Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Help

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Independence Day (film).

2008 Hollywood strike in "Cinema of the United States" template

I think 2008 Hollywood strike should be added to the template {{CinemaoftheUS}}. Please see the discussion at Template talk:CinemaoftheUS#Strike 2008. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:23, 09/30/2007

Forrest Gump

Looking at the Forrest Gump article, and I'm trying to figure out why four characters from the movie have separate articles (Forrest Gump (character) Jenny Curran Lieutenant Dan Taylor Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue). Is there something super important that I'm missing that gets them a separate article? None of the four articles seem to impart any different info from the main article other than to just retell the plot, again, and repeat stuff from the novel differences section, with a lack of citations on anything. Are those four pages really necessary, notable, etc? Should they be AfDed?

I'm also wondering if the Film and Novel should separate articles (also posed on Talk:Forrest_Gump page. There seems to be a lot of differences between the two, the book has a sequel, and with the film dominating the article, it seems like the book has no real chance at fair treatment or getting well documented info. Collectonian 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the book and the film should have separate articles to allow both articles to develop independently. There are enough differences, and will be more as the articles develop (eg. critical reception). --BelovedFreak 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The film and book most definitely should be split. As for the character pages, there may be argument for keeping the Gump one, since he appears across two novels and one film, but I'm guessing that the other ones are good merge candidates if they have little real-world context of enough substance to warrant an article split. Girolamo Savonarola 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the split, but anyone have any suggestions for the best way to go about it? Leave the film with the exiting article and make a new Forrest Gump (book), let the current be the book and make a new for the film, make two new and make the current a disambig, etc. *scratching head over how to try to follow the naming guides without making a huge mess* Collectonian 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just make Forrest Gump a disambiguation page, and let the reader decide if they want to go to Forrest Gump (character), Forrest Gump (novel), Forrest Gump (film), or the sequel book's page (I apologize for being too lazy to look its real title up). Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that by far the majority would be looking for the film, so this should have the Forrest Gump article name, with a couple of simple disambiguation links at the top? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: OK, the relevant section of the naming conventions reads "When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, [my emphasis] title the film article like this: Film Title (film)." As I say, my feeling is that the film is the primary article in this case, though I have little idea how popular the novel was, and will be happy to be proven wrong. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asian cinema task force

Awhile back I proposed creating a Thai film task force, which didn't really get very far because the scope is too limited. Recently, the suggestion was made to broaden things a bit and propose that Southeast Asian cinema task force be created. The proposed task force is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema. If you contribute to articles about films from Southeast Asian countries, then please list your name among the Interested Wikipedians.

A proposed task force page has also been started here.

In terms of its name and regional focus, the task force would also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, though I would expect that for article assessment purposes and talk-page banner coding it would fall strictly under WP:FILM, because some countries already have their own projects, are handling their own assessments and don't desire to fall under the broader banner of WP:Southeast Asia. — WiseKwai 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Saw III

I'm watching this page, and was wondering if I could get help in keeping an eye on it? Since the sequel and director's cut is recent, I'm not surprised to see vandals, and the situation could get worse. I have feeling that it can even be one of the most vandalized movie articles until the actual Halloween day, TheBlazikenMaster 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw, but really the best thing is just to watch the page and, if it gets too crazy, request semi-protection. Girolamo Savonarola 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been semi-protected. Greg Jones II 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Batman (1989 film)

Can you all keep an eye on this? Someone made a wreck of the talk page articlehistory and WikiProject links. I reverted it all, but I think there's a WikiProject peer review in there that's not correctly added in somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New cat warning: Category:Films with Original Screenplays

A cat which could become huge has been created: Category:Films with Original Screenplays. You might like to consider it before it's added to too many articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider what, consider deleting it? Yes I agree. It's overcategorasation if it can be called that. --Steinninn 12:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider it's worth, yup. Didn't want to send it to CFD before mentioning here (XFD involves pointless hassle if it's just going to be a keep). The JPS^{talk to me} —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have it up for deletion already, it's original research. There are many movies that could be based on something, and it isn't the same character as of the previous work. One of the stuff currently in the category for example is The Incredibles. Who says they aren't based on anything? The article does mention that they are based on the Fantastic Four. And the description is also questionable. Previously existing? What do you mean previously? They still exist. Yeah, I can think of many more stuff wrong with that category. Maybe changing the description to "not directly based...", but that would be original research too, since we don't let movies be literally everything from a book, just get rid of it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For one, it should be titled Category:Films with original screenplays... Lugnuts 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film) for featured candidate soon.

