Jump to content

Talk:List of Australian films

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

About the new rearrangement of the lists

[edit]

Copied discussions from talk pages of Hoverfish and Aussiepete (20 March-27 March):

Is it just me, or is the List of Australian films article screwed up? Lets see... the main page is a disambiguation page which simply lists 1920-2000 by decade or year, then on the right there's a condensed panel with the same list, then for good measure and to reinforce the fact that there are these pages you can also access from the template on the bottom. So when you go to discuss this point the talk page redirects to List of Australian films: Pre 1920. Just an observation. - The same is so with Argentine films... I do think it makes sense to have the disambiguation page as the opening blurb of the pages says something along the lines of "A list of films produced in X by year in the X in the List of X films" which should link to the disambiguation, not Pre: X. I'm also finding the notability are either blank or it should simply be "notes" which note release dates (?), awards, notability. I think there needs some accountability and references for the lists to confirm where the information comes from, otherwise anyone could come and trapse right through the list with bogus titles, dates and information with no way of verifying the information. Peter 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it, Peter. I am sure Blofeld is doing his best, but he goes a bit too fast for me (and I don't need this copied to my talk page). If it is a disambiguation, it has to follow dab guidelines, without subheaders for entries and without additional template navigations. I must admit each solution has is cons. If we let people in with a title List of Australian films" and they come to a page with only early films, it's a bit of a turn-down. If it's just a dab page, it doesn't look as presentable as one would expect, and it's still not the promised list, but a step before it. But I like more a solution which is closer to the dab opion. There is a good example in Years in film, which was intended only as a dab/navigation, but which became a very interesting page. I have made a start by simplifying the page to this format. We can add useful information to each entry as in the Years in film, when and if possible. I agree that we turn "Notability into "Notes and put there all you say. Later today I will start the List management department, but hopefully we will not have to spend endless talk about this particular issue. please, tell me if you like my change and proposal for further development. Hoverfish Talk 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am working on the List of French films, in a more condenced format. The page is becoming big, but not too big. The reason is that I am only adding film which have an article (I select the rather notable ones from the category). I see no reason to duplicate the list of French films without an article, which could be a link given as "See also" at the bottom. I will insist in keeping every decade in one table, as this makes the code much simpler. However if all other lists take a final form (with everyone's consensus clearly leaning to this format, I will also split. Right now I am following the Featured list of BAFTA Award for Best Film, which is quite worth considering. Hoverfish Talk 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed Pete's concerns regarding this issue. He is going great I think. Anyway I have altered the beginning of the List of French films now looks much more presentable. I feel that great long European template is not at all relevant and cluttered it unnecessarily. The bottom templates are there which connect to the cinema page and then the European anway. I have started adding the first films for List of Austrian films from German wikipedia but I need to add the columns for genre and notes which will display the film studio etc. If you could find the List of German films on Deutsch wiki and connect it with this would be a good step - hoepfully they have a full list like Austria!!. Really countries such as Germany and France and Italy should have highly devleoped lists but we'll work on it!! Regards from baldy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made one effort to formulate as well as I can the lead of the List of Australian films. I'm not so good in such formulations, so if you help me with perfecting it, I will use the same formulation in the French (which finally became so large that a split cannot be avoided). Hoverfish Talk 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I've not caused more trouble than unnecessary making you go and change the disambiguation page! From what I can see, I think it looks quite neat and simply put. I'm not much of a writer so wouldn't be able to contribute too much, I can list things and collate statistics but am not very good at writing, sorry. What's there seems to be OK to me. Peter 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't cause any problem at all. It's just that in countries with many films, one will have to access the list(s) via a common page and I'm trying to make that presentable, correctly formulated and free of redundancies. It isn't really a disambiguation, as it doesn't link to different topics (they're all Australian films). It's a navigation page and it's an entry. But it has to look good because it's the first thing one will see as "List of Aus. films". Also I wanted to ask you if you have covered all of Category:Australian films entries (plus Aus. stubs). Hoverfish Talk 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about Australian stubs and film category - no I haven't got to those yet, these are films listed mostly on IMDB, I was then going to check additional sources such as the all movie guide. Some of the titles in my list are pretty minor titles and possibly not worthy of an article so they can be worked out once individual details are added, then red links (possibly) removed. Along with stubs and categories that need to be added and cross checked, each title may be slightly spelt incorrectly or listed as an article under an alternate name, and some that are based on other films or books might be useful also. My main concern was to loose the original list of films, but they have been added to the overall list. I'll look into doign this also, otherwise others can pick up the pieces. Maybe we should add a todo list to the disambig page for things that still need doing, ie.

  • Add or correct title links and info from Australian film stubs
  • Add or correct title links and info from Category:Australian films
  • Add all available major information for all films in list (title, release, notes, director, main cast, pictures/posters, links) Peter 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No need for a todo list. I'll start clearing the cat and stub-cat tomorrow (the French cat was more than double in size and I compiled it all from scratch in 3 days). However there are too many red links. I thought that's why we made the lists without article. So many red links in a mainspace list is not a good thing. Blofeld also does it and I think we'll be facing red cards soon. Anyway, I'm off to sleep now, but my next move is to help cross films /alt.titles /stubs and what not in the Aussie films. Hoverfish Talk 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for taking over for a bit, I'll just tread carefully to make sure we don't double up or undo each others work. The current titles are directly from the links in the films without article lists which have all been correctly linked as far as I am aware. From here, the less notable films can have their links removed, if they are notable or have enough substantial information available then they can stay. Because it's taken a while to get to adding and completing the data in the lists, this is been put on the back burner which as you say gives the articles reason to flag. As a start, I think less notable films are ones that are of short length with no awards or little known director/cast and little information available. This is pretty much all I'm going by which isn't necessarily the strongest criteria. I think awards automatically give credibility and profile. Peter 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, actually I worked first on improving things, reducing code size, and I have a proposal in my Notebook-talk. I did the 40s mostly and have 2 more decades in one page to check for overall size. If we could fit more on one page without going oversize, the dab problem will be reduced significantly. The only thing that I notice strange, is that for the 1960s we have quite concise data, whereas for the 1920s we have a bigger load. Tell me if you like the way it's going. I have not taken away anything except from red links and useless code. I'll start checking the cats now. And don't worry about me. I respect every second you put into it and wouldn't waste it. / ...and in my Sandbox-talk, I have reduced the columns to two and will be compiling from the ctaegories there. Please, let me know if you find this model better. Blofeld has also started removing the release column in the Argentine lists. Plus the Notability and the Links will be now Notes (which can take release date too). Hoverfish Talk 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the direction with the concise listing you've got in your notebook for 40s-60s of the Australian lists. I like that they are all in one table and that they are all on one page. This would cut down the pages and make it more managable and it looks a lot more together. Peter 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I will keep compiling as per Notebook and when I'm ready I'll change the whole navigation to the new system. Hoverfish Talk 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note about the film lists you're working on, I think it should be "Cast" not actors. Actors is generally for males, what about actresses? I think cast covers this. Any thoughts feel free to mention. Peter 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it might best if I left the organizing of the film listing and info to you (and also to Peter), because you are doing a very good job with regard to the film articles. All the best. Figaro 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll adjust to cast. Do leave me a note please, on your predictions of whether the 1900-1970 is bound to get many more films. I will think of a limiting lead text to apply in all country lists. (I said that already didn't I?) Hoverfish Talk 09:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done up to the 1980s and sreen-measured the length. I come to the approximate equal lengs at: 1890s-1930s, 1940s-1970s, 1980s, so I guess 1990s will also be a unit and 2000s also. So we can have 5 pages instead of 36. What do you think? I still feel that the list is either a bit thin at the 50s and 60s and also I have seen several entriey at the later years that sound like little TV animations (on the lines of "See spot run"). But in the worse case we may have to split one more segment. What do you think? If you think it looks decent and the segments not overlong, I am ready to change to the new system. Hoverfish Talk 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Australian film lists are essentially a complete listing of all films listed in the IMDB, excluding some articles that already existed which I am assuming were added to the List of Australian films list before being removed from the films without article. If all categories, stubs and additional film lists from all movie guide, box office, etc I don't assume there will be too many more films added, at least not hundreds! This list was taken from IMDB around the time I compiled the list of films without article (maybe 2-3 months old?). I think it's safe to say that once all details are added to the list from various sources, I'd be confident that it's around 95% complete besides lesser known films. On a second note, I'm now not sure about the bolded film titles, it seems too busy... / I think it's looking alright, pretty good. I also think the notes would be good for run time, ie a very short film is barely classified a film and hence not to be listed. Maybe criteria could be drawn up for what constitutes a film - is it feature films or film in general? Shorts should still be listed but there are so many... Peter 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb seems to have lots of unrated and undeveloped entries, and not only in shorts. For some shorts, like the Spot series, we could create one article and mention all the films. WP Television has "series", I don't see why we couldn't do something like that too. My guess is that there will be some pruning, when we find enough info. Have you checked Aussie film archives? For example there's a war film archive. I haven't yet looked into it, but we could make a general article about it and mention several shorts, for which we might never find enough info to make articles. We could redirect there instead. And what about this database? I think if we search right we might be able to sort some more important films from other that may never grow to articles. I'll keep searching later today. Please, let me know if you think the lengths I mentioned above sound reasonable. Hoverfish Talk 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggested length is a good starting point, we can easily split them later if need be but I don't think that will be necessary. The less the pages the better I think, it keeps it all together and feels more complete that way. I do know IMDB isn't the most reliable place for info and completeness, but has a lot of titles which acts as a starting point. I know of a few other sources along with the ones you mentioned (the official funding and state/national film corporations are also good Australian film resources) Maybe these lists of notable lists and sites should be listed on the page. Peter 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your idea for shorter segments for the Australian films is great — and that the length that you have chosen for the shorter segments is excellent. Figaro 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the changes. I am still compiling the 1990s and will do the same and then the 2000s. The only thing that's not working right for me, is when I go to the first list (1890s-1930s) I see the link to the second red (1940s-1970s). I think this shouldn't happen to others and it's just a freak mistake of my cache, but if you check it, I would feel more on the safe side. Hoverfish Talk 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just saw the links you gave in the index page. Wow! Amazing! Now we have an informative entrance page. In the morning I will split the 1980s and the 1990s in year tables. / And something irrelevant to all this (but relevant to Australia): have you read Nick Cave's "And the Ass saw the Angel"? For some reason, reading some of the titles made me think often of this book. Hoverfish Talk 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the aussie film lists are looking good now, but just from a practical editing point, I noticed it seems like a large slab to sift through for adding a single title etc. I wonder if there's a way of still makign each year a section or editable somehow? Aussiepete 22:50, 25 March 2007

Well, in the very long decades, we can split them in separate tables. That's easy to do. There is no way I know to edit sections within a table. The main thing is that we have them now in a few pages. I will edit the 1990s now and get some sleep. Hoverfish Talk 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are looking better Pete but please keep that directory of external links to a minimum we don't want to drive people away before they even get a chance to look at the lists. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The next 2 relevant comments copied from Films list and navigation management

Just glancing, and they all seem like useful, valid links and I don't see why they would cause a problem. Wikipedia isn't in competition for people's eyeballs like sites that depend on advertising. I agree that there are a lot of them, though, and perhaps ways should be looked at to narrow some of those down. For example, perhaps the film festival links could be put on an article or list that is dedicated to Film festivals in Australia. — WiseKwai 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel they are better suited in the Cinema of Australia article which has hardly any links ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one detail: when a film has an article, we don't need to provide in the lists the IMDb (by the way, please, don't capitalize the last "b"). The article provides the link (or should) and we save lots of code from the page size. And another detail I could look into, but it may be faster to ask you: did you delete all the red links from the Australian list of films without article, or did you move them to the "reds" by years? I ask because we will need all the red links there to control newly created articles, and to watch for aka titles too. If you did, we can revert or copy-paste. I also added notes with links to the edit histories for the pages that were integrated to avoid copyright problems. Hoverfish Talk 12:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red links all seem to still be there on the list of missing articles. And on the actual lists, I assumed you removed the red links. Peter 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am removing the reds from the main namespace lists, as it is generally recommended, but I just wanted to make sure we still have them in the project namespace. However, for films that have been highly awarded (AFI winners and above), or very well known worldwide, or representative of Australian cinema, we can put back the red link (I didn't have time to check which is which, but I will and I will also add notes on awards). This way one can see that a particular film is "encyclopedically missing" and may want to fill up the gap. / I am in doubts of how to proceed with the 2000s. All in one page will make a HUGE page. Any suggestions very welcome. As you see I changed to the new format up to 2003. It's bedtime here now, but I'll be back in about 7 hours. I promised to start on the German list asap, so I will do 2004 tomorrow only and start the German list. Hoverfish Talk 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have to delink the last years and decide how many should get intergated in one page. I see two possibilities: "2000-2003" and "2004-Upcoming", or "2000-2004" and "2005-Upcoming", which leaves more space for future developments. My thoughts about 2007 and after: we should keep in 2007 all the films that have been released only, and after this name the rest "Upcoming" and put them in a single table with blue headers "2007", "2008" and "Other". To me this seems "proper", so we can tag the section/table with the {{future}} tag. What do you say? Hoverfish Talk 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments don't get lost in the thick of it, not sure where to post them! I was looking at the 2000s aussie lists just a while ago thinking the same thing. I would have combined 2000-2003 and 2004-upcoming/current/2007 which could also have other/miscellaneous (unknown years)/upcoming. I think there should also be a format for the notes section, as a few I've added look a little messy, and would look terrible if the whole list was filled out (eg. Mar 27, 92mins, 9 wins, 3 nominations, based on a book - Official site, IMDb, AMG) Peter 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(End of copied discussions)

