while I'm opting for a more objective approach that lists them ALL in the order of their release. It doesn't take precedent over which films are part of the same continuity, which hardly matters (except to fans). We can cover continuity changes in the prose of the article. Your rebuttle argument for Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice is based around using examples that are ALL exact replicas of each other, only released at different years. There is no "series" there. The Batman film series is a series of films on Batman. The same goes for Superman, Friday the 13th, James Bond, so forth and so on. There is no series of films about Pride & Prejudice, there is a "set" of Pride & Prejudice remakes, which is completely different. There is no change to the film itself, it's an exact replica using different actors every few years. It's not a series of films, it's a set of the same film refilmed over and over again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to take the time just yet to get caught up in this, but The Dark Knight is recognized as the sixth Batman film, in line with what Bignole was saying about companies' franchises. The 1966 Batman isn't a part of it since it was a spin-off of the TV show. Just wanted to throw that in. (By the way, it may be worth taking a break and seeing if other editors will pitch in with their perspectives, so don't get too long in the tooth with this back-and-forth banter.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(EC)No, it's not different, per your argument that movies about the same characters constitutes a series. Let's hold off on this and wait for more input. and "Batman film series" is not the same as "a series of films on Batman." Consider that I point to the superhero shelf in a big box store and say sir, here are all our superhero films. There's a series of Punisher films, a series of batman films and so on". ALternately, I go to a film class, and hear 'Today we'll be discussing pop cultural trend reflections in mainstream film. Consider, for example the Batman film series you all saw as kids in the 1990's.' In the first, you're being told here's all our films in a messy pile. In the second, you're being specifically referred to a set of related films all of which reflect the teacher's topic. (Industrial, Goth, Techno and Rave, by the way). The aisle jockey sees the label 'superhero' and lumps it all together. The professor sees a group of closely related films supervised by the same guys at the same time with citation that they're related. That professor, looking at the same citation we use, would suggest that the Nolan films are a different series. You keep insisting I'm talking about in-universe, while I keep explicitly talking about real world stuff.
I think the best think now is to let others reply, we've both given quite a bit of fat to chew. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a way to mask an insult by referring to me as an aisle jockey and you as a professor. Nice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Woah, totally not. Trying to show that two different perspectives exist on it, but the question is which way is right for wikipedia. No insult intended. After a couple years of working well together, I think you'd know better, and I hope you'll understand that's not my intent here. ThuranX (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I think both of you make good arguments, but we should remember that we are not limited to filling out the preceded_by= and followed_by= fields. We have ample space in film articles' lead sections (and the relevant sections) to explain the development history and the changes in continuity. I think that there are imperfections with both parties' arguments, considering the messiness of how storylines will reboot, will be reinserted, or will convene (think The Avengers). My impression is that it would be best to follow a chronological production order and use the article to explain what is new and different about the film. The film infobox should contain simple, out-of-universe information... if there are discrepancies with directing credits or writing credits, we elaborate on that within the article. Another possible solution is to identify films as "(reboot)" in the field... for example, at Batman & Robin, we'd have the link: Batman Begins (reboot). Although I don't know what the inverse of a reboot is. :) I think that even if we look to reliable sources, we're going to have different perspectives anyway. For example, in the business of making money, it would be focused on the franchise. In the business of academic criticism, I think it could actually go two ways: the overall cinematic role of a superhero (or superheroes) or a director's interpretation of the superhero(es). Just my thoughts so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one myself. I think that for the purposes of the film infobox, however, it was meant to connect films that were explicitly part of the same storyline, so I would lean against including every film in the franchise in a connected fashion. (In any case, it would be expected that the lead would mention connections between prior serieses within the franchise, as well as whatever footer template for the franchise would occupy the bottom of the article.) These have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, so simply saying, "but James Bond" isn't really a worthy comparison until we look at the Bond series as well and decide how to handle that against the intended parameter function. (And deciding whether Superman Returns follows Superman 2 or Superman 4 is going to be a whole 'nother can of worms no matter what...) In other words, let's hammer out how we want this to function in the abstract first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion either way. Both sets of information could be entered in the "followed by" field (eg. Batman and Robin could have "End (series)" and "Batman Begins (franchise)" separated by a line break). Succession boxes in the footer are easier to implement with additional information to specify the franchise/series or series/sub-series continuity. It's more complicated but another field could possibly be added to the infobox as "franchise" (separate articles already exist for Batman (film series) and James Bond (film series) for this field to link to).
As an added complication, how do you intend to include the animated films, which intercut the production runs of the live action series? The serials have been mentioned but feature film versions were often created from them (although I don't know if this was the case with the Batman serials). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Blimey, if the infobox fields are causing this much bother, why not just get rid of them? PC78 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Cutting the Gordian Knot, are we? :) I would not mind doing this, since we can use the lead section to point out a film's predecessor and successor, as well as explain the connection between them. It's a big step, though... do others see problems with this? Obviously, we'd need to go through Category:Sequel films and ensure mention of the predecessor/successor in absence of these fields (if it is decided to remove them). It does make it so much easier for straightforward sequels, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so in favor of cutting the infoboxes. The above about listing with tagging notes MIGHT work, but I'd really prefer that instead we use Franchise for all character related movies, and Series for each continuity. Most of these changes could be handled with a bot and a few page moves. As to the animated movies, since most have zero bearing on the live action films (I can think of a single case where it bounced back and forth, TMNT), and thus shouldn't affect things. All the comics related animations are already separated, so that presents no problem. ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Me either - were we to get rid of everything which presented a small fraction of cases where there was disagreement, we'd have no tools or templates at all. The solution is to discuss this and figure out what guidelines to implement. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but being on the ouside of this discussion looking in, it does appear to be a matter of extreme triviality. Of all the things we could be noting in the infobox, do we really need to be saying whether or not a film is a "reboot" of a franchise? As Erik says, there is ample space within the article itself to discuss such things. To pick two such "reboots" off the top of my head: Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond series, and yet is still regarded as the 21st Bond film; the new Star Trek film is a reboot/prequel, but it's still the 11th Trek film. And again, as Erik says above, there are plenty of sources that refer to The Dark Knight as the "sixth" Batman film. The infobox is supposed to provide a snapshot of cold, hard facts, and the fact is that Batman & Robin is the "preceeding" film to Batman Begins. Any talk of a reboot and its significance should be discussed and cited in the actual article. But as a solution to the problem, I would much rather lose the two infobox fields than have the infobox littered with notes about "reboots" and such. PC78 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought on this: