Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 2 

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Haneke quote

Cinema being 24 lies a second is generally attributed to Brian De Palma who said it much earlier. [1]

The documentary A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies can be cited as a source for the De Palma quote, although he probably said it in other occasions.

Hi All.

I am a huge movie buff and I love looking up artciles on movies after I watch them. Anyways, I am always watching most Batman Related Movies.

Pages worked on: The_Karate_Kid to The_Karate_Kid (film)

Groundhog Day (film) - Removed Rating that was placed on page; Added WikiProjectFilms in Description.
The Day After Tomorrow (film) - Moved the page to (film); Added WikiProjectFilms in Description; Dave (film) - Lots of changes.

--^BuGs^ 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you change The Karate Kid to The Karate Kid (film)? MechBrowman 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought that was the standered being used for films. Tell me if I am wrong. --^BuGs^ 16:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). We only use (film) if there is another article that would have the same name. Since there is no other article named The_Karate_Kid, there is no need to put (film) on the end. Thanks for your contributions, though -- perhaps you could also help renaming the remaining (movie) articles to (film)? The JPS 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Roger on that. Now I understand... ok. I will look for (movies) and change them to (film) --^BuGs^ 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Style - Article body

Wouldn't it make more sense to move the Plot section to the end of the main article body? As it stands, the plot becomes the cast section. Wouldn't someone interested in the movie but not having seen it be a little annoyed at having to try to get past the plot section, which we've helpfully marked with a spoiler warning, to find out who was in the movie? (Example: Rush (1991 film)) I would think that all of the information that doesn't give the movie away should be before the plot, which does. You can call me Al 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No matter how you style it, the plot will always show. If I goto the end of the page, to see related links, I am going to go right by it. If people were looking up the movie on a "Encyclopedia" they want to know information about it. --^BuGs^ 07:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Day After

I'm currently working on the article to The Day After, which has potential to eventually be a featured article. Any comments, criticism, and contributions are greatly appreciated. You can discuss on the talk page/edit it or leave comments on the page's Peer Review page. Thanks. Volatile 03:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It certainly desrves featured status, eventually. That is a brilliant, thought provoking movie. The Wookieepedian 12:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't (film) have to be added? --^BuGs^ 02:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally I dislike the bracketted (film) extension on the titles of articles about films, but its a useful navigational aid. In this case, the title does probably does not need a disambiguation page, so a redirect page The Day After (film) would be fine.--ChrisJMoor 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

er...can't think of a headline, sorry

um...ooops, i didn't really read the bit about 'wikiproject' before I edit the film Constantine, but seriously, it really needs an update so I just kind of wrote a film summary. am I suppose to? *confuse*

No what you did was fine, but you can say how the film says ends. Don't forget to add a {{spoiler}} tag. It was nice that the synopsis wasn't too detailed. Sometimes people go over board in that section. MechBrowman 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Me again

um...I'm a huge 'random movies that no one ever heard of' fan and I only just realise that heaps of movie aren't in wikipedia. For example, 'a return to Salem's Lot', sequel to 'Salem's Lot' by Stephen King. I mean, it's really quite a famous movie (although old), so yea. Oh! and wikipedia is seriously lack of foreign film (thing i'm best at cuz no one ever understand them) so yea, I think you guys should really kind of check out the movies...

I'm not a pro (in fact, I suck) at writing articles but is that alright if I just occasionally edit some movies? thanks

Ps. just to let you guys know, curry pie tastes so much more better without tomato sauce

AC 07:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of notable films

Think all the interesting movies have been covered? Think that they all have infoboxes? You might be surprised what films are missing. I have created a list of notable films (critically acclaimed or large box office) that may not be covered in wikipedia as part of the Missing Encyclopedic Article wikiproject. The goal ultimately is to reduce the list to nothing, creating articles or redirects for redlinked movies and removing valid blue links (movie is covered, has an infobox) for other movies in the lists. For a comparison, you may want to see the companion list, list of notable albums. Any area where you can help would be awesome. Thanks!!! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to give you an update on the progress of this subproject. Almost all of the lists have been pruned and the remaining articles have been sorted according to whether it needs an article to be created or an infobox added to make it "complete". The good news is that ~15% of the films on the list were missing, but about 50% need an infobox. It's been good work so far, thanks for everyone's contributions. Special thanks to Bobet and User:Steve Eifert for helping prune the list.

Hello

I joined yesterday and would like to alert all project members to two articles that need improvement: Rumor Has It and Victim.--HistoricalPisces 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Film crew

I started a temporary page to help merge/improve the quality of film crew and filming production roles in October and after working on it solo for a while, took a month break from the project. In the meantime, no one has really contributed to the effort, despite some support for it on the Talk:Film crew page. Anyone wanting to help out, please do! It would be much appreciated. On an unrelated note, it might be time to archive this page, no? -Parallel or Together? 02:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is done. Please feel free to still check out and help at the improved film crew page, though. -Parallel or Together ? 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I will fix all the film crew stuff tomarrow --Kylehamilton 09:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions about what is and isn't a spoiler?

Although I think identifying spoilers in films are easier to do than for some other forms of entertainment, project members might consider contributing their insights to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Screenshots allowed for films?

I have not seen people post many screenshots for films, is it alright to put a few screenshots for particular films in say a particular section? A bit like the sections that are done for computer games and consoles (E.G. Wikipedia N64 Screenshots)

Lummie 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You can if you have to, but you must follow Fair Use guidelines and use them sparingly. MechBrowman 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a situation where free use images are rarely available. Wikipedia:Image description page gives info about, for example, setting out a fair use rationale. As a general rule they should not be used purely for decorative purposes, and as MechBrowman said, should be used sparingly. The images used should illustrate points made in the text (ie they should be relevant) and the relationship between image and text can be explained in the fair use rationale. Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) was recently a featured article of the day, and it includes a few screenshots, if you want to look at the images as examples. Rossrs 08:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, publicity photos taken on the set are copyright, but open to use in conjunction with publicity and reference (which this falls into). Thephotoplayer 05:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a “no cover” pic for our film articles?

That’s the question. When we don’t have an album cover, we put the following image: image:Nocover.gif. But what happens when we don’t have an image for our articles about films? I have written a small article about Brennu-Njálssaga and even though I tried to find the image cover for centuries, I couldn’t. I had to put my own version of a no cover pic: image:Missing_image.png. Is this OK? I have another article to publish with no image and I don’t know what to do. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its better to use nothing than to have image that says there is no imgae available. The image you created is also problematic, unlike Nocover.gif which says no image available, Missing_image.png makes it look like an error message. Missing_image.png sounds like it can't load the image or it can't find the image in the database. MechBrowman 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
So, I will work on it again. Unfortunately, the Nocover.gif used in music albums has a CD case on it and that makes it not suitable for films. Luis María Benítez 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What about the time that could be spent adding the file to the articles? Couldn't this time be more productively spent finding and uploading proper images? The JPS 08:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes in the infobox

The infobox code was recently changed, so some of the field descriptions would need to be included on the project page here. Template talk:Infobox Movie/Syntax Guide already covers their use, so maybe just linking to it would suffice? Having this information in two different places is counterproductive, so I'd appreciate suggestions for merging them. - Bobet 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awards

I added an awards section to The Last Seduction, using the wikitable format. Looks good? Bad? Improvements? Troy34 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would look better if you seperated the table by which awards were won, and which it was just nominated for. I think it's awkward having the result column. I like the way Blade Runner organizes it, a minimal use of a table. MechBrowman 20:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe The Last Seduction was a bad example. I've made an awards list for the Godfather, but put it on my page so it wouldn't bog down this page or it's movie page. Any suggestions? Troy34 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should concentrate on the clearly major awards, especially in the case of a film like Godfather. Adding huge lists of awards on a page isn't really useful, since very few people would want to read through them all. The general appearance of the table is a question of personal preference. I'd like it more if there were no lines between cells, and the headers were lighter, making it more discreet. - Bobet 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree on the personal preference of the look on the table, i am open to ideas to change it to something everyone will use as we're going for consistany on all pages. I disagree on only putting in major awards. We're building an encyclopedia and, in my humble opinion, there should be as much information as possible on every page. Should we leave out some of the lesser known elements of the periodic table because most people wont read through them all? Troy34 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to put all the awards on such a large table, you could just have the major awards in the table and keep the rest as text. My personal preference is also to for the headers to be lighter. MechBrowman 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I lightened up the headers. Looks better. More? Troy34 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks a great deal better, a real difference. MechBrowman 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

plot

Quite a few film articles have long plot sections, is it a good idea to break up those that do into subheadings? I've also noticed that there are some plot sections which are written in film-review style where they dont include spoilers, or try to only give an introduction to the plot, rather than providing details. Is it alright to include the entire plot because there is the {{spoiler}} template?---- Astrokey44|talk 12:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is alright and generally prefered to include the entire plot. But subheadings should not be used in Plot summaries, and plot summaries should be kept short and sweet. It shouldn't be a detailed outline of every plot point and detail. MechBrowman 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think more significant films should have longer plot summaries though ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Trailers on Commons

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Please, add some screenshots from american trailer's movies released before 1964 on Commons, il you have some. licence. Thanks a lot. Petrusbarbygere 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The first quote was cool. The second quote was cute. This most recent quote addition is tedious. I think everyone knows that film is important. There doesn't need to be self congratulatory quotes about how important this project is. If there is no objection, I will remove all/some of the quotes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would just keep the first one. Gflores Talk 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I say spread 'em. NuclearFunk 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Spreading them might be a good idea, actually... there is a lot of blank space next to the TOC? The JPS 09:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Endings

I'm a little unsure if it's OK to put endings in the movie pages, for example The Ring, The Sixth Sense, and other thriller movies. I'm guessing it's a no, from what I've seen, but I'm not entirely certain. Gflores Talk 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is alright to mention the ending, just include the {{spoilers}} tag. MechBrowman 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think one thing that can separate Wikipedia film articles from IMDB (and the jillions of movie review sites) is that opinion is replaced with production facts and plot synopses, including details about the ending. The most culturally significant thing about many films is the ending. There are lots of other places readers can go to decide if they want to see the movie. --Tysto 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Are there any ideas/guidelines about what external links should be included in articles about films, and how many external links are too many? I'm of the view that random news articles/commentaries from regional newspapers aren't notable enough to be included, and that links to yahoo chat groups and otehr random discussion lists don't belong either. Wikipedia:External links suggests that fan sites might be okay, but I'm inclined to think that it would have to be an official and/or notable fansite, and not some random board that somebody created. There have been numerous reverts at Brokeback Mountain over that past few days with annonymous users putting up (arguably not notable) external links that keep getting taken down. What is the best way to deal with this? Should we create a guideline for external links on movie sites? -- Adz 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

With there being a link to each film's IMDb page in the infobox, does there really need to be repetition in the External Links area of each film? Lady Aleena | Talk 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Lady Aleena on the IMDB page under external links. Many film pages that have an infobox have just the one external link to the IMDB page. But there doesn't seem to be any point. I think it should be deleted if there is an infobox for the page. Lummie 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Film/source - separate articles?

