Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erpbridge (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 30 September 2008 (→‎External links in film infoboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Today's featured articles

Did you know

(2 more...)

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(4 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
Shortcuts

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Cast section

Am I the only one who thinks tables for cast looks really ugly? Its just I've seen them appearing in numerous articles e.g 1776 (film). I rather like the Casino Royale (2006 film) cast section with the bold for the cast and characters. I know this exmaple has been used in many other articles butwhat should be do about these tables? The Bald One White cat 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point them to WP:MOSFILMS#Cast and crew information. Though it doesn't say "no tables", it says that it's best to have prose content, and not be an IMDb list, or a simple rehash of the plot. If the page could serve itself better by not having a cast "list", then so be it, but that should be based on the article and consensus. Just speaking, I think their ugly as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Bald One. I'd rather have the cast section as per him or not have it all and instead have the cast mentioned (in braces beside the character) in the plot itself. Mspraveen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the use of tables for cast lists and have replaced them several times. 172.163.4.124 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blofield. Just because you can use tables, doesn't mean they have to be used. I don't see anything wrong with a simple bulleted list detailing the cast. I guess at the end of the day, as long as it's factually correct, it doesn't really matter. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and for the other side of the argument, the cast table or graphic is very useful for a minor article when only the cast and characters need to be identified. I personally like the look of some of the graphics. FWiW, changing tables to lists because of personal preference surely is up to the major or primary editor. One of the redeeming features of Wikipedia is that it is inclusive and allows for diverse views in aspects that are primarily subjective such as layout. Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Since when do we limit certain edits "to the major or primary editor"? One of the redeeming features of Wikipedia is that no one individual is allowed to control an article. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't but any article will have a group of editors who end up becoming the primary editors as with Casino Royale. And they will be the ones who work towards making an article an FA or GA, and usually they are the ones who will arrive at a consensus as to what an article will look like. I agree with Bignole that cast tables always look ugly and a simple list with character or actor details is better and also cuts down on the need for trivia to be listed in one place when it can be worked into the prose of the cast or other production details. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To weigh in, I don't think that there is a compelling need to use wikitables in the Cast section. Such wikitables have coding that may be difficult for a lot of editors, and it is not a good setup to add prose. Bullet lists work well, so do paragraphs if the flow can be achieved. (I think that paragraphs are good for compressing secondary actors/roles; see Doomsday (film)#Cast.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Film icon

Note

This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the See also section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:

{{Portal|Film|Video-x-generic.svg}}
This displays as:

(I updated it with the new icon.) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started using this a while ago when the WP:FILM banner was updated with the new image (which looks infinitely better than the old one IMO). sephiroth bcr (converse) 15:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in film articles nominated for deletion

Several images which have been nominated for deletion may be of interest to the members here, since they are all of cast members in film articles which have been nominated as being "decorative". The notifications of the nominations can be found here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I'm rather suprised there haven't been more people from the project taking a look at these images which have been nominated for deletion, since the images are all of the stars or central character of the film, and the argument being put forth for their deletion is that they are "decorative" and do not illustrate the article.

If these images can be deleted, then any fair-use image of cast members of a film can be deleted at any time as being "decorative". Given that it might be worthwhile to express an opinion about this, so that a precedent is not set, and image policy becomes even more restrictive than it already is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film infotemplate & ratings

If we are listing multiple release countries in the template (e.g. US, UK, Australia), why are we not including the rating for these countries? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has initiated this discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film#Rating?, and I redirected the editor here. My opinion is reflected at the aforementioned link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of ratings to any given film is going to be a mile long. therefore, in case felt necessary, please start up The List of ratings (name of the film) for each article covering a film. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain that would be a good idea - it verges on trivia. At the end of the day, we're supposed to be encyclopedic, which is not necessarily the same thing as comprehensive. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologize. Having a list or ratings was the most absurd idea that I could come up with. I didn't think adding ratings from about 200 counties in the world into film infoboxes was a serious idea. Therefore my response wasn't serious either. I'm going to try aiming for a more professional attitude while addressing questions like that in the future. --Termer (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's it any different to albums having ratings from different magazines in their infoboxes? Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Rating" is different in this case, Lugnuts. The initial editor was referring to MPAA ratings such as R and PG-13. Album infoboxes have quality ratings (3 out of 4 stars kind of deal). I don't know why they do that with the infobox, and I think it would be less effective with films, which have many reviews. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, those ratings! I always refer to IMdb for them. Most curious about PG/15 rated UK films, that are banned in Finland! Lugnuts (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, why do I want to click another link to IMDB when it could already be here? How is listing the release dates for 3 countries NOT trivia? If we're listing the countries, the rating (like MPAA) can easily be listed next to that information. Hopefully this clears up earlier misunderstanding. I am not talking "ratings" like "reviews". I am talking about the MPAA type rating for each country that is listed for a film's release. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include them because they are different from country to country. The MPAA only governs the US. What a film is rated changes from country to country, and each country has their own criteria for ratings. A film that gets an R rating in the US might not get the equivalent rating in the UK, or India. Because of that, without context as to why the film was rated harsher in one location over another, the simple listing of meaningless letters is trivial.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Bignole, however my point is if we are listing a release date (which differs from country to country) for 2-3 different countries (like the US, UK, and Australia), why is it such a challenge to list that country's rating with it? The context IS there. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Traffic (2000 film) now open

The peer review for Traffic (2000 film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see bot request page

FYI, I put in a request at WP:BOTREQ regarding swapping out the film image icons per consensus. I outlined the request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Replacing_a_film_image_icon. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was later archived to Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_22#Replacing_a_film_image_icon. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kubrick needs your help

Stanley Kubrick currently contains several dozen "citation needed" tags. I will not be working on this article myself. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion taken to Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help--Termer (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the credits roll...