But first someone needs to get the article out of the unsourced category. Once that's finished I will go right ahead and make it a featured candidate. It looks nice, and doesn't have any tags, (except a hidden one, that's why I need help, since I can't find that small unsourced rumor.) TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I found it alright, but I don't know if it should be removed or if it can be backed up, that's why I need help. TheBlazikenMaster 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you need help with, exactly? A few Google searches may be able to help you source. If not, bring it to the talk page where you'll be likely to get into contact with those who have worked on bringing the article to GA status. You wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes. María (críticame) 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is I don't actually trust Google, as it can find every page, including pages full of bullshit. But I'll try. TheBlazikenMaster 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Google has just as much potential to find reliable sources, such as mainstream press, as it does to find unreliable ones. (And let's keep the conversation civil - there's no need for profanity.) Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about sourcing in plots of film articles

• Please see Talk:The Living Daylights. I put the GA nom on hold mostly due to a complete lack of sourcing in the plot section. Is this necessary in Wikipedia articles on films? Please give a second opinion at the article's talk page. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

I've responded there, but I'll reiterate my sentiments here that the style guidelines should be clarified so as to avoid this question, which seems to crop up again every few months. Girolamo Savonarola 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What about non-English, non-subtitled plot points in English-language films?

As you said on the film's talk page, as long as the film is available, it is the source material. But what about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The company that released the film translated the film, and although they probably screw up a few words--watch a film in dubbed mode, and in subtitle mode, and you'll find differences in words--the events of the plot are still the same. A plot section shouldn't be quoting characters all that often to begin with. If a subtitle says Finish, or French, or Australian, you can probably assume that isn't incorrect. The things that are generally incorrect in subtitles are usually words that have many meanings in different cultures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this speaks to what I'm asking, because the films in question do NOT have subtitles. These are two English-language films where one, very quick, non-English sentence occurs and it's not translated for the audience (one film's sentence is supposedly in Finnish, the other definitely in Czech). There were no subtitles for either of these snippets of dialogue -- Wiki editors have done the translations themselves. I think that the presence of the translations in Wiki could be seen as altering the meaning the plot for most English-speakers, but at the very least, I'm not sure the translations are verifiable. Therefore, I've asked if each translation requires a citation. And if it was explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or in that case, is no citation required? Alternately, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all, since there was no subtitle in the first place? --Melty girl 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky. I think it is worth mentioning in the synopsis, as long as you stress that it is not subtitled, and hence the non-Finnish viewer (i.e. 99% of the film's audience) will interpret the film differently (perhaps it belongs in a subsection of the synopsis at the end?). My two cents. As to citations, if it is mentioned in the DVD extras, cite them, because the reader is not psychic. If not, the simplest thing would be to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finland and ask someone there to verify that it is Finnish and to suggest a translation. Trouble is, any translation would be original research. Still, the pilot is probably saying something quite simple, so perhaps the best thing is to provide a transcript of the pilot's words in Finnish, followed by an English translation, so that other users can evaluate the translation to ensure its accuracy. Cop 663 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the radio dialogue impact the overall plot itself? Do we know what was actually spoken? If not on both accounts, then it probably isn't important enough to recount in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the last word spoken by the characters as the jet flies over is "Do you think he saw us?" Then the pilot says over his radio (in Finnish) "Send a helicopter". So the ending is a happy one if you speak Finnish but for everyone else it's ambiguous whether they will be rescued or not. I think this is interesting enough to be mentioned, although perhaps in a separate section, not in the synopsis itself. Cop 663 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Much agreement with your observations, Cop 663. I don't really think it should go in the Plot section, but then the question is, where to put it? And if it's not explained on the DVD, can it really translated at all without being original research? Second, about Once -- the translation there also alters the ambiguity of the plot, and perhaps more radically. One character supposedly tells the other that she loves him, but since she's speaking in Czech, neither he nor 99% of the English-speaking audience knows what she says (she refuses to translate and there are no subtitles). So the all same questions apply -- and in that case, the DVD isn't out yet. --Melty girl 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, I think I'm basically agreeing with the good Dr but anyway...] Regarding 28 Days Later: if the Finnish phrase was a whole paragraph, I'd be wary of original research, but it's only two words, "Lähetättekö helikopterin?", and I'm pretty sure I know what the latter word means! In this case, I think an English-Finnish dictionary would be an acceptable source for what "Lähetättekö" means. Again, the Finland WikiProject people would probably be glad to help. As to where to put it, perhaps in the section on alternative endings, under a subheader 'ambiguity of the original ending'?:

Regarding Once, I'm hesitant to comment on a film I haven't seen, but it seems like the audience is meant to leave asking the question "what did she say?", and since there's nothing to stop them hunting down a Czech person to reveal the answer, there's also no reason for Wikipedia to censor the information, as long as it's stressed that the line is untranslated. Again, it's just two words, "Miluju tebe", so you'd think a Czech-English dictionary would be a good enough verification. Cop 663 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Sunshine, I think in both cases, it's intended to be ambiguous, and therefore, I think it should be probably be deleted or moved to the Production section. Once is not a typical intimate "I-love-you" moment -- it isn't obvious like you suggest it might be, because the character's intention is that the other character not know what she's said. He asks her if she's still in love with her husband; she smiles enigmatically and answers in Czech. He keeps asking her to translate her answer, and she won't say and changes the subject. A Czech-speaking editor dropped by the Once page and wrote that what she says is, "It is you who I love." But an audience could not guess that that was how she answered the question about her husband. The reason I think translation qualifies as original research is because it's not verifiable -- after all, how do we know if that Czech translation is accurate? On what basis do we trust one editor's original translation?

Cop663, I think I disagree with you this time. In both cases, the non-Finnish-speaking and non-Czech-speaking audience could probably not reliably take in what the words in question were and walk away to ask. The Finnish and Czech speaking-editors say what they think the sentences were, but that's not really verifiable for the English-speaking audience or the English-speaking Wikipedia. Perhaps after the Once DVD comes out we could try to figure out what she says (or perhaps they will reveal it on the extras), but for now, how can we be absolutely sure that she does say "Miluju tebe"? Doesn't seem verifiable. And it seems like it was primarily intended to be ambiguous. So I think it shouldn't really be presented in the Plot section, since 99% of the audience wouldn't have any idea what she said. --Melty girl 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a fair point. And I can't find "Lähetättekö" in any online Finnish dictionaries, so things may be more complex than they seem. Cop 663 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lähetättekö helikopterin? = Will you send a helicopter? Lähettää is the basic form, -tkö adds the question here and -te tells that the question is addressed to multiple people. It's hard to find Finnish words in dictionaries since there are so many possible inflections for everything. Just FYI since I'm not really a reliable source for an article. - Bobet 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Would you be able to find a reliable online dictionary to footnote a translation? I would need to get the 28 Days Later DVD back from a friend and see how clearly it comes across in the film (to my non-Finnish-speaking ears) -- or do you have access to a copy? --Melty girl 07:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the film so I've no idea if there's any reason to include the line. Citing a dictionary is generally pointless, someone with some knowledge of the language would know what the base word was and could verify it by himself, someone who doesn't wouldn't be helped by linking to words that don't match the inflected form. The German and Finnish Wikipedia articles do mention the line, so you could just follow their lead and pretend that the interwikilinks in the article are sources. And the actual sentence in the film seems to be "lähetätkö helikopterin" (instead of lähetättekö), which still translates to "will you send a helicopter", it's just addressed to the singular "you". - Bobet 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those crazy Finns, always complicating matters... ;)

I think the matter comes down to one of Original research. If the director had intended us to know what the pilot was saying, then there would have been subtitling, either in the actual film or in the closed captioning. there isn't. that one editor knows Finnish means that he is applying his primary knowledge to the film, and that's not what we are supposed to do. If that's all we are going on here, it doesn't matter if it changes the ending of the film (which, imo it doesn't ; the characters though they were alonein not being zombified, and then a jet passes overhead, letting them know they aren't), any application of your knowledge is primary knowledge, and it cannot be used.