Greetings all - I see that in many cases, a film based on a book or event has its own article (Rebecca (novel)/Rebecca (film)), while in (seemingly) just as many others, the source and the film are combined into one article (Clear and Present Danger). In some cases, the film and source title differ (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?/Blade Runner); in some they are the same (see Rebecca). Is there a standard or preference? This is the kind of thing I could happily sink my teeth into. Has it been discussed already elsewhere? Cheers, Her Pegship 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My own thought is that they should be separated into two articles because many of the details are quite different, especially if you start working with infoboxes. A film is an entirely different beast than it's source and it's easier to read when the two are apart. I think in most cases where they are covered together is simply for convenience rather than any convention stated here. As the article expands though, separate articles are usually created. A rule of thumb might be, split unless it makes the source and the film into stubs.
If you are looking for potential articles to disambiguate check out the notable film list where some of the article that primarily cover the source material and not the film are specified, though certainly not all of them. Hope that helps! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have undertaken this satisfyingly meticulous task. Cheers again - Her Pegship 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for foreign films

My apologies if this has been dealt with earlier, but is there a convention for naming foreign films? I've seen both where the title is the original release name in the country of origin (L'homme du train), and where it is the English release title (Manon of the Springs). Most articles are good in that they provide redirects for the English release title and the foreign title but it is strange to see a title (Le Salaire de la Peur) with an release poster in English. There needs to be some consistency either way, though I personally favor the English release title. See Category:Films by country for examples of both, though French films seems to have the most movies with original release name. If there isn't a policy then a straw poll should be done to see which is prefered. Whatever is decided should also go into the naming conventions policy. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest, but am I going to get any response on this?! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd vote for using English for the article's title, with a redirect from the original-language title. And if there's no image of the original-language poster available, I think the English poster should be used only if the film has been translated and re-released in English. Don't know if this makes sense, but it's my $.02. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
In the English section of Wikipedia, I say stick with the English title. Same goes for the other languages, use the language to decide which title to use. Lady Aleena | Talk 23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I generally agree, but there are many cases where a film is known mainly by its untranslated title in the English-speaking world. Hence Ikiru, not To Live. Don't go overboard in translating article titles into English. --dm (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Template:Infobox Film rating Template:Infobox Film rating

How about creating an "Ratings" template? That way it does not have to be integral with the Template:Infobox Movie. Steven McCrary 21:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How about the rating template at right. It is at Template:Infobox Movie rating I have implemented it on Groundhog Day (film). Comments? Steven McCrary 13:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose for mentioning the film's rating? MechBrowman 14:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Information, that's all (not trying to be coy). For some people, ratings are controversial, for others not. For some people, ratings are very important; for others not. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
If the rating was contorversial than it should be mentioned within the article, and if you really want to put in ratings than why not mention them somewhere in the content of the article? I do not understand why you feel a template is needed for information that can be very arbitrary and even changes over time (and if different from country to country). MechBrowman 17:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
see comment below The JPS. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