Hi,
Not sure if this is the best place to ask for advice, but I've just come across something that seems ridiculous and wanted some third-party input. Yesterday I removed the sentence "Then the credits roll" from the end of the plot summary of this article. I removed them because... well, it seems pretty obvious and isn't notable at all. I reasoned that if the film didn't have credits then it would be worthy of mention. I reworded the final statement to make it clear that this was the ending scene and then removed the offending sentence.
I've just noticed that it's been restored with the reasoning "(I)t's (an) important notice after the end of the film (that) there was a closing credits". I've added a note to the (IP) editor's talk page to ask why they did that, but in the meantime I wondered what your thoughts were on having statements such as that. I have noticed it on other film articles, too.
As I said, this strikes me as rather strange but I thought I double-check myself rather than remove the statement again and (possibly) end up in conflict.
Cheers,
OBM | blah blah blah 08:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No plot summary should ever include meta references. I keep trimming the line "The film starts with...", the plot summary should summarise what happens in the main part of the film, post credits jokes and single events in the film should be left out. I'm seeing PE tonight, tomorrow I will cut that plot back to its essentials. For an example of my work [1]. The rule for plots is trim, trim and trim some more. The less words the better. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I thought. Cheers for the steer. I see you've beaten me to the punch on that article, but I'll bear your advice in mind for when I next see it. Cheers, OBM | blah blah blah 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of Film Prods

Editor Barton Foley is literally going through the list of films alphabetically and tagging a ton of them with notability and prod tags. Among ones he's tagged has been several with multiple reliable sources, those that pass films by being released nationally in theaters (such as Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid), etc. Now some of them likely are proddable as they do probably fail the film notability guidelines, however from his talk page it seems like this guy is mostly attempting to be WP:POINTY and I'm concerned that notable films that just need article clean up and/or expansion are going to get lost in this mass prodding, particularly the stubs. Can some other film project members check his contribs to see which articles he's tagged and deprod any that are actual notable. I've already removed the tags from the two Anaconda film articles he hit. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

His prods are really really horrid. The sole reason given is "notability" (no explaination other than a single word). I'd say that's very WP:POINTy. Given what's said on his talk page, ... 70.55.200.51 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that in place of some prods, he is also now leaving boilerplate messages on a huge glut of film articles claiming they are not notable. He has made it clear that he feels that the articles were created by "series of intellectual fiefdoms run by the topics fanboys/girls, whose only yardstick for notability was the work in question simply existed" and he is going to continue attacking a huge number of film articles, continuing his run first through horror films of 2000s. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This "campaign" tends to occur whenever a new editor arrives on a mission to reform the Wiki into their own vision, which in this case, appears to be a singularly WP:POINTy one, with some very subjective appraisals of films. First of all, I would suggest that the editor join WikiProject Films and to seek consensus for his "work". I concur with User:Collectonian that the use of massive "boilplating" to cover the actions is also problematic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Apparently the editor feels he has made his point, as he seems to have moved on to other things. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion Collection Essays

Hello to the members of the project. Based on recent investigations and edits by Ed Fitzgerald (at Pandora's Box (film)) and PhilipC (at Grand Illusion (film)) it looks like the Criterion Collection website no longer has the essays that accompany their DVDs posted on it. I don't know if they moved them to a different part of their site or if they just removed them completely, but, when you click on the link now it just goes to their page for the film. We may need to remove all of the links that we have which is a shame really since a year or so ago we worked so hard to defend keeping them. I haven't investigated this too deeply so I am posting this here so that the community can be aware of the situation and make whatever changes are needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have y'all checked to see if they were archived in the internet archive? If they were, the links can be updated to add the archiveurl (and archivedate). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the Internet Archive, Google's cache, the entire Criterion site and its related forums and blogs, and I cannot find the essays anywhere I've looked. (I used J. Hoberman's essay for Pandora's Box as my exemplar, in case someone wants to try with another essay.) I've dropped an email to the contact address given on the main site, asking about the problem. I'll report back as to what they say if I get a response. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this archive for Grand Illusion and this for Pandora's Box at the Wayback Machine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - could you tell me what search term you used? I went through the Wayback Machine, but nothing came up. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just put in the url of the original essay, which I got from the article history and it came right up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I did exactly that and I got a "no results" message! I'll have to take a look and see what went wrong. Thanks for the info. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I did wrong before, because it's working fine for me now. I've restored links to the essays that I've deleted since I first observed this problem, and will try to make some progress on the others tomorrow, once I've gotten some kip. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a response from the person at Criterion Collection:

We had to remove the essays temporarily due to technical problems, but we do plan to restore them as soon as we are able, so please keep checking back. I hope this helps, and thanks for your email!

Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Worst in film

Discussion @ CfD can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class articles

Our project has finished reviewing all of the B-class articles needing review, which was initially at 1,000 articles. With the expansion of the standards within our project concerning sourcing, broadness, and reliability of sources, the total number of B-class articles has been reduced to about 250 articles (the vast majority were reduced to Start class). The majority of these articles are very close to GA status, and just need some minor to significant changes to get there. If interested, consider adopting an article or two from this category and advancing to GA. Some of these are Core articles within our project, which we should try to improve as much as possible. Working on these articles will really help to expand the number of GAs in our project, and I do invite you to seriously consider working on one. If I lowered the status of one of the articles you worked on and you disagree, please leave a message at requests for assessment stating why you think it should be B-class and I or another editor will take another look at it. Good work to everyone on improving our articles, and let's keep it up as we advance to 300 GAs. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felix the Cat FAR

Felix the Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nominations of Films by technology subcategories

Most of the subcategories of Category:Films by technology have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulu.com

There's an ongoing discussion regarding use of Hulu.com as external link in Film related articles. Those interested are requested to contribute their thoughts on the issue. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting open

As an FYI for everyone who hasn't seen the notice everywhere, voting for the film coordinator elections is now open. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits order

Is there a policy for the order in which writing credits are listed? Is it:

Screenplay
Story
Based on something by

or something else? Does the WGA have a policy on this? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the infobox goes, I also go by who has more prominence. You would ask yourself, was the movie filmed off the story or off the script? Since the people the wrote the script tend to be slightly more important for filming the movie than someone that just came up with a story, I usually put them above the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, but it seems like it's asking for edit wars. Should a firm policy be put in place? - Richfife (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prominence shouldn't be the criteria, it's a subjective judgment. My preference is for the original source material credit (story, novel, play) to go first, as it is where the whole thing originated - without that short story, book or play, there wouldn't be a movie at all. Logically, any adaptation credits should follow, since the adaptation is the link between the source and the screenplay, and the screenplay credits come last.

bear in mind, these are encyclopedia articles, not advertisements, where the prominence of a star name is important. We should provide the reader with clear information on how that movie was written, so starting at the beginning (the source) and progressing through the final result makes most sense. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make the source material (comic book author) the beginning of the infobox, we typically reserve that for the director. Is that not giving preference to a role in the making of the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different issue, the order that the fields in the infobox are presented. Given the promience of the auteur theory, and the general belief that the director is the primary creator of a film, I think it's reasonable that the director comes first. Certainly there are cases where the producer is the auteur (The Longest Day, for instance) or the writer (although in many cases they're hyphenates), but an order has to be chosen and I think the current one (director - producer - writer - stars) is very reasonable.

But, as I said, that's a different question entirely from whether the source should be presented first in the writers field. In a lot of cases (especially with writer/directors), there's no problem at all, in others maybe it seems weird -- why should Peter George be listed first when Dr. Strangelove is so obviously Kubrick's film? Or is it Terry Southern's? Disentangling "prominence" or "importance" or "primacy" just seems like a fools game, which is why I prefer a straight-forward chronological presentation: this person started the ball rolling (source), this person help make the transition to another medium (adaptation), and this person wrote the script that the director worked from (screenplay). There's no subjective judgments to be made, arguments as to who's the most important get shut down... boom, boom, boom, there it is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may have "started the ball rolling" but that doesn't mean that they had any direct connection to the current film in question. It is John Carpenter's screenplay that "inspired" the 2007 remake by Rob Zombie, but it wasn't like they took Carpenter's screenplay and filmed that. Zombie wrote his own thing, and that should be the prominent recognition in the infobox. In television articles, we don't even list the "story by", because it's inconsequential in the infobox (which should be what is essential to understanding the film). One can note the fact that the story came from a particular person (who did not write the script) in another section of the article. It's the same idea behind not listing every single type of producer (executive, associative, etc) in the "Producer" field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinct difference between listing every functionary who collected a paycheck and making explicit the progression of how a film was conceived.

You seem to be taking the positon that listing the writer of the screenplay last is somehow downgrading his contribution to the finished product, but I don't see that at all. It's just chronology, that's all, what happened first, what happened next. If I see Hans Christian Anderson's name listed first for The Red Shoes, that doesn't mean I assume he wrote the movie, and it doesn't take away from the achievement of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger in making that wonderful film that their names are listed after Anderson's. The order is not about primacy or importance (which, as I said, can be very subjective and therefore subject to debate, edit wars, etc.), it's just about what came first, something no one can argue about.

Besides, this is an infobox we're talking about, a pre-formatted, pre-designed summary of important information. The place where you want to present primacy or importance of creation is in the lede. I've written or revised a whole lot of lede paragraphs for film articles, and I always try to start with what's most important or notable about that particular fim. I can start with the director, the star, the writer, the source writer, the studio depending on what the film is known for, who seems the most important, and what the reader is looking for. It's there where debates about who should come first need to be settled; the infobox is just a list. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a debate that will be settled with examples. Any ordering probably has thousands of examples that support it and thousands of examples that prove it wrong. A random sampling of IMDB shows a mishmash of orderings: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. No help there. I personally prefer a reverse temporal order: Screenplay over story over source since the director credit is above the writer credit and the director's involvement generally comes after the writer's. - Richfife (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure why there has to be a single way of doing this, as long as all the information is there and is clearly labelled. I certainly have no objections to doing it one way for Film A and another for Film B is that's what makes sense for those films. I think we get much too hung up on buttoning everything down. Time like this would be much more productively spent editing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, since the article is about a film the screenwriter should be listed before the author of the source material in the infobox. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Film

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame at CfD

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horror movies under attack!!!