That being said, I am not sure how we jump if the Finnish wiki (didn't even know there was one) says, 'yarg, it be troo dat deh pilot, he be saying such a theeng about the helio-copter' (wait, don't all Finns sound like pirates?), as it is plot observance to them and the rest of the film is subtitled or dubbed for them. I suspect it would be akin to an Echelon-like sharing program. However, that would have tobe something that was built, as it is not something already in place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the change in the 28DL ending is not a question of whether they know they're lone surivivors or not. By the ending, they already know they're not, because they've already seen multiple jets. The issue is that supposedly the Finnish pilot's radio communication lets the audience know that he's calling for a helicopter, meaning that the protagonists will be rescued. Without that information, it is unclear whether the characters will be rescued or left where they are, since they've signaled for help previously. --Melty girl 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that if it isn't within the film's translated content itself, then it is no different than any other form of interpretive analysis, which alone would be original research. However, if a translation can be reliably sourced, it would be just as acceptable as any other NPOV-described sourced analysis. I wouldn't, however, put it in the plot section. Girolamo Savonarola 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think thats the crux of the problem here. there doesn't appear to be one, except for one contributor who input what the pilot was saying. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on where to put it if sourcing turns up. For now, I've deleted both. --Melty girl 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiously, isn't most unsubtitled speech not important at all, and just for the background? TheBlazikenMaster 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the example from Once, described above. Cop 663 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Another curious question, why is this being discussed here, instead of there? TheBlazikenMaster 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have copied most of this discussion to Talk:28_Days_Later. I hope that's OK. --Melty girl 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

People articles that were part of the Academy Award project

Hi. Just thought i'd ask what people think should be done with people articles that were part of the Academy Award project (eg Gloria Swanson). We recently changed to not having people articlces invloved with the project, but there is mention in our project scope as follows:
"(Future tagging of bio articles relevant to specific task forces may be a future extension, however.)"
Is this an instance where we should tag them? If not what should be done now that the Academy Awards project has been included in the awards task force. Cheers. RWardy 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question that I was going to bring up shortly. The awards task force scope has been confined to the awards themselves for the meantime. The reason for this is that we expanded the scope from WP Academy Awards to a task force covering all notable awards. Doing so makes almost every prominent actor or actress potentially tagged by the task force, which makes the distinction somewhat pointless. So it was thought that restricting the scope back to the awards will avoid that problem.

Now to get to the biographies question itself - yes, since we've expanded the total project scope to all film topics, it puts the question of biographies into the limelight. My opinion on this is (as ever) guided by WP MilHist - if someone's film career is a significant part of their notability, they should be added. (eg, people who have been extras in films or had minor cameo appearances should not be tagged.) However, this is as of yet unimplemented because it requires some liaising with the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup of WP Bio, which is on my Coordination to-do list, albeit somewhat lower than some other tasks. Basically, I'd like to clean up shop around here a little more before we go on tagging/assessment frenzy. Girolamo Savonarola 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the only articles that should be tagged as part of the awards task force are articles for awards themselves (each award year, award and nomination lists etc). Articles that are films or people should not be tagged as part of the task force as it currently stands.

Also does this mean that we can just remove the old academy award banner from the other (films and people) articles? Cheers. RWardy 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is all correct. Girolamo Savonarola 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Empty cats and old pages

Now that the Academy Awards banner is no longer on any pages there are several categories and pages that are no longer used. Not sure the best way to go about removing them. The actual banner itself is not used as well as the quality and importance categories. Banner is here: {{AcademyAwardsproj}} and top level categories are Category:Academy Awards articles by quality and Category:Academy Awards articles by importance. Let me know what I need to do and i'll sort it. Cheers. RWardy 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD Girolamo Savonarola 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the categories until 4 days/banner is deleted so they can be speedy deleted. RWardy 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AcademyAwardsproj

Template:AcademyAwardsproj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — RWardy 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New article

I created Durian Durian today. Please improve it? Totnesmartin 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Take a look at the WikiProject's style guidelines for films -- also, I'd suggest looking at articles that have appeared in our spotlight to see their high-quality nature. My first suggestion, though, is to insert an Infobox Film template in the article. You can copy the template from Template:Infobox Film and paste it at the very top of that film article, then fill out the attributes. Let me know if you need help with this! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Canceled Films

We need some sort of case on this. For questions: Wildroot November 1 23: 22 (UTC)