I think that the ratings should be implemented in the main infobox_movie because having more than one template one above the other may not look so good when they don't have the same width. you see, after I've removed the (thumb) from the movie poster on groundhog day's article, the infobox became wider than the your template.. btw: see my suggestion about having the movie sequels in the infobox at the bottom of this article. --Amr Hassan 14:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I see you've fixed the width of the template to be as the infobox .. but how do you know that it's gonna fit all the other infoboxes on the other movie articles ?? and btw. I think that the 300px movie poster width is the most popular here .. --Amr Hassan 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
True enough, and that could be a problem. I like your suggestion about implementation as found in albums. Until the Infobox Movie is updated, I plan on using this one. Until then, I am resolved to keep all images to 210px. Steven McCrary 14:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I added another parameter to Infobox_Movie_rating that allows the user to vary the width on the article page. The examples at the right show the feature. Steven McCrary 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with MechBrowman that inclusion is superfluous. The template provides a link to the IMDB for a reason. For films where the ratings are controversial, they should be discussed properly, within context, in the article. The JPS 17:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Putting the rating(s) in a template provides a standard location for that information. To me, not providing a rating summary is a significant piece of missing information that helps to summarize the movie's content. Following the IMDB logic to extreme would mean elimination of most (if not all) of the information in the Infobox_Movie template. Which eventually leads to why put any information here that is on IMDb (or any other movie web site), a discussion already occuring elsewhere on this page. The controversies and changes in ratings can still be brought up in the article. Steven McCrary 18:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion of actors, writers, producers and directors enables wikilinks to (potential) articles about those individuals, something which the IMDB cannot provide. Ratings do not summarize a movie's content. Why did they obtain that rating? Strong violence or graphic sex scenes, or both, or something else...? Comlpeting Infobox_Movie can be tedious enough without having to add superfluous info. The JPS 18:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
  1. I see the benefit of actors, writers, ..., etc. Good point. But what about the duplicity (with what is on IMDb) of information regarding budget of a film? run time? Should they should be moved to the article?
  2. Do not understand the comment, "ratings do not summarize a movie's content." It certainly suggests the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content, etc. Aren't those summaries? I believe it is important information about the movie, and is important to Wikipedia's audience.
Steven McCrary 19:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of budgets and run times being included either. (Running times have far too many variants anyway). If a film's budget is relevant, then it should be discussed in context (i.e. the most expensive film since x until y in 19zz). It's a field I usually leave blank when I'm adding this template to film articles, unless it can be found very easily.
Ratings are too reductive to be useful for an encyclopedia. They may be useful for parents, etc, trying to decide if a film is suitable (wikipedia is not a video guide) for family consumption. For an encyclopedia, however, the range of elements which could inflict a high rating means that on their own they are pretty much useless. They may "suggest the level of violence, sex, and maturity of content", but not accurately report it, within context. A film does dot need to be explicit in all areas to receive a 18, or R, or whatever... sex, violence, drug use... which is it? They tell us very little. The JPS 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I use Wikipedia over IMDb as a movie guide. Lady Aleena | Talk 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points, well stated! I agree they are reductive, and without the reasoning they mean nothing (note I did include the "for" parameter in the Infobox_Movies_rating), and agreed that Wikipedia is not a video guide. Thanks for the perspective.
The best example that comes to my mind is the rating given to the movie A Clockwork Orange. The movie originally appeared in 1971 with an "X" rating. I was a child then (12), but still remember the hooplah associated with that rating. In college, I read the book, as you know, a masterpiece of literature, nevertheless a brutal tale. Only recently did I rent and watch the video, now with an "R" rating. The point is that those ratings communicated content of that movie. I am not sure that words could adequately describe the brutality of that movie (or of those individuals). But a rating does, in my view, along with the reason. I think people understand thresholds of values and a rating systems communicates those thresholds in a manner words do not.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince you of my viewpoint, only communicate it.
Steven McCrary 21:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with a ratings template is that that are likely to be presented with American ratings only. They won't relate to readers in other countries that use different ratings, based on different criteria. Having them in the article where they can be explained is a great idea, but just having a rating in the infobox serves little purpose, I think. Rossrs 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be in the main movie template, it's easier to find if you wanted to know that info. --Revolución (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why movie ratings have to be kept separate from the main {{Infobox Movie}} template. this template is where the reader goes to get a quick rundown of the film's basic facts, such as starring cast members, runtime, budget, etc. Why should film ratings get their own template? — EagleOne\Talk 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, the ratings discussion was deleted. I do not remember that being a resolved issue. I am reverting it. Steven McCrary 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No wonder why I did not see it.... In response to reading the discussion I agree. having the ratings in is not a good idea. Overtime the ratings change and they don't mean the same thing as they once did. the MPAA does this based only on the context of socity. If there is a vote, I am a strong no even in the current template. --^BuGs^ 00:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Bugs on this one I belive that we should add rateings to the Wiki pages, a films rateing can reflect a socitys view on a topic for its time. The Wiki should have as much infomation as possable on this subject. I am a Yes for adding the movie rateings and I and a Yes for adding budget infomation and what have you on film pages. --Kylehamilton 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a straw poll of the ratings issue:

PRO-6

  • Steven McCrary
  • Amr Hassan
  • Revolución
  • EagleOne
  • Kylehamilton
  • MikeBriggs

CON-4

  • MechBrowman
  • The JPS
  • Rossrs
  • Bugs

Logo/Image for Project

I created this image right before I head to bed... Image:Wiki_films.png Could use this on the WikiProject Film pages and I could create a Userbox template if I ever get a change at it! (Can't seem to figure it out, but I am going to ask the userbox group once you guys think of this logo. (ok bed time for me. up for 36 hours now...) --^BuGs^ 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Text is way too small to be usable, though I like the idea. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)

Hi all. I was wondering, if some of you aren't too busy, I've got a film page up for nomination and I need some fresh eyes to give it a once-over. Not for research, (although any advice would be most appreciated) but for grammar, spelling, structure, and that other nitty gritty stuff. Thanks! Palm_Dogg 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability Requirements

I think it would be helpful to have guidelines for which films not to include. A new page for the film Different For Girls was recently added, but I didn't think it seemed particularly notable. I've been searching through the project pages for guidelines on film notability requirements. I was thinking that perhaps films not listed in the List of notable films should be excluded, but anyone could add their favorite film to that list. I would personally appreciate some guidance on this, and I think the page would benefit from some sort of guideline. Thanks! --JeremyStein 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone cares enough about a movie to put it in (excluding self-promotion and other stuff like that which clearly should not be on WP), maybe someone else will care enough to search for it. So, if the article is any good, my vote is to keep it, notable or not. AdamSmithee 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The list of notable films is something you definitely should not be using as a guideline on which films to include. It's specifically used just to find articles of films whose articles are lacking and every film that has a decent article with an infobox is removed from the list. (The word 'notable' in the title of that project has nothing to do with the Wikipedia guidelines.)
It's true that there currently aren't any guidelines, but as far as I know, pretty much every film that has been released theatrically qualifies for an article, as long as there's something to say about it. I don't think I've ever seen a non-student film on afd. - Bobet 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Different For Girls is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles, which is why I added a page for it. It is notable because it covers a transgender theme, and there aren't many films that cover this theme in a positve light. Anyone researching transgender and looking for films that deal with the subject should be able to find this film listed.--Athena2006 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with AdamSmithee on the subject of adding films to the wiki we should add any film that isnt blantent self promotion --Kylehamilton 08:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Taglines