I saw that someone had put prod notices on a bunch of horror movies. I edited them off the articles so that people would have a chance to improve them but I got a lot of grief for that (even though I wasn't doing anything wrong). I think Barton Foley is going through some list of horror movies and trying to delete all of them!!! Can someone help me stop this??? Please?? miniluv (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above at #Mass of Film Prods. Already alerted to the issue and he was reported at AN/I for this behavior. He stated that he was going through the list of 2000 horror movies prodding all he thinks are not notable. He was supposed to have stopped and be more selective, but if he is continuing again, may need to poke an admin to remind him of the AN/I thread. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think he's saying on his talk page that he won't do any more prods but that he may start AFD discussions for the articles he did earlier. Maybe people could help me fix them up??? miniluv (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge soundtrack articles into parent media?

A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA (T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian task force

Hello, i'm new to WikiProject Films but i noticed that there is no Scandinavian task force. I would like to gauge if there is an interest in creating a Scandinavian task force, focusing on the cinema of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be an excellent task force, with the caveat that it be the Nordic task force instead. This is mainly because Scandinavia does not always include some of the nations listed above; additionally, it will be more consistent with other WikiProjects' task forces covering the same region. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Nordic task force would be a much better name. Scandinavia sometimes refers only to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. I don't know how many people on Wikiproject Films are familiar with Nordic Cinema but i hope this task force becomes a reality.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, since Dogme 95 is not even mentioned for example in History of film, Nordic cinema in general could use some more attention on WP.--Termer (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential member signup

  1. Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  2. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Bald One White cat 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Termer (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! The Bald One White cat 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be very useful for the northest part of Europe, great job. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Juno (film) now open

The peer review for Juno (film) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please Help!

I need serious help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side of AIDS. Schuym1 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the manner in which you've presented your message implies canvassing, which is not acceptable. The AfD is already transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film, and that's as much as can be done. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film-related template nominated for deletion

Please see this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fly (1986 film) fair-use images

Someone please take a look at this. IMO (13) fair use images in this article is way, way way too many. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just plain insane! Yes, that is way way too many. Almost all of them are pure decoration. Blech...that article has quite a few other issues as well. Always saddens me a little to see an article on a film I'd think should be GA or FA quality still a Start class :( -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the ones which aren't used for critical commentary The Bald One White cat 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of them, then. Actually, I can see a rationale for the "seven stages" of Brundlefly's development, provided the section is appropriately sourced (it isn't at present, but this must have come from somewhere; anyone have the DVD?), but none of those in the "Plot" section make the grade, IMO. I'll leave a message on the article's talk page and if no-one presents a good argument for their retention, I'll be bold and remove them. All the best, Steve T • C 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Edited as being redundant due to Gary's bold removal of the images. Steve T • C 17:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one image per stage is needed. That entire section is way too detailed. The only image that I think is really necessary is one in the plot that shows how he looks like as the fly, or at least partway through. There was an image that showed the guy and the girl meet for the first time, which was definitely unnecessary, as we know how it generally looks like when two people meet :) Gary King (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American task force and Portugese language task force

How about something to accomodate Latin American film? Notable industries like Mexican and Brazilian cinema at present has very little focus. I'd be happy to merge the Argentine task force. Another suggestion might be a Portuguese language task force which accomdates for Portugal and Brazilian cinema. Latin American film in particular on wikipedia is neglected somewhat and what we are missing notably at present in our groups. I have a few potential members in mind although I;m sure if it is enough to sustain a group. Anybody thoughts anybody? The Bald One White cat 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested wikipedians in the Latin task force

  1. The Bald One White cat 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC) - weep weep am I on my own?[reply]

Comments

While I am certainly supportive, we may need to hammer a few points out before starting a signup. (For instance, which task force is your signup for?) First of all, though, let's decide which scopes are worth pursuing.

What I'd propose is that we concentrate first on a Latin American task force, which would cover all countries in Central and South America (but not the Caribbean). This would include Brazil, as well. My reasoning is that there is a great deal of co-production, cross-training, etc because of the common languages. (Spanish and Portuguese are close enough that speakers of one usually can understand the other, or so I'm told.) From what I've been able to discern, there actually isn't much interaction between Portuguese and Brazilian cinemas, aside from a few like Manoel de Oliveira, while Brazil is very connected with some of its South American neighbors - and Portugal likewise with Spain. Therefore Portugal could either be its own task force, or perhaps merge with Spain for an Iberian one.

As for the Argentine task force, I don't really think that there's need to merge it - as a substantial task force, it can simply be integrated into the Latin American one as a sub-task force, and thus be kept in toto. (This is also something I'd like to do with the Indian task force in regards to a potential South Asian one.) Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very good idea, and what I also had in mind. Indeed Argentine and Mexican cinema are well connected and there is some considerable overlap between Argentine anf Brazilian cinema too. Latin American task force is a must though to cover those industries I noted. Nasically it would be Mexican cinema and South American cinema including some of the other notable industries like Colombian, Venezuelan and Chilean. Central American cinema, well it is very low key but would be including in the "Latin"title to include Mexico. The Bald One White cat 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


New stub proposals

Just to tell all that Category:Danish film stubs up and running. I;ve also proposed Iceland, Norwegian and Czech film stubs if you would kindly chip in at the stub sorting proposals as well as a proposed split of documentary film stubs as it concerns WP:Films. Any suggestions, particularly with how we should split documentary film stub would be appreciated. I figured that Iceland and Norwegian stub categorie swould be useful to the new Nordic task force. Hope you are all well. The Bald One White cat 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moviehole?