From what I've read about the film industry, it is not noteworthy for a project to fail to enter production. It's commonplace for projects to fizzle for a wide variety of reasons -- budget issues, casting issues, scripting issues, even executive preference issues. If a project enters production and collapses midway, though, that would be more significant due to the massive investment of resources that did not succeed in making a film. Liquidfinale cited a fine example of this with The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Otherwise, it is all too frequent for a project to be in development and putter around -- without entering production, there are zero concrete factors in terms of what is written in the script, who is cast into the specific roles, and how production is intended to be carried out. Prior to entering production, all these factors are up in the air. The notability guidelines for films suits this -- once a film enters production, all these resources are invested, and a film is highly likely to result save for a stroke of bad luck to shut down production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually prior to production there are only a few individuals involved, so any particularly notable info is easily integrated into their bios as appropriate, assuming that there is no prior source material. As far as cancelled films, it becomes a slippery slope. Hollywood options hundreds, if not thousands, of properties a year; from these, a high percentage receive a treatment, a smaller subset get a first draft, an even smaller subset discuss budgeting and attaching names, a yet-smaller subset go into official pre-production, another subset of those may start casting, costume design, or production design, and then a subset of that actually enters production (from which something usually emerges...) I have to agree with Erik, we can't prognosticate how far along a project will go, and prior to production, it's a slippery slope and rife with hearsay, misinformation, or none at all - and oftentimes it is economically or politically necessary for the producers to keep things in the dark during those stages of development. Girolamo Savonarola 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response guys. I recently created the Batman vs Superman article. Don't worry I supplied it with various links to back up my report. But since I can't submit it for GA status (only accepts released films), should I nominate it for "feature" film status? I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Wildroot 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - you're grateful for our responses which you apparently paid no attention to? Girolamo Savonarola 05:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He made the film article before coming here. He seems to have been in an edit war since from breaking it out of the main article. Other editors keep trying to redirect it back to the main article, but he keeps reverting and refuses to listen to the valid arguments against the article's existence. From the history, its been back and forth for the last three days or so. I suspect he came here hoping the idea would get justified by the project so he could then use that to justify this article's existence. From his contribs, he has 5 or 6 more planned for canceled Superman films.

As for the topic as a whole, in general I see no reason to have articles for canceled films. They aren't notable and little reliable information would be available. About the only exceptions I could think of would be movies that were completed, but then not actually released for some reason (like a movie being delayed because of concerns about the content or the like). For ones like this article, I agree with the discussion on the article page, if it needs mention at all, it should just be mentioned in the Superman film series page, like the rest. It is not notable enough for a separate article. Collectonian 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If it can't become a good article, what the hell makes you think it can become a featured?

As far as I know, articles have to be good FIRST before they can become featured, am I right? TheBlazikenMaster 09:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Blaziken... there's no need for that tone. It's usually the proper step for an article to become a Good Article before it goes for Featured Article status, but I don't believe it's imperative for that to happen. For Wildroot's case, the extra information that has been added has basically been an excess amount of details about the failed project, such as writing Plot and Cast sections as if the film was actually made. Additionally, rumors are cited repeatedly from sources such as Ain't It Cool News, which is not a reliable source unless information comes from primary sources (interviews, basically). There was succinct coverage of the failed project at Batman film series -- it can be expanded some more, but it needs to be void of rumors and plot detail. The former is just not verifiable, and the latter is only necessary to complement real-world context about the film. Without production and reception and only minor verifiable coverage about writing, such excess information about the possible plot is not important. Like Girolamo stated before, Hollywood goes through many, many scripts that never actually go into production -- an example like this one just has a fan base that provides more rumors about its development than other projects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought all articles needed to be good articles first. I guess there are some exceptions.

Yes, I am calm. I only used a little bit of a cuss word, sorry if I offended you by that. I only wanted to use that word in a good way.

Back on topic. In my opinion, canceled movies should only have their own article if they have been announced for so long, and got canceled like few days before they were supposed to be in movie theaters. In other words if there is enough info. Movies that get canceled before there is an official confirmation that the movie is going to be made, can be in its related articles (article about the movie series, or something like that)

Yes, that's my opinion about this. I hope my opinions are useful. TheBlazikenMaster 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards - duplicate articles