I wondered what the Film project recommended regarding "tagline" notes on film articles. On the Syriana article, I removed the line with the tagline for several reasons: 1) it's just thrown into the article near the beginning, without any regard to structure; 2) it doesn't seem encyclopedic. I think that the taglines are often placed in film articles because IMDb does the same thing, but to me, they often seem out of place and not important enough to note (it's just a marketing motto). I think they should only be included if they are somehow relevant to the article. I checked this WikiProject's talk archives to see if there were any guidelines regarding taglines; all I found was a note here, but there wasn't much discussion, so I thought I'd pose the question here: Should, in your opinions, taglines be included in articles or not? – Mipadi 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts? – Mipadi 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree, almost all taglines are unencyclopedic. Only a few are worth mentioning. An example of a tagline worth mentioning is "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water." for Jaws 2. That tagline was extremely succesful and still reconigzed today. In the cases with notable taglines they still should only placed within text as prose. MechBrowman 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Most film articles have a Trivia/Notes/Miscallenous section. If you think that the tagline for a film is not particularly relevant you could move it to the Trivia section. Otherwise, I'm for keeping taglines AdamSmithee 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally like the way taglines are being used in leads. For example Tagline:Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water. I think so far it works well, it may not be that relevent in all cases, but its interesting. Forever young 07:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
But that's out of place—it's basically just thrown into the article. Many articles have a block of text, and then just a line like Tagline: Tagline here. The article loses flow when it's thrown in. – Mipadi 08:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

External links to reviews

A couple of questions:

  1. Is there a general guideline for externally linking reviews in film articles?
  2. What would be the reaction if a professional film reviewer was found to be linking his own reviews in a large number of film articles? (I can guess, but I just want to verify my assumption.)

Thanks. android79 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No no NO! I have reverted the "addition" of at least one of these reviewers trying to draw attention to themselves. Feel free to revert them or you can also leave me a message with the user as it will be much easier for me to revert their changes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
By "large number", I mean two dozen or so. It won't be terribly hard to revert these. The user in question is Thereeldeal (talk · contribs); I asked him if he was the reviewer he was linking to and he admitted it openly, so I don't think there is any bad faith involved. I've already told him that what he's doing is probably not a good thing; he appears to have stopped, and I am awaiting further response. If I don't get one in the next day or so, I'll revert all his links. You are welcome to do so without my approval, of course. android79 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes...Mr Sells. This would be the second time that I have reverted his edits. The first time was not a couple films it was every film he had reviewed [2]. I try my best to AGF, but this was a spamming of wikipedia and I think should be treated as such. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thanks for your work at AFD. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he continued as an anon for a bit after I warned his registered account. Thanks for tipping me off to the anon. android79 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Film related featured articles?

just to inform you you can vote to support Horror film as a featured article by voting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horror film/archive1 - i dont think i've ever seen a film-related featured article, at least not one that isnt just a specific film, and specific film info is better served at imdb anyway. these kinds of genre articles are much more informative but never get much editing attention. Niz 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Synopis guidelines

Are there any more guidelines for writing a synopsis than the Plot section? I've been tempted to add subheadings to indicate act structure, for example, and decided that that's not very valuable. At Jaws (film), I expanded the synopsis significantly, broke it up with subheads (without attempting to match act structure), and added in-line quotes. I felt it was getting a bit long, but others added some production detail that I've since moved. I also made a plea for people to be judicious about what belongs in a "synopsis," but pointing to guidelines would be a help to all (level of detail, where to put the spoiler tag, how much to reveal about "twist ending" movies, etc.). --Tysto 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis' need to be short and too the point, if you think sub-headings are needed, than there is too much detail. There is no offical guidelines, but the film featured articles are perfect examples on how to write a synopsis. MechBrowman 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This was already touched upon in an archived discussion, but the short poll didn't get much input and there are no real guidelines at the moment. As usual, the featured articles are good for comparisons, since they're supposed to be deemed good in every way by disinterested parties, see Sunset Blvd. and November (film) for examples of how the plot section is implemented. Twist endings should always be revealed if they're significant to the movie, The Sixth Sense is currently an example on how it should not be done. We're not trying to sell the film, just provide information on it. - Bobet 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. My vision of a synopsis (with subheads) is influenced by long hours of study years ago with Microsoft Cinemania. This changes my thinking, so I'll trim the Jaws (film) synopsis. But I hate "...and hilarity ensues" synopsises (and Latin plurals), so I'm happy to find that the general consensus is that a complete description is preferred. --Tysto 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

American centric

Distributed by: the film's original theatrical distributor. In the case of there being different distributors for different countries, list only the film's U.S. distributor (and its distributor in its home nation first if the film was not produced in America). You can clarify this in parentheses at the end, e.g. "Orion Pictures Corporation (USA)" if Orion only released The Terminator in the U.S.