I'm wondering if the site Moviehole.net should be used as an official source of information. I think so, because it explains who the editor is and the fact that he's involved in the media industry. [9] I'm not saying that makes it reliable, but just interested to know people's opinions. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be OK for some purposes; results confirm it has been cited in bona fide reliable sources, such as IGN and New York Magazine. What are you looking to add? Steve T • C 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, nothing. I was just wondering about the reliability of it. Seems to be OK. Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited Moviehole a few times in the past, but I think if an article wants to stand up to scrutiny during a Featured Article nomination, better sources should be found. I think that for movie websites like Moviehole, interviews are probably the most suitable coverage to use. Other coverage where the source of information is not immediately clear (for example, "It was reported that the movie has been put on hold...") probably should not be used. I don't know if Moviehole has reviews, but I would avoid them, too, since there are plenty of better sources for film reviews elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Nights

After seeing this film on DVD I checked out the Wikipedia article about it, and in my opinion it's a mess. There's a lengthy background section filled with "facts" but no references to support them. An entire section is devoted to one deleted scene. Since there are ten deleted scenes on the DVD, why is this one discussed in such detail and no mention is made of the others? It seems rather subjective to select one and ignore the rest. This article is in need of serious attention and hopefully someone will be able to clean it up. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely an article in need of improvement. It is entirely unreferenced, which is too bad, since I think that this kind of film would have some interesting coverage. I think you should delete the "Deleted scene" section in its entirety since we would usually only detail such scenes if there was real-world context for it (such as being too controversial or being cut for length). Do you want to take initiative and clean up the article yourself? Just look at our style guidelines, and I'll be happy to dig up any useful citations for you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik. I believe that the whole section is one, big, unreferenced WP:OR violation which I couldn't even verify. The section contains a supposed quote by Paul Thomas Anderson about the scene but I was unable to find a source for that quote by Googling cut-and-pasted sections of the quote. The section was added on this edit and no part of it has ever been referenced. I say be bold and delete it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed Erik's suggestion and removed the section about the deleted scene. I streamlined the synopsis a little. Since the cast of characters just repeated character descriptions or information about their roles in the film that was already included in the plot synopsis, I changed it to a cast list. I expanded the awards section and added critical reception. I did not touch the background section other than to add the last paragraph with a reference for the source of box office data. although I agree with SWik78 that most of it should be removed. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to "be bold" and removed all unsourced material. I hope someone will protect me if I come under attack! :) 209.247.22.166 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Task Force

I suggest the creation of a task force for animated films. Animated films are one of the most popular types of films, yet are largely ignored by this WikiProject. Additionally, not a single animated film has been listed as a core article. Such ignorance towards something so huge needs to stop. 98.21.142.209 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animation is definitely a huge subject -- so WP has an entire project dedicated to it. You should check out WikiProject Animation, which has a group of editors working solely on animation and animated films. They currently have 649 articles, including 9 FA class and 21 GA class. I know that they are always looking for more editors to help develop articles. If you are interested in the subject, you should consider joining. — CactusWriter | needles 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor adding "ASC" and "BSC" to film-related articles

IP editor User talk:98.195.154.176 has been editing since June, and as far as I can tell their only contribution has been to add "ASC" and "BSC" to the names of cinematographers. They've done this in the lede: James Wong Howe, A.S.C. ...", in the infobox listings of film articles, and even in the titles of infoboxes on cinemtographers's articles. I don't mind seeing "ASC" or "BSC" occasionally, but we don't do this for other guilds, so it might be best if they weren't quite so rampant as this editor seems intent on making them.

I'm going to leave a note for this editor and see what happens. Others might want to follow up, if you think it's worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what the ranking MOS would be on this, but I'd consider it equivalent to some of the British honors, such as OBE, or a professional certification like a PhD, MD, or JD - which is to say that it can be acknowledged briefly in the bio title, for example, but should not be a part of the regular usage within articles. My two cents, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest these fall under professional degrees and that we follow the MOS for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles which says "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name." Rather they should be included in text, for example: Howe was a member of the American Society of Cinematographers. This avoids the listing of dozens of initials after names. Plus it avoids trying to determine which degrees, honors, and memberships are important for inclusion and which aren't. — CactusWriter | needles 09:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CW's suggestion: mention their guild association in bio articles, but otherwise not in infobox entries, etc. This makes sense to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Use ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) and BSC (British Society of Cinematographers) Acronyms in Wikipedia Film Articles

Hi Ed. My purpose in adding the ASC (or BSC) acronyms after the names of cinematographers and special effects experts in Wikipedia articles is to provide a more complete profile of these film professional's careers, as well as to highlight the unique cinematic achievements attained by these individuals in having being designated ASC (or BSC) members--the top of their profession.

The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) is not a labor union or a guild, but an educational, cultural, and professional organization. Not all cinematographers can place the initials ASC after their names in motion picture credits, and this has become one of the highest honors bestowed on a professional director of photography or special effects expert.

My criteria for inclusion is that if a cinematographer has received this honor anytime during his career, I will add the ASC (or BSC) designation in that person’s Wikipedia biography twice--after their name first appears, and inside his infobox. I will also add the acronym to the person’s name in the Wikipedia cinematography infobox summary of the film, if the person was a actually a member of the ASC (or BSC) at the time of the film’s release. This is done only after verifying that the cinematographer was listed as a member of the ASC or BSC in the actual motion picture credits. By listing this information, Wikipedia's infobox about the film is more complete and professional, and it is almost a mirror image of the screen credit.

I did not start the trend of including the ASC acronym in the cinematographers’ biographical infoboxes. Several infoboxes already displayed the ASC acronym, but I have continued the practice believing it is an excellent idea--and it really looks good. I did start the concept of adding the designation ASC (or BSC) after the cinematographers’ names are first listed in their biographies.