Isn't this article just a poor-man's version of thie one? I fail to see what the first article achieves, as it's all covered in the main one. Merge and redirect them all as there's only a few (judging by the nav box at the foot of the page)? Lugnuts 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the recent 79th Academy Awards, it appears that for some reason, there is a sub-article containing all the nominees and winners. I suppose 2nd Academy Awards was trying to follow this precedent, but it does not appear back then, there were as many categories for the Academy Awards, making the sub-article useless. I'd support a merge, and it may be necessary to specify some criteria for articles about annual film awards like this, the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a legacy remnant of style guidelines from WP Academy Awards. I happen to agree; there's no good reason why the entire nominee list can't appear in the ceremony article, with the winners appropriately differentiated from the rest. The only possible exception I could envision would be all of the country submissions for Best Foreign Film, but again, since most of these articles are considered List-Class, those could just as easily be integrated into the ceremony article too. Other thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines while I was looking through to assess some of them. I thought it might be part of past style guidelines. Might be an idea to ask the awards task force for their opinion (Have added a link to the awards talk page). RWardy 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary problem would probably be standardization. If including all the nominees and winners in the main article for the current awards isn't a problem, then there's no reason to keep the awards page proper separated from the winners and nominees article. If it is a problem of length for the more recent articles, then the two should probably be kept separate throughout the history of the awards. John Carter 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anaconda 3

While looking up the name of an actor from Anaconda: Blood Orchid, I noticed that a section talking about a sequel Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Looking at the article, though, all three sources fail the reliability standards and I can't find a single reliable source that mentions these two movies in the work, not even IMDB or David Hasslehoff's own site (and considering his site, I would think it would be all over it). I'm not sure what, if anything, though should be done about the article. If all of the sources are suspect, should it even have an article or are we only offering unintentional validation to what seems to be a vague rumor? Thoughts? Collectonian 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can some help be given?

I have to start by saying that I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to all the legal ins and outs about pictures here at wikipedia so that is why I am posting this here. Today my watchlist revealed this edit [1]. I have been under the impression that film posters weren't being deleted at the same rate as pictures, though I could be wrong. Since the editor that downloaded this may be long gone, or unaware of the need to update the page for this picture and since I have no clue what needs to be posted on the page to keep it from being deleted I am wondering if there is anyway to save the picture of this poster? One picture has already been deleted from this page and losing the poster from the infobox will leave the page looking rather forlorn. I realize that there may not be a way to keep this but if there is any help that can be given will be much appreciated so thanks, in advance, for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a more detailed rationale which will hopefully stop it being deleted. --BelovedFreak 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the above image issue has been resolved, this is continually happening for hundreds of images within the project each month due to editors not adding FURs/sources/properly stating which article the images is being used for. Although the initial editor who uploaded the image may receive the message, and as MarnetteD pointed out, they could no longer be with the project/don't care/don't know how to fix it, which will result in the deletion of the image unless someone happens to catch it if a message is left on the article's talk page (which happened in the above case). I'm not sure if it is possible or not, but we would probably be able to save more of the images from being deleted if the bot could specifically list all of the images for a certain WikiProject that it is currently going to delete in a week's time on some subpage. Then members of the project could determine what needs to be fixed for the listed images, address the issues, and save the images from deletion. This would allow other projects, not just ours, to also catch all images that are up for deletion. I don't know if this is feasible or not for the bot to do, but it would save time from having to reupload the image again later and possibly face the same issues. --Nehrams2020 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that SkierRMH set up a system to track this sort of thing. It almost looks like he's got it covered singled-handed but perhaps we could integrate it into the project. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe moving it to the project will get more watchful eyes on it and decrease the burden of addressing the images for SkierRMH. Thanks for pointing out the link. If SkierRMH doesn't mind and if other members are interested, I think we should move it to a subpage for the project. --Nehrams2020 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, we had an issue regarding this with a hasty admin, and I voiced similar concerns. Surely it can't be difficult to assign a topic category to the proposed image deletion, a la AfD? That way we can just have a regular page to keep tabs on. Girolamo Savonarola 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't mind if this is added in! If you look here User:SkierRMH/My Sandbox/Film toolbox I have a handy little work box on all of the "watch areas" for the project. It can be adapted as need be - a couple of other projects use something akin to this as a shortcut for their watch lists. SkierRMH 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic film topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

American film and TV actors up for deletion at CFD (!)

Bad faith nom. in my book, but for those interested, take a look here and here! Lugnuts 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlton Heston and/or cultural impact of American film: anyone interested?