This has to change. By all means prioritise the distributor in the home nation, but why should the US distributor always be listed, even for non-US films? Suggestion:

Distributed by: the film's original theatrical distributor. In the case of there being different distributors for different countries, list only the distributor in the country where the film was produced. You can clarify this in parentheses at the end, e.g. "Orion Pictures Corporation (USA)" if Orion only released The Terminator in the U.S.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Stevage 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much how it's done already, at least, that's what I've put in as the distributor. The wording is a bit problematic though, since "the country where the film was produced" isn't always the most relevant criteria, eg. in The Last Samurai, which I think was aimed at mainly American audiences (in that case, the distributor is the same in Japan and USA so it wouldn't make a difference, but that was the best example I could come up with). - Bobet 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well I've updated the wording. There are obviously still limitations, as noted. Stevage 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Film production

It's probably outside the scope of this project, but "principal photography" and other articles under "film production" need a lot of work. I only mention it here where film-loving Wikipedians dwell because, in my heart of hearts, I imagine that Martin Scorsese is a Wikipedian. --Tysto 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Long island project

User:ericnorcross created the page Long island project about a short film he seems to have produced (if that is his real name). I don't really know what to make of this, so I thought I'd come over here to see if anyone can verify this, thinks we should delete it, can improve upon it, etc. Cheers! Semiconscious · talk 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted as vanity. MechBrowman 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

MGM musicals

I only just found out about this WikiProject. Just FYI I've just created several articles about different MGM musicals if anyone wants to check them next to the standards being established. In the last few days I've done Ship Ahoy, I Dood It, Thousands Cheer, Till the Clouds Roll By, and Born to Dance. Except for Clouds, the other films all have Eleanor Powell in common as I'm working to fill out the redlinks in her filmography. 23skidoo 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Delinquents

It has been suggested that we "clean up" the article on Robert Altman's feature directorial debut, the 1957 film "The Delinquents" starring Tom Laughlin and Richard Bakalyan. Any suggestions for improving the article? I don't really see what's wrong with it, although it seems to read more like a review than an encyclopedia article (which is also a problem with the "Girl Can't Help It" film article, which amazingly hasn't been tagged for a clean-up yet!).

Awards line in infobox

Can someone tell me what the awards line in the infobox is for or how to use it? I tried writing in it just to test it but nothing came up. Is there any use for it? Or there is and I just haven't seen it? Thanks, Lummie 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

There's been talk about that before, at least in Template talk:Infobox Film. The template currently doesn't have a field for awards (some film infoboxes have the field, but it's not displayed), since most people seem to feel that including them in prose in the article text is better than cramming a lot of awards in the infobox. - Bobet 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I didn't think there was a need for it but just wanted to confirm. Ta Lummie 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Supervolcano (documentary)

Just a quick heads up. I removed the infobox from Supervolcano (documentary) as for some reason it was causing a PHP error (in IE if it's browser specific) on the page. Someone with a bit more knowledge can prob fix it, it's still in the page history. exolon 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignore previous, box is back and not causing a problem now. exolon 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! We don't have a userbox

What's up with that? We don't have a category under Category:Participants in WikiProjects either. You can use the generic "participant in WikiProject" box:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Films.

but I think we deserve better. :) Does anyone know how to create a userbox? Her Pegship 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Films This user is a member of WikiProject Films.


Noted and acted upon. Palm_Dogg 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Thanks, Mr./Ms. Dogg. Her Pegship 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's "Mr." Dogg, and you're welcome. :) Palm_Dogg 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Century of Cinema

I just added a new list of films, The Century of Films from The Guardian magazine. If anyone is bored and looking for something to do on the project, I think WP's coverage of foreign films and foreign directors is lacking. This list is a good place to start writing new articles and expanding existing ones in this area. Volatile 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I added redirect pages at some of the redlinks (the list contains the UK version of the titles in many cases) and fixed spelling on a couple of titles on the list, where missing dots made them into redlinks. I'll take a look at the rest after the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films are done with (not in a while) unless someone else gets to them first. - Bobet 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Images/Actor photos

Hey all. I've been checking out [3]. Seems like, from what I read in his user agreement page, that we could use some of these excellent stills for Wiki pages. Many classic film actors are missing photos, and some photos in Wiki have questionable copywrite status, so I think this page would be helpful. Anyone agree? Steve-O 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. What he's put on his page is basically a disclaimer saying that he understands the images are copyrighted and if anyone feels their rights as copyright holder have been infringed, they should let him know. That disclaimer does not automatically carry through to Wikipedia. Also, he has made no effort whatsoever to identify or acknowledge any copyright holder. Our own policies say that we should be stating who the copyright holder is but this site provides no useful information in this regard. I think some of the photographs are brilliant, but they are no freer than a multitude of dubious images currently being used on Wikipedia. I think correctly tagging them, and providing source/copyright/fair use rationales as per Wikipedia:Image description page are still as important as ever. Rossrs 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

New sub-category

Greetings all! I have been following the request to merge Category:Films based on novels with Category:Films based on books (see discussion here). As a result, I created a sub-category Category:Films based on non-fiction works. I am wondering whether Category:Films based on novels should be renamed Category:Films based on fiction works, as there are obviously films based on children's books and other forms of fiction, currently categorized under the broader Category:Films based on books. (Yes, I'm volunteering to sub-cat the articles therein.) What are your thoughts? Her Pegship 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Filmes Based on Books Taken Further

by: Lady Aleena | Talk 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the tree for this could be...

So, this would place Along Came A Spider in Category:Films based on mystery books. This would be a huge crawl, but I am willing to help with this.