I agree with the opinion of some editors that once the ASC or BSC designations are mentioned at the top of the biography (and in the infobox), they should not be mentioned again in the body of the article. However, I would argue against deleting the ASC and BSC designations at the top and in the infobox, just because there is a mention buried somewhere in the article indicating that the profiled cinematographer belongs to the American Society of Cinematographers or the British Society of Cinematographers. That buried reference is not enough, and can be easily missed by the reader. The ASC (or BSC) acronym after the cinematographer's name cannot be missed.

While I concur with Cactus Writer that under the Manual of Style, acronyms of academic degrees should not be listed after names, the ASC is not an academic degree. It is a unique professional cinema designation. By the way, any ASC members authoring articles or mentioned in the American Cinematographer Magazine (the ASC’s official magazine) are always followed by their ASC designations. I do not propose including the ASC letters each time a name appears but just once at the top of the biography, and in the infoboxes.

If the movie industry considers the ASC and BSC designations significant enough to be prominently displayed in thousands of motion picture credits since 1920 (and in countless television credits since 1947), they should also be considered significant enough to have a prominent place in Wikipedia articles, as a recognition of the unique achievement that these letters represent to these prestigious cinematographers, and to the films they were involved in. Wikipedia prides itself in being thorough, and this is a good example.

Therefore, I urge you not to eliminate the ASC and BSC designations from the cinematographers’ biographies, nor from the corresponding infoboxes. Thank you for your time and consideration.

JAG 98.195.154.176 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to "year in film" in film-related articles

A number of editors, including User:John, are editing articles to remove all linked years. As shown by recent threads at WP:ANI concerning Lightbot and User:Lightmouse's actions in delinking years, there is no consensus for the wholesale de-linking of years, but, more to the point, there is a long-standing consensus among those who write and edit film-related articles that linking film release dates to "Year in film" articles is legitimate. This remains true even under the new WP:MOSNUM regime, which calls for links to be appropriate and to add context and information to articles. This is certainly the case with links to "year in film" for release dates, birth and date dates of actors etc, and other significant dates in film history.

Those who wish to weigh in on this might wish to add their comments here on the talk page of the Marlene Dietrich article, where User:John and I are in edit conflict concerning this issue. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to personalize this. "Regime" indeed. Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, these links add nothing, especially as they are hidden, easter egg-type links. Anyone wishing to retain them or even to add more as Ed has done, needs to demonstrate some encyclopedic utility that they add to articles, and a current consensus that this utility outweighs the advice in the style guideline linked above. I currently do not see either. --John (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, there is no personalization, merely a description of what has occurred. As demonstrated by these threads on WP:ANI: [10],[11], [12], even under the new date-linking guidlines ("regime" was not used in a pejorative sense, but in the sense of "a way of doing things") at WP:MOSNUM, there is no consensus in the general community for the wholesale de-linking of dates. The lesson to be learned from these threads is that de-linking needs to be an evaluative process, and not an automatic one.

In the present circumstances, it is, as I mentioned, a long-standing convention in film articles that release dates of films are linked to the relevant year in film article, since those articles provide additional context for the reader as to what else occured in the film world at the time of the film's release. In filmographies, where many films are listed one after the other, only the first instance of the release date is linked, in order to avoid unnecessary overlinking. Other dates which are significant to the history of film, such as the birth and death dates of actors, directors, etc. are linked as well, but dates of ordinary events are not linked, either to "year in film" or to the general "year" articles. This seems to me to be a reasonable scheme, and well within the requirements of the new date-linking guidlelines.

While it's reasonable and helpful to go through articles and strip out the occasional unnecessary link, the wholesale removal of them is neither useful or beneficial, nor is it in line with general consensus, as the WP:ANI threads above show. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me add that I object to these links being referred to as "easter eggs" since there is nothing hidden about them. When you read the article, the year is highlighted just like any other link, and when you roll the cursor over it, it says "XXXX in film", just as any other link would reveal what it is linked to. An "easter egg" is something that is hidden from the user, and that is not the case here. I would very much appreciate it if you would drop this particular usage during this discussion, as it is inaccurate and misleading. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to evaluate the appropriate context in which years can be wiki-linked. For example, the first mention of the year in an individual film article (i.e., "Wikimaniacs is a 2008 film...") should wiki-link to "2008 in film". On the other hand, though, I am not so sure if it is appropriate to wiki-link "year in film" for a release date in the film's infobox. The date is unique for that particular film and not part of a chronological category like my "2008 in film" example. Beyond these two instances, there would be different context for how "year in film" was used. For example, if we said that Wikimaniacs was the first 2008 film to cross the $100 million milestone, it seems appropriate to wiki-link "2008 in film". Looking at Marlene Dietrich, I do not think that it is relevant to wiki-link the birth year and the death year of the actress. It's not pertinent to what was going on in film that year. On the other hand, the "Years active" attribute's years are appropriate. Hopefully you see the difference there. John, I would caution against mass edits like this. It is not like overlinking is a grave threat to Wikipedia, so I think it is best to build consensus before embarking on a series of edits like these. We can fine-tune the task that needs to be done, and once we find common ground, we can make the edits and refer any inquisitive outsiders to the discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at any article at the end of the year which sums up what happened in any particular subject area, the death of major figures is always included. This year, summary articles about the film world will certainly mention the death of Newman, and longer articles may even have a list of prominent actors who died that year. Now, we are not a print encyclopedia, and are not bound by the physical restrictions that print vehicles have, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be extended to the birth and death of actors in general. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that the "XXXX in film" articles had "Notable Deaths" sections. It's a good point, though I was wondering, how are we addressing film actors who were also TV actors and theater actors? They have their own similar sections. I understand that Wikipedia is flexible, but I just want to see if we're not trying to force a square peg into a round hole in terms of linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Cinema

How about some section on National Cinemas, e.g. Cinema of France, etc. or some kind of template at least, like the 'how to improve this article' thing for films. Cause I've tried editing these pages before but came to a stump cause I wasn't really sure where to go. Gracias. - Dalta (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the articles linked at {{Worldcinema}}? You could maybe use the stub templates found at Category:Film stubs by country. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results of WP:FILM Coordinator Election 3!