Notes section

[edit]

I think we can be flexible for the notes column, but consistent within each country. In the Austrian list, Otto introduced the Studio (or maybe we should call it Producing company), so the Notes there became Studio/Notes. I suggest, if there is only one piece of info, followed by ext.links to let it so, but if we have several, we can make it: Date/ Runtime (do we have to have this?)/ Based on/ Awards-nominations/ Ext.links, with a break before Awards. Hoverfish Talk 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notes column can essentially have the details that would be transferred over to the film infobox. I felt run time gave an indication of the film significance, ie. unless there are awards, I would assume a 60min film would have more credence or things to write about than a 2min short. I think it's important to list the production or distribution companies, but I guess the more you add, the larger the page and the messier the table cell. I also like the idea of having a library of images related to the films in the articles year as with other country lists. Other information to decide whether to include in the notes column:
Producer(s), Writer(s), Narrator, Cinematography, Editing, Music, Distributor(s),
First Released, Runtime, Budget, Gross, Preceded/Followed by, Official Site link, AMG link, IMDb link.

Obviously all this data will be pretty crowded so possibly not all necessary. But if all the data is filled in for some unlinked films, maybe it's an indication that an article should be created if the information is available?

I guess if some of these fields are more important (eg. Studio/Distribution), it could almost warrant it's own separate column as this information is readily available for most films and helps complete the individual films in each of the distributors articles. Peter 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TODO - list of titles to add

[edit]

Below is a list of titles that need to cross-checked on the overall list. Some titles can be red linked and information added. These are titles have come from the list of missing films and have since been created or have come under alternative names. I've added detail from some of the 2000s but don't have too much time and others are welcome to help out. Once added to the list, possibly remove the titles or strike them out. Cheers. Peter 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted

[edit]

1970s

[edit]

1980s

[edit]

1990s

[edit]

2000s

[edit]

Fair use rationale for Image:CrocodileDundee.jpg

[edit]

Image:CrocodileDundee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Australian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Australian films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australias first film

[edit]

Australia's and possibly the worlds first feature film was SOLDIERS OF THE CROSS, which premiered at the Melbourne town hall to a packed crowd on September 19th 1900. This film was made 6 years BEFORE...THE STORY OF THE KELLY GANG. For OVER 100 YEARS all film historians reffered to this picture as the WORLDS FIRST. The NFSA, acting totally independently, and not consulting ANY OTHER film instiutions, in 2015 declared their NEWLY DIGITILISED, SOTKG, was now available and without consulting ANYONE, claimed the Aussie Bushranger movie...Australias first !!! Far more marketable than a religious epic..and far more Aussie ! My family, the PERRY'S, were not consulted, and as the great grandson of Australia's FIRST FILM DIRECTOR, and probably the ONLY 4th generation film maker in Australia...i am THOROUGHLY DIGUSTED...with the total lack of transperancy and wilful distortion of our cinema history, to meet their own needs! DISGRACEFUL Yours sincerely MP Wollenberg MPPERRY (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Australian_films&oldid=1208206902"