This looks great. My only request would be that we drop the capital on the descriptor - e.g. mystery rather than Mystery. Caps are reserved for proper names, place names, and titles. And I can help with the crawl. :) Her Pegship 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Pegship,
The capitalization is proper in this case since the capitalized word, example Mystery, is the proper name of the genre. Also, I would seriously disagree with using the lowercase on the Bible. This is one issue that I have with the catagories here. They are not properly capitalized. Actually, they should be...

This list removed as it was a near copy of the one above.

According to A Writer's Reference (Second Edition) by Diana Hacker...
"Capitalize the first, last, and all major words in titles and subtitles of works such as books, articles, and songs." - page 180
This tells me that most articles with lowercased major words are in error. This part of the page should read Films Based on Books Taken Further (and it was renamed as such). Catagory names should follow the same rules.
Lady Aleena | Talk 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My lady - Yes, I would definitely capitalize Bible if it references THE Bible. Mea culpa. Also, I should have clarified that it's the Wikipedia naming convention to use lower case except for proper names and words that are "otherwise almost always capitalized". This is not the case in The Outside World, but it seems to work here. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Pegship - Do you think that anyone would have a problem with me creating a sign up page for this part of the overall project so that we don't step on each other's toes and know who is doing what? Maybe put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books project and adding this sub-project to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films page? Lady Aleena | Talk 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea for a Wikiproject (see this link for how to go about it). I'll sign up as soon as it's proposed. Her Pegship 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone started this already, so I joined in. Most of the categories are made per the naming conventions. See above for the categories that are already created. Category:Films based on novels needs to be cleaned out first, IMO. Lady Aleena | Talk 02:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. I proposed to make this project a sub-project of WikiProject Films not a project on its own. -LA-

PPS. I have a sign-up sheet at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books. If this is approved by others in the main project, I will create an official page for it. -LA-

Films based on books sub-project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books

Please sign up to help!

Lady Aleena

Infobox film fields (trailer/ratings)

Some people have again been adding more fields to the template without talking about it so I reverted and figured I'd ask here to get consensus about it (no one seems to read the template talk). The (certificate) ratings field has already been talked about several times and while some people think having ratings in the film articles would be useful (per talk on this page), no one's even suggested that they should be in the infobox. Plus the field was only meant for MPAA ratings, adding to systemic bias.

The other added field was for film trailers. I have no idea why that should be in an infobox, or how it belongs to an encyclopedia, please tell if you think it's a good idea to have it. - Bobet 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly against inclusion on both fields. Ratings have been discussed, and links to trailers can be put somewhere in the article, if someone feels the need to (although these are meant to be encyclopedia articles, not commercials) AdamSmithee 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a film guide. There are too many ratings to put in an infobox. Trailers should definitely not be put there. MechBrowman 17:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have said in another post on this page, I use WikiPedia as a film guide. Lady Aleena | Talk 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Against inclusion on both as previously noted. Her Pegship 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong No. This is a not a film respository. ^BuGs^ 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also against inclusion of ratings --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support for Ratings - The condition is that the ratings in the article cover all the nations where the language of the page is spoken. This would be a good measure of how various nations censors handled the film. Some nations may be more lax than others. Ratings would show the readers the attitudes of the nations. Lady Aleena | Talk 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No - we've been through this. Ratings are too reductive and can merely implicitly reflect varying cultures' attitudes, allowing incorrect assumptions to be made. The JPS 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Humor in the infobox

Four Word Film Review is a site which provides film reviews in four words or less by various users. The site covers a lot of films and could easily be added to the infobox as the films on that site have numerical ids. The reviews are humorous, but do we have to be completely serious all of the time? Lady Aleena 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have to AdamSmithee 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, it was just a thought. Lady Aleena 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AMG in the infobox

What about adding AMG to the infobox? The pages on films there are more concise than IMDb, but everything is on one page "at a glance." It would be helpful for when people are editting the pages just like IMDb.

All Movie Guide

Lady Aleena 08:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Films tasks

So I've noticed that the guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, of which I am a part-time member, have been really raking in the Featured Articles as of late. I'm guessing that, in addition to being really smart and well-motivated, it's also due to their task bar. I noticed that the Portal:Film site wasn't really using theirs and since the Featured Portal:War shares theirs with their respective WikiProject, I figured WP Films could do the same. I put in as much info as I could find, but if you guys like it, feel free to expand it. If not, my apologies, but I really though the project could use some sort of central coordinating template. Palm_Dogg 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indian cinema

As we already have a WikiProject Indian cinema, I don't think it makes sense to add the template of this project to films that have to do with Indian cinema per se. It may be better to continue this discussion at that project's talkpage for better response. --Gurubrahma 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sundance

Just wanted to let the members of this project know that I've created a list of films that have been shown at Sundance Film Festival. It can be found at List of Sundance Film Festival selections. It has about all of the information needed for the 2006 festival thanks to the handy festival film guide that I picked up. I'm going to hit up some people I know to get copies of guides from previous years so hopefully the other years will be as complete as the 2006 section is. I've also been working on getting all of the films shown at the festival tagged with Category:XXXX Sundance Film Festival where XXXX is the year that the movie was shown. I've seen some that are both a year before and a year after the other mentions of years in the article and on imdb, so please check the year before you tag all of your favotire films. And finaly the category of Category:Sundance Film Festival award winners has been created for all of the award winners. This year there were 27 awards given out, so there should be quite a few films in both categories. —A 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Awards revisited

Over at Talk:Brokeback Mountain there has been much discussion on the subject of Awards and I was surprised that there was no guidance, actually no mention of Awards in the article structure currently endorsed by this project. There is obviously a wide range of ways the subject is handled depending on the film/article so this is probably something that should be addressed. Key questions:

  1. Should awards be mentioned in the lead? Which are notable enough for that prominence? (just Oscars? Golden Globes?)
  2. Should Awards be a top level section? Or a section within Reception? Should it include nominations (as a subsection?) or just awards won?
  3. Should listed awards be limited or complete? What criteria should be used to limit? Notability? Quantified how? Only those awarding organizations with WP articles?