The third election to fill the roles of coordinators concluded yesterday! Eight candidates vied for seven slots, and based on the results, the seven coordinators will be Bzuk, Ecoleetage, Erik, Girolamo Savonarola, Nehrams2020, Sephiroth BCR, and Steve. Girolamo Savonarola will continue his role as lead coordinator The results will be published in the upcoming newsletter. We seven coordinators hope to pursue the continuous improvement of WikiProject Films, and remember, non-coordinators are always welcome to help shape discussion! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links in film infoboxes

I would like to have community discussion about whether or not external links should be used in film infoboxes. Discussion has taken place at the infobox's talk page about the merits of the external links. The infobox currently has three fields for external links: IMDb, Allmovie, and official website. These links are nearly always replicated in the "External links" section of film articles. The redundancy has been brought up by outside editors every once in a while, and with the latest discussion, I think that we should seek a lasting answer. My position is that the "External links" section is more than adequate for having these links as well as other links, but my issue with removing these fields is that it would leave some film articles without such links if they were not duplicated. What do others think about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following your concern. Are you saying that if we remove the field then people won't put the link to those places in an EL section? I don't believe that will occur, or, at least won't be a big issue. It's so common seeing those links in the EL section that anyone starting one will probably know to include them, and if they don't I'm sure that there are plenty of us that surf random film pages that we'll notice it and add them in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. When I do massive editing and go through a lot of articles, I've noticed that there is a percentage of articles that have the imdb_id= field filled out, but no {{imdb title}} in the "External links" section, if there is even one. I think that the links should shift to the sections, but I also think we need to see what kind of strategy we can pursue to adequately clean up the redundancy (depending on the consensus of this discussion). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason for this is that there have been editors who felt the two links were redundant so they'd remove them from the EL section. If consensus agrees the links in the infobox should go, maybe someone could write a bot that can remove the tags and check for one in the EL and add if missing? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was wondering about. I don't have any bot experience, so I am not sure how capable one could be. Is it possible to have a bot that checks for {{imdb title}}, and as it removes the ID from the infobox's imdb_id= field, it plugs the number into the template as well as copying the title? I also ask about copying the title because when a film article has a disambiguated title, a template with only the IMDb ID will process something like Doomsday (film) at the Internet Movie Database. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking one could do it, from what I've seen other bots do. I think the big issue would be getting someone to code it up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the other discussion, I agree. I do not think there is any need to have the IMDB and AllMovie guide links in the film infobox (or any other non-official website). In addition to being redundant and, to me, adding no real value to the infobox particularly when IMDB is rejected as an RS, it seems to give extra emphasis or special focus to those two sites over other legitimate ELs. I have not seen any other media project have these particular kinds of links in their infobox, and it seems to be something unique to the film project, and not necessarily in a good way. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before (it probably has; I've only been here 14 months). Anything that declutters the infobox, giving more prominence to the high-value information, is fine by me. External links are best placed in the appropriate section. Steve T • C 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be there and not the EL section because those particular editors feel that it is redundant to list them both. To answer your question/statement about how to devise a strategy to clean up the redundancy, I think we could probably create a bot that would clean up this. Something that would remove all the external link fields from the infoboxes of articles and replaces them with their http... counterparts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every film article will have an IMDB link -- in fact, it would be hard to get an article about a film past notability concerns if it didn't have a listing at IMDB. Given that, having an IMDB listing in the infobox is simply a matter of convenience for our readers, so they can more easily get to IMDB to find the kind of information that many of our articles (especially stubs) do not have. Convenience is also the reason for duplicating the IMDB link in the EL section -- there's no reason to make the reader go back to the top of the article at that point. So I would argue for keeping the IMDB link in the infobox.

After that, if we were going to have another link, it should be TCM and not AMG, but I don't see a compelling reason to have either, so I'd be happy enough if IMDB was the only link.

Here's another, and I think better suggestion -- how about replacing the IMDB infobox link with an internal wikilink that goes directly to the "External links" section, where the reader can choose which site to go to? This would serve the same function as the IMDB link, but without us "endorsing" one site over another. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same thing as being able to click "External links" in the table of contents? :) It's not exactly drawing a bead of sweat to jump via TOC as it is arranged systemwide. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the struck out part, but an IMDB link does not speak to notability at all. There have been several films that were deleted or merged because all they had was an IMDB listing. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectionian: It's not that an IMDB listing confers notability, it's the other way around, that it's practical impossible to be notable without an IMDB listing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I'm the first one to disagree with this. Anyway, I find the link to IMDB useful because when I look up a movie on Wikipedia, I can get straight to IMDB, that's convenient. It does belong to the infobox in my opinion, sure I can go straight to the site and search there, that won't be a problem, but I still like going to a Wikipedia article and then to a IMDB.
My arguments suck, don't they? Ah well, I at least tried... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, about, again, convenience. Depending on the article, the bottom of the infobox will generally be below the bottom of the ToC, and in stub articles, there *is* no ToC (but, of course, for stubs the EL section will be right there.) It's just providing a service to not make the reader bounce all around if it's not necessary.