The article Bills is fascinating though brief. It details how real-life gangs in Kinshasa based much of their image and outlook on the cowboys of American Western movies, esp. one that is a redlink, Pony Express (1953) starring Charlton Heston. This is interesting stuff that could use reapiars from a dedicated editor... --Ling.Nut 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question has again come up about sourcing in plot sections

• Jossi (talk · contribs) has raised a concern about sourcing in the Plot section of The Simpsons article, The Joy of Sect. Last time I asked this question, Bignole (talk · contribs) DIFF, Erik (talk · contribs) DIFF, and Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs) DIFF answered me quite quickly. Perhaps someone could provide some clarification at Talk:The_Joy_of_Sect#Plot_synopsis ? Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Since this question keeps coming up, I have added a section to the style guidelines, so that people can quote it more easily. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. Please discuss on the relevant talk page if my wording is disagreed with. Cop 663 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Cast and crew of Sivaji needed?

I stumbled on this page when assessing articles. Should this page exist as surely the content should be on the page for the film (Sivaji (film)). The cast and crew pages lists more people, but i'm sure it could be incorporated with the film article. Let me know what you think and i'll tag the pages with {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. Cheers. RWardy 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's considered encyclopedic to have such an extensive list available for a film -- it's doubtful that there would be much real-world context behind all these names. Sivaji (film)#Crew should be removed as well, unless there can be some information behind the names of the crew members. Such lists are indiscriminate information, basically. Other sources, including the film itself, will have the full credits available. Film articles on Wikipedia should strive for more than just a list of names and roles. A merge would be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Erik's comments. Kill off the crew list, merge in anything salvagable from the Cast and Crew article and merge. Collectonian 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of it most of the decent stuff is already there (The main characters section is identical on both). Might just need to go through AfD?. Cheers. RWardy 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for renaming - trilogy to (film series)

About a week ago I put a request for renaming on all of the talk pages below for the film series listed below. I have gotten very little in the way of a response for any of them. Some have had no activity at all since the request was added. Before moving them I would like to get some more input from this project.

These articles should be renamed to bring them inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. There are no other articles so named for series of films with other lengths (duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies, hexologies, etc.). Also, a lot of them could possibly grow. From what I understand LOTR is going to have The Hobbit made, so the LOTR article name would be inaccurate once The Hobbit is out. Also, with nothing ever being sacred for film makers, it is possible for the series that appear finished to be revived or added to later. Clint Eastwood could get really nostalgic and do another Dollar film for all we know. Lucas could be dead and buried and his estate nearly bankrupt years from now, and the Star Wars property could be sold to the highest bidder who then continues the original and prequel series independently. We may not ever know. So, those are the possible reasons why the word trilogy should not be used in these article titles. Please discuss each separately on their talk pages.

Thank you. - LA @ 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apocalypse Trilogy
• Apu trilogy
• Black Triad trilogy
• Blade Trilogy
• Bourne Trilogy
• BRD Trilogy
• Calcutta trilogy
• Dollars Trilogy
• Europa trilogy
• The Grudge Trilogy
• The Human Condition (film trilogy)
• Koker trilogy
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
• Mediocre American Man Trilogy
• Mexico Trilogy
• Pusher trilogy
• Qatsi trilogy
• Road Movie Trilogy
• Samurai Trilogy
• Spy Kids trilogy
• Star Wars original trilogy
• Star Wars prequel trilogy
• The Sabata Trilogy

One issue I have with some of these moves is that some of these films were explicitly intended to be trilogies, like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Other items like Blade or Spy Kids would make sense as a film series. Is there not a way to make a distinction between films that were planned as trilogies from the get-go as opposed to films that either kept going because the first, then second, made enough money or as opposed to films that could've made more but ran dry? Seems like this distinction needs to be made -- even if rights are usurped in the future for whatever reason, trilogies like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars would remain quintessential trilogies, no matter what. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be some distinction made. "Dollars Trilogy" is listed here, and as I said on the merge, you cannot say "Dollars (film series)", because "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" didn't have "Dollars" in its name, and they weren't called "Dollars, Dollars 2, and Dollars 3". The name "Dollars Trilogy" is something given to the three films as a whole, not a title they share. It's about the plot of the films. The same thing could be said about "Apocolypse Trilogy"--not title sharing, but plot sharing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTR can't be renamed: I've already made this clear on the talk page. If The Hobbit is made, it's still it's own unique adaptation, not LOTR, even if it could be the same cast and crew. Alientraveller 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bignole, the whole point is to remove the constricting use of the word trilogy. There are no other instances where the amount of films is used in the naming of the article about the film series. I do not think that anyone would call the article on the Freddy/Jason film series The Freddy/Jason octodecology (or nonodecologies if Chasing Jason is allowed to be considered part of the series). - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik, LOTR will not be a trilogy when The Hobbit is made as the prequel, it will be a tetralogy. If the other book is made, the Sim(somethingorother), it will be a pentalogy. - LA @ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it's an adaptation of The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings trilogy adaptation. Consensus has been reached there. Alientraveller 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to Apocalypse Trilogy, I think that the article should be disseminated altogether. Even if he personally considers it his own trilogy, there does not seem to be enough real-world context (that isn't original research, anyway) about all three films to warrant a trilogy article. It could easily be a sentence or two at the article for John Carpenter: "John Carpenter considers The Thing (1982), Prince of Darkness (1987), and In the Mouth of Madness (1995) a collective body of work, which he calls his Apocalypse Trilogy." It's purely nominal here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As for LOTR and The Hobbit, wouldn't it be better for information about the prequel to be placed in the book's article, if consensus was reached to establish LOTR as a trilogy? I realize that the content was moved from the book's article, but perhaps this needs to be undone to keep topics consistent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is interested in pigeonholing, Lady Aleena. I'm saying that if a collection of films has been popularly recognized as a duology and a trilogy, and if such a collection warrants an article, it should be identified as such. Wikipedia is dynamic; if there is a change from this duology or trilogy, of which the likelihood is reduced as time goes on, we can easily update it accordingly. At the present, though, topics like Star Wars is explicitly recognized as having the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To LA, I understand the generalizing thing you are trying to do, but the problem is that you are doing it in a manner that suggests "Trilogy" is never used when describing a set of films. I agree that people use that word all the time whenever a third film comes out, but certain films are specifically that. The Dollars Trilogy is specifically marketed as such, it's known as such by probably any film scholar that you can find. It is not, I repeat, not known as "Dollars" with three films attached to it. "Dollars Trilogy" is specifically geared to the idea that surrounds those films, not their titles. Hence why I oppose the name change for "Dollars Trilogy", but support it for "Grudge Trilogy", because there is a difference between the use of "Trilogy" in those two titles. As for your example of Freddy and Jason, well they don't have joint films. We have a Friday the 13th (franchise) page, which is named for the purpose that it encompasses far more than just the film series. I'm sure there is A Nightmare on Elm Street film series page somewhere as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

• http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/independence_day.htm
• http://www.film.com/movies/review/independenceday/13302022
• http://www.film.u-net.com/Movies/Reviews/Independence_Day.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/18/independence_day_1996_review.shtml

Currently these links are used as refs in Independence Day, but I'm unsure they could be considered "fit" to use as references. What do you think? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think only the last review from BBC would be acceptable. You can find mainstream reviews at a film's Rotten Tomatoes page under the "Cream of the Crop" section, which collects reviews from mainstream media outlets. Here it is for Independence Day. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Headlines for films

I've used Google Alerts to collect headlines on films, and I've just unloaded a batch on a few film articles' talk pages so they can be implemented in the article now or sometime in the future. This is the list of film articles which will have a batch of headlines in their talk pages from yours truly:

• 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)
• Across the Universe (film)
• American Gangster (film) (halfway implemented)
• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
• Beowulf (2007 film)
• The Darjeeling Limited
• Eastern Promises
• Gone Baby Gone
• Into the Wild (film)
• Lions for Lambs
• Michael Clayton (film)‎
• Rendition (film)
• Stardust (2007 film)
• We Own the Night

Some of these films may be Oscar contenders or have players who will be Oscar contenders, so I figure it may be a good impression on the readership to have decent articles about the films come Oscar season. No Country For Old Men (film) should be on the list, but I've only added it to my Google Alerts, as I did not expect it to be as big of a deal as it apparently is on Rotten Tomatoes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Character actors categories up for deletion

Post you arguements for/against deletion here. Lugnuts 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bring your criticism

Friday the 13th (franchise) is up for GA review, and it's been sitting there for awhile now. Just thought I'd spread the word, in case there's some bored GA reviewers out there who have a spare minute...or 10.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC List of films that received the Golden Film

I would like to notify the users of this project of the featured list candidacy of List of films that received the Golden Film. The list article was nominated two weeks ago, but received only two comments and one support vote since. You can help by replying to the candidacy. Thank you, Ilse@ 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)