Discuss. :-) AUTiger ʃ talk/work 07:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of disaster movies

Has anyone checked the list of disaster movies?, because its almos completeted. Storm05 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why have a list and a cat? Isn't a cat enough?? imo, lists should be for chronological occurrences etc. and cats are much better in terms of organising. --Gurubrahma 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

creation of a template for Jean-Luc Godard

in order to make a film portal that is easier and quicker to use, i move that we need to create a template such as the on used for the films of Federico Fellini, except for Jean-Luc Goddard

to keep it simple, i would suggest that it be the same format, just with information for godard in place of fellini.--zachjones4 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Knights (film)

Could you lot either find sources for this article or put it up for AfD please? Thanks in advance, --Jamdav86 11:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on afd now. - Bobet 12:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion...

Which group should I address regarding my thoughts on Kurosawa's "Rhapsody in August"? I would like to discuss with someone regarding some edits I would like to make to the entry. Thanks in advance! Vnv lain 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article's talk page (at Talk:Rhapsody in August) is usually the best place for this. Sometimes it can take a while to get answers there, but you'll usually get an audience that's interested on the particular subject. If no one answers, or if you feel like it, you can always be bold and just edit the page and see if it sticks. Since you probably got here through a link on the talk page you probably looked there already. The template at the top of talk pages is just used to inform people of this wikiproject and as far as I know this talk page is used for more general topics about film-related articles. - Bobet 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help in Films based on books

Our project can always use more input. Stop by any time. Her Pegship 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct stub category?

Which is the preferred category for film genre stubs, Category:Film genre stub categories or Category:Film Genre stubs? Thanks - Her Pegship 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Film Genre stubs, since Category:Film genre stub categories only contains 2 subcategories. They'll get categorized correctly when you tag them with {{film-genre-stub}} anyway, there's no need to worry about stub categories. - Bobet 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing some stub sorting, so I just wondered why there are two sub-cats that sound so similar. Thanks. Her Pegship 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking job titles?

In a film article is it the norm to link the roles of the various crew mentioned? I thought it was standard practice to link for example [[Actor]], [[Film director|director]], [[Screen writer|writer]], [[Film producer|producer]], [[Costume design|Costume designer]] etc However, I've seen people unlinking these with the justification that they are common enough terms for the average reader to understand without requiring links and that such linking is "overwikification". Alternatively, couldn't these terms be linked by default within the infoboxes? Gram 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to link job titles in films or not?? Gram 16:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no standard on this. My personal preference is to link, but... do what you consider best AdamSmithee 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

16 Blocks....

....based on Elmore Leonard's "Last Train to Yuma" at all? Story sure sounds similar.

New stub type?

I see that {{drama-film-stub}} is taking on a life of its own and will soon be moving out on its own and contributing to Wikipedia *g* ...Drama is such a broad genre it becomes a catch-all. Would it be appropriate (as I see with {{HK-film-stub}} and {{Japan-film-stub}}) to create more "country" film stubs to siphon off some of these? Maybe the top film-producing countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, Australia, South America? This would be a sub-cat of {{film-stub}}. I will post a proposal at the stub sorting project for discussion. Her Pegship 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion concerning this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. - Bobet 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox and category

Hi everyone, I've changed {{User WikiProject Films}} to include a category link to Category:Participants in WikiProject Films. This category seemed to only have this talk page as a member. Now, anyone using the WikiProject Films userbox will be sorted into this category as well. Yorick 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

I've removed the fair use image from the infobox; per Wikipedia fair use policy #9, use of fair use images should be avoided outside the article namespace. Feel free to revert if this edit was in error. --Muchness 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Wikipedia:Article assessment is currently accepting submissions for "1980s comedy films". Next week all the submissions will be assessed. Please consider adding a submission and helping with the assessments next week. violet/riga (t) 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub and Category List

Is it possible to get a concise list of appropriate stubs and categories to use in articles on the main project page, so occasional editors don't have to search through the huge talk page to try and find some? Thanks - Nekura 22:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of stubs at the beginning of Cat:Film stubs and at Wikipedia stub types, and you can browse Cat:Film for sub-cats. Her Pegship 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Best Picture Project?

How about a Best Picture Project? I just went through and added the {{Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture}} template to each article and on the way I noticed that some of those articles are no more than stubs and some of them could become featured with a little extra work. I would like to start a project with the goals (1) Standardize those articles (to a reasonable degree) (2) Make sure that all of them have critical information on Plot/Production/Response, etc. (3) Add Images (4) Link to Wikiquote, etc. Let me know if anyone else is interested or if anyone has some ideas as to more project goals. I won't start this until we have a handful of people who are at least tenuously committed. savidan(talk)