I guess I'm not understanding your concern here. Are we looking at change for the sake of change? What's the philosophical purpose of changing things? How are we providing more functionality or better information resources by making a change? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were concerned about EL convenience, the entire section would be at the top of the article. External links are not meant to be the primary focus of articles, or even a major focus. Why elevate any of them to the infobox at all? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it is more about addressing feature creep. I don't remember when Allmovie was added to the infobox, but I don't think it was there when I first began editing. It seems unreasonable to put these three specific sites forward when we could argue for easy-linking to box office performance, reviews, or other sites with special content about the film. It's a matter of herding the links to one spot to let the reader pick fairly. (Of course, we could argue about the order of these external links...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If excluding them from the infobox means the links will all be included in one place, then I do support this idea. Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find I am in agreement with TheBlazikenMaster. Certainly for stub articles, the External links section is close at hand, and yes, one can click the External links link and get to it quickly, but for the longer film articles it is a looooooong way down to External links and often there can be dozens upon dozens of El's to search through for IMDB. I personally like the professional look given an infobox that has a quick link to IMDB or Allmovie. And too... there are editors that feel IMDB is so very untrustworthy (yes, pros and cons for the specificly different informations being souced) that some may simply delete an IMDB link in "externals" as un-nessessary and against guideline. I myself am one that feels the links are fine as long as they information is uncontentious and has other sources as support... but others are not as forgiving. I might almost suggest moving the External links and reference box further up in an article so as to more quickly be studied and searched. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to remove all three of the links and divert them to the external links section to avoid redundancy and cut down on the size of the infobox. If we're not concerned about the length of the infobox, removing the links would leave room to add other parameters if we believe them to be relevant to the infobox. I've made numerous edits in the past removing the same imdb link that is found in both the infobox and external links section, but it was then again readded later because editors were unaware of the the link's presence in the infobox. If we can get a bot to fix these all for us, it will make for a much better transition. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Michael, I am not sure length is an argument because the table of contents is available for navigating to a specific subtopic or outside information ("Further reading" or "External links"). Navigation seems like a small issue. I'm also uncertain about your argument that editors would remove IMDb from the "External links" sections... if they were so rampant, they'd target the infoboxes' IMDb fields, too. I think we need to remember that Wikipedia articles are supposed to cover the films in detail, and external links supplement that coverage. Some have become accustomed to links being right there, but there also have been some who wonder why the links are repeated. It seems to me that an additional click on "External links" in the table of contents is worth the fairness of having IMDb, Allmovie, and the official site with the other links (if they were not already there in the first place). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should be a little bit more clear about my point. My point is it's easy to go to a movie page on this site and then click the infobox to get straight to the movie site. But it won't be as easy if I have to get to the bottom of the page. I hope I cleared some confusion I could have been making. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N2020: It's not always unawarness -- I think the link should be in both places -- again, there's no reason to force the reader to go back to the top when they've reached the EL section and decide they want to go to IMDb for more info. It's not a resource drag -- Links 'R' Us, after all, and we should be servicing the needs of the reader.

Feature creep and length of the infobox are more of a concern. Here's what I think, if no one's going to be reasonable and pick up on my idea of an external link shortcut instead of a link to a specific site, I'd vote for IMDB only in the infobox; if that can be done only if IMDB is not allowed in the EL section, then I'd vote for no external link in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 19:42, September 29, 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be on two places, after all, it is a famous site. (you guys say that anyone can edit it, but can you guys tell me the reason why I couldn't fix invalid information I found?) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the reliability of IMDb is an issue here. I think that the link should exist for cast/crew information as well as what else the website has to offer. I just disagree with it and the two other links being propped up in the infobox. It exaggerates the importance. If anything, IMDb is probably the most useful of the three. Allmovie seems pretty basic, and the official site is always going to be promotional in nature. It just seems like we could put all of them in one spot, with no repeats, and the reader can choose where to navigate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the notability of IMDB as a source at all is the key issue here. IMDB should not be used as a reliable source for information, as has been already discussed multiple times in depth at Template talk:Infobox Actor/archive1 Erpbridge (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with Ed that we shouldn't trim these links to the infobox only. It is more because the standard format of a Wikipedia article is to have an "External links" section after the article body for accessing supplementary information. Ed, though, I'm not sure why we need a shortcut. Doesn't the "External links" anchor in the table of contents suffice? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Ed Fitzgerald, edit conflict) That's great, I've never seen "N2020" before! I do recognize that it is not always new editors/IPs being unaware, but it is for the majority of the ones that I have interacted with, when I have asked them why they kept readding it. It will be easier to require that we keep the three links in the external links section then it would be to prevent people from adding them to both places (since we could just remove the external links parameters from the infobox). Once the infobox is modified, editors could then only add it to the external links section. We do have the table of contents that can easily guide readers to where the links would be at if they're at the beginning of the article. Once a reader is at the bottom of the article, there would be no reason for them to scroll up (if it's a long article) to find the links, as they would already be present in the external links section. I don't think we need two of the same links twice in the same article, and I believe the point of this discussion is to determine where we want them to be. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the entire picture, it seems that, at some small expense to reader usability, eliminating all the external links from the infobox is the best course of action. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=241